Steve Tew getting the excuses in

[ranger]

I think it comes down to Managing the Financial position you're currently in, drawing up a budget for the coming years that is not out of your reach and rigorously attract big sponsors at an early stage. Many countries will sit in the same boat as the Kiwi's, but by moaning about it and not trying to get everything in order won't help the cause. unless this was some sort of publicity stunt trying to attract more investors...

Most Countries were hit hard by the global recession and are only now starting to recover from it, but it's the manner in which every nation tries to use their funds where needed to give themselves the better outcome.

In South Africa there's a huge line of sponors just trying to get a deal with either the springboks or provincial side. The Boks Main Sponsor this year is ABSA bank which is part of the Barclay's group, then there's Castle Lager which is our main Beer and Alcohol provider and many many other sponsors who don't get direct mentions... British Airways are the Boks official Carrier and I would think that the Boks don't pay a lot for their first class plane tickets to anywhere...

It comes down to priorities. If you want to be in the world cup, then save up, and get your guys there no matter where on earth it is... Hell if it was on the Moon the Boks will make damn sure they get there, even if they had to build a big ass ladder to climb all the way there!!

I think you're missing the point. There is a huge list of companies trying to sponsor the All Blacks, the problem is that the IRB has said none are allowed to.

You point to absa as the primary Springbok sponsor, but do you see the logo on the Springbok world cup jerseys? No. Thats lost revenue for the Springboks, and unnecessarily so.
The IRB are blocking every nations right to capitalise on their own brand and the NZRU are standing up to them. Sure they could cut the ITM cup, cut the NZ U20s and youth sides to ensure the All Blacks can make the world cup like you say. But the best option for everyone is just to tell the IRB to let them profit of themselves, like they are doing.

This played out last world cup: Tonga (Population 100,000), struggled to get the money together to participate. They asked around for sponsors and got one in the form of the Irish Bookmaker "Paddy Power". They sponsored a training camp which proved to be vital in their cup preparation and offered them more money to market their brand at the cup.
Since they weren't an official sponsor that the IRB was making money off, they said no. The Tongans tried to work around the rule by getting the whole team to die their hair green in reference to the green logo of the Irish company, and by wearing temporary shamrock tattoos.
No logos on shirts, no brand names mentioned, should have been fine right? No, the IRB said that they were "over-stepping the mark" and faced expulsion from the tournament if they took the field looking "unusual".
Epi Taione then tried to legally change his name to Paddy Power but the IRB again threatened the Tongan CEO.

The Tongans were absolutely desperate for cash, with the professional players in the side actually donating money to the sides funds in order to get the poorer island based players to France (Afeaki, Maka, Latu etc made a financial loss by attending the WC..). They asked the IRB for the 150,000 appearance money in advance (you know, seen as they needed it to physically get to the tournament, let alone gather for a training camp or buy jerseys or pay for hotels or anything..) but the IRB steadfastly refused, saying that they were to be payed the money after the tournamnet (when they no longer have an urgent need for it).

A buisnessman from Montpellier, upon hearing that they were in such strife actually gave the Tongan side a cash sum as gift. Which the IRB then forced the Tongans to give back.

When asked why they were being stung with so many harsh calls the IRB's official response was "Why? Because fuuuck you thats why. (cackling laughter)" (source of quote as of yet unvarified)

Do you know what the very best part is? The IRB claims that they have to have a stranglehold on on sponsorship income so they can help out the emerging tier 2 and 3 teams..
In 2008, a year after they shat all over Tonga, they released the funding schedule. The IRB decided that Tonga should get 262,000 pounds a year. Less than they allocated to Scotland, Italy, Russia, Georgia etc. USA, Romaina and Canada received over double the amount. On the plus side, the IRB decided to give the Tongans 12 thousand pounds more per annum than the struggling English union.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Fair points by Tew, particularly on the sponsorship restrictions but I just feel the timing is a bit bad from a view to enjoying the current tournament. Although it's the perfect time if you want to be heard as the platform is lit up the moment. Just can't help but feel it could have been raised more.. respectfully.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I understand what you're saying but how is this any Different than when the Boks play in France when Castle Lager sponsored them, they were not allowed to advertise alcohol? There might have been a contingency plan or something to counter it...

In SA, Absa doesn't lose that much IMO with everybody buying a world cup replica with their logo on it... Absa even came to our company and offered a discount sale if the whole company bought replicas for every person working here...

In some way the IRB is just shooting themselves in the foot with preventing teams to advertise... why does the main sponsors get the no posting sign, but not brands like Adidas, Nike, Puma or Reebok? they're also a sponsor for the teams respectively.

And I feel very much for the Tongans not getting paid to play, that's absolutely terrible for a proffesional competition and something has to be done to stop this nonsense!!

Maybe the next step will be is for SANZAR, together with Argentina, and the Six Nations teams get together, have a braai, some beers, and then decide to boycott the IRB and their Old Farts who make such DUMB decisions.

 

[Black Heart]

The argument is pointless at the end of the day. As far as the All Blacks are concerned we all know that the government will fork out every last cent to make sure they get there. They already do it for Team New Zealand in the America's Cup and nobody could care less about that.

 

[Saintjay]

I think you're missing the point. There is a huge list of companies trying to sponsor the All Blacks, the problem is that the IRB has said none are allowed to.

You point to absa as the primary Springbok sponsor, but do you see the logo on the Springbok world cup jerseys? No. Thats lost revenue for the Springboks, and unnecessarily so.
The IRB are blocking every nations right to capitalise on their own brand and the NZRU are standing up to them. Sure they could cut the ITM cup, cut the NZ U20s and youth sides to ensure the All Blacks can make the world cup like you say. But the best option for everyone is just to tell the IRB to let them profit of themselves, like they are doing.

This played out last world cup: Tonga (Population 100,000), struggled to get the money together to participate. They asked around for sponsors and got one in the form of the Irish Bookmaker "Paddy Power". They sponsored a training camp which proved to be vital in their cup preparation and offered them more money to market their brand at the cup.
Since they weren't an official sponsor that the IRB was making money off, they said no. The Tongans tried to work around the rule by getting the whole team to die their hair green in reference to the green logo of the Irish company, and by wearing temporary shamrock tattoos.
No logos on shirts, no brand names mentioned, should have been fine right? No, the IRB said that they were "over-stepping the mark" and faced expulsion from the tournament if they took the field looking "unusual".
Epi Taione then tried to legally change his name to Paddy Power but the IRB again threatened the Tongan CEO.

The Tongans were absolutely desperate for cash, with the professional players in the side actually donating money to the sides funds in order to get the poorer island based players to France (Afeaki, Maka, Latu etc made a financial loss by attending the WC..). They asked the IRB for the 150,000 appearance money in advance (you know, seen as they needed it to physically get to the tournament, let alone gather for a training camp or buy jerseys or pay for hotels or anything..) but the IRB steadfastly refused, saying that they were to be payed the money after the tournamnet (when they no longer have an urgent need for it).

A buisnessman from Montpellier, upon hearing that they were in such strife actually gave the Tongan side a cash sum as gift. Which the IRB then forced the Tongans to give back.

When asked why they were being stung with so many harsh calls the IRB's official response was "Why? Because fuuuck you thats why. (cackling laughter)" (source of quote as of yet unvarified)

Do you know what the very best part is? The IRB claims that they have to have a stranglehold on on sponsorship income so they can help out the emerging tier 2 and 3 teams..
In 2008, a year after they shat all over Tonga, they released the funding schedule. The IRB decided that Tonga should get 262,000 pounds a year. Less than they allocated to Scotland, Italy, Russia, Georgia etc. USA, Romaina and Canada received over double the amount. On the plus side, the IRB decided to give the Tongans 12 thousand pounds more per annum than the struggling English union.

I think your last post hit the nail on the head. What bothers me with this is, the top teams with decent unions will always get by.

The impact this clearly has own teams like Romania etc is hugh. Yet the IRB will sit pretty at the end on the comp, no doubt saying what a great cup it was. How much money they made etc, etc. I am sure there is another team that has really struggled to make it to New Zealand this year due to funding issues.

Imagine the amount of money a well known brand say coke would pay Japan to wear there logo when facing the AB's. The best product placement you could ask for and the money paid would be awesone. Now that would help develope the unions in the up and coming countries.

 

[TRF_heineken]

the thing that i just can't understand is why the IRB would prevent this in the first place??

all year round there's talk of expanding the game, getting more people and nations involved and so on...

this is a proffessional tournament and you need as many sponsors as possible to make a success of it, preventing the sponsors from advertising is preventing the cashflow, which prevents the IRB from recieving more money, which prevents the development structure of Rugby as a whole!

 

[ranger]

I understand what you're saying but how is this any Different than when the Boks play in France when Castle Lager sponsored them, they were not allowed to advertise alcohol? There might have been a contingency plan or something to counter it...

In SA, Absa doesn't lose that much IMO with everybody buying a world cup replica with their logo on it... Absa even came to our company and offered a discount sale if the whole company bought replicas for every person working here...

In some way the IRB is just shooting themselves in the foot with preventing teams to advertise... why does the main sponsors get the no posting sign, but not brands like Adidas, Nike, Puma or Reebok? they're also a sponsor for the teams respectively.

And I feel very much for the Tongans not getting paid to play, that's absolutely terrible for a proffesional competition and something has to be done to stop this nonsense!!

Maybe the next step will be is for SANZAR, together with Argentina, and the Six Nations teams get together, have a braai, some beers, and then decide to boycott the IRB and their Old Farts who make such DUMB decisions.

Its different in the respect that in France you aren't allowed to advertise alcohol because the French government are trying to curb the glorification of binge drinking and alcoholism.. In the world cup advertising of everything is banned because the IRB want all of the money.
Those my friend, are two very different situations.

Absa might be doing alright due to the support of the Springboks in South Africa; but when you see the numbers of viewers the cup attracts, Absa are really missing out on getting their brand seen by tens of millions internationally.

As for Addidas, Nike, Puma etc getting their brands on, the sole reason is because they make the physical shirt the players are wearing, the jersey manufacturers reserve the right to put their signature on works they create. That and the might of adidas, rebok, nike and puma united could rape the IRB in 7 different directions before they realised what was happening.

As Teh Mite brought up earlier, the IRB are a moronic and insular old boys club. There isn't much hope of Millar and co changing at all; I'm just praying that as we all age, the newer generations of IRB board members in the next 20-30 years come into the job with a different mindset and the old ways die out with the outgoing crew.

 

[Saintjay]

"I think what we are starting to see now is the IRB investment programmes and High Performance initiatives beginning to mature," admitted Egan. "We launched the first stage of the investment cycle in 2006, which was a £30 million three-year programme, and we are now in the second phase which is £45 million over four years, including next year. That money goes across 25 Unions, including the Tier 1 Unions.

"The IRB reviews its investment programmes each year, but a major review also takes place after every Rugby World Cup cycle to ensure the Unions continue to receive the help and support they need on an individual basis.

The above are recent comments lifted off of the RWC site regarding funding and tier 2 nations.

 

[UilamOsa]

the thing that i just can't understand is why the IRB would prevent this in the first place??

all year round there's talk of expanding the game, getting more people and nations involved and so on...

this is a proffessional tournament and you need as many sponsors as possible to make a success of it, preventing the sponsors from advertising is preventing the cashflow, which prevents the IRB from recieving more money, which prevents the development structure of Rugby as a whole!

The Answer is: $$$$$

 

[smartcooky]

God Almighty, I can't believe how many STUPID ***S on this forum cannot READ and UNDERSTAND what they are reading.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

God Almighty, I can't believe how many STUPID ***S on this forum cannot READ and UNDERSTAND what they are reading.

I'm not sure how this has happened with this thread being kicked off by the source of 86.5% of pro-New Zealand sentiment on TRF and somehow turned into the delicious chance to stick a knife in the NZRFU's back.

The obvious knee-jerk reactions here are most patently incorrect in their assertions.

The NZRFU has NOT THREATENED ANYTHING. A threat suggests malice.

The NZRFU will not likely be able to incur a loss in revenue which will likely be greater than the $13 Million they would lose through a lack of an extra round of Tri-Nations, sponsorship and promotions. In that case they'd be unable to attend the next World Cup.

If it happens again next time to the degree discussed, the NZRFU may go into some form of financial collapse and may bankrupt itself. That's what Tew is worried about.

It's not greed, it's not threats, it's a potential financial reality!


What would they do instead, with no-one to play if the unthinkable happened and they couldn't afford to be there? It'd never go this far but for arguments sake probably an internal tour. Having the AB's playing some of the provincial sides with everyone other than them available would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of uniqueness that would allow them to make some money, as I think if the All Blacks turned out to play the Crusaders at the "by then hopefully up and running new Canterbury stadium" people would flock to it for the unique chance to beat the All Blacks with their local teams.

Maybe the AB's versus the North Island and South Island in a triangular series? :lol:

As I'm saying though, I'm sure common sense will prevail and there will be probably be some kind of decision which will enable the unions that are out of pocket to cease losing money.

 

[nickdnz]

Really interesting thread. Been keeping my distance while the lynching mob had formed, but now we're in the clear it's been a thoroughly good read. The thing which struck me, as ranger mentioned, is the fact that of the 20 nations in the World Cup, the IRB claims that much of the money is used to develop the game. I think they have done that to a degree, with countries outside the top 20 being given funds to run. But as mentioned, it's the nations inside the top 20, especially in the smaller nations, that are going to struggle. The IRB reported the 2007 World Cup as the third largest sporting event in the world, with an apparent 4.2 billion cumulative viewers. There isn't a sponsor around that wouldn't want to be a part of that, and allowing teams their own sponsorship deals would have likely paid all rugby related costs well into the next World Cup.

No offense to the kiwis,. But there have been far too many games i have seen where there have been many empty seats.

Poor promotion. They should have lowered ticket prices.. But the NZRU are blind. They are losing money because they, the NZRU, are just out of touch with reality. This tournament should really have been held in England.. or South Africa.

NZ is too small.. Not enough finances.

It was always going to be the case, and I don't think New Zealand's lack of sold out arena's is really avoidable. Ticket prices are too expensive, but if it was in Europe it's a very small price to pay. In 2007 France sold 2.25 million tickets which means that only 3% of Frances population has to attend a match, not to mention neighbouring nations in which it's just a train trip away. For New Zealand to be able to do the same, over 60% of New Zealanders have to go to the games, and with a 24 hour flight seperating New Zealand from much of the rugby loving world, it's a very tough ask. However what New Zealand tries it's hardest to make in ticket sales and tourism, the IRB can happily cash in in what is likely to be the most viewed sporting event of the year. Not saying it's a bad thing, I'm happy it's in New Zealand, but I think we're doing pretty fantastically considering.

 

[Canucks]

Really interesting thread. Been keeping my distance while the lynching mob had formed, but now we're in the clear it's been a thoroughly good read. The thing which struck me, as ranger mentioned, is the fact that of the 20 nations in the World Cup, the IRB claims that much of the money is used to develop the game. I think they have done that to a degree, with countries outside the top 20 being given funds to run. But as mentioned, it's the nations inside the top 20, especially in the smaller nations, that are going to struggle. The IRB reported the 2007 World Cup as the third largest sporting event in the world, with an apparent 4.2 billion cumulative viewers. There isn't a sponsor around that wouldn't want to be a part of that, and allowing teams their own sponsorship deals would have likely paid all rugby related costs well into the next World Cup.



It was always going to be the case, and I don't think New Zealand's lack of sold out arena's is really avoidable. Ticket prices are too expensive, but if it was in Europe it's a very small price to pay. In 2007 France sold 2.25 million tickets which means that only 3% of Frances population has to attend a match, not to mention neighbouring nations in which it's just a train trip away. For New Zealand to be able to do the same, over 60% of New Zealanders have to go to the games, and with a 24 hour flight seperating New Zealand from much of the rugby loving world, it's a very tough ask. However what New Zealand tries it's hardest to make in ticket sales and tourism, the IRB can happily cash in in what is likely to be the most viewed sporting event of the year. Not saying it's a bad thing, I'm happy it's in New Zealand, but I think we're doing pretty fantastically considering.

As stated before, that assertion (bolded) has been misquoted previously. I believe a previous poster clarified earlier with a link. The IRB states that because the Rugby World Cup can potentially reach 4 billion viewers, that it is the 3rd largest single sporting event. The IRB sells the TV rights for a low amount so they have more buyers and are able to attract more potential viewers thus allowing them to charge more for possible advertising. I'm very curious to see the actual results on number of viewership. Realistically, while the sport is growing, it's not THAT popular. I doubt there weren't even 4.2 billion viewers for the entire FIFA world cup. Rugby really is a marginal sport in a number of countries especially North America which has roughly 530 million people, a lot with a television. Hockey is a marginal sport
(for the entire continent, not Canada where it's a religion) and players make on average 1.2 million and it only had 50 million viewers in North America for the gold medal game.

The reason the IRB won't allow sponsors on jerseys is because it wants to control the income from the tournament and dole it what funds it feels necessary to who. From a business standpoint, the IRB is screwing the bigger nations over, essentially capitalising on they're successes (or brands if you want) but only dishing out a miniscule portion of the pie. Another reason, is that the IRB probably gets some lucrative advertising deals based on exclusivity. Say Coca Cola sponsor the tournament and have an ad come on only the be immediately followed by a Pepsi logo on the USA teams jersey, it would be a conflict of interest.


I do think a tournament in New Zealand is great for the sport, any nations that has a passion for the sport should have the tournament. As someone previously pointed out, things are ridiculously expensive in Japan and I can see there being some issues regarding attendance there.

 

[Saintjay]

God Almighty, I can't believe how many STUPID ***S on this forum cannot READ and UNDERSTAND what they are reading.

A little harsh mate.

On a whole I believe there has been some wll reasoned and balanced arguements on this thread. Branding people STUPID ***S is neither balanced or well reasoned.

When you look at the initial post that started this it is easy to understand some of the reasons for the comments made.

New Zealand have threatened to boycott the 2015 World Cup in England because of a lack of funding throughout the game. No other way to read or understand this header from the paper. Simple to read and easy to understand, It clearly states that New Zealand have threatend to boycott the 2015 WC.

Tew is adamant that unless significant changes are made, the All Blacks will consider sitting out the 2015 event. "The IRB did put an extra £1 million on the table for the major unions six months ago, which helped and which was appreciated, but frankly the prospects of us going to England in 2015 under the current model are very slim. We cannot continue to sign on for an event that costs us so much money.

When you read the comments and the article as a whole it is clear that Tew is saying unless things are sorted out with the IRB, the AB's might not go to the WC.
Later posts clear up the comments and reasons behind his thinking leading to a pretty interesting thread. How ever based on his initial comments it is pretty easy to understand some people views on this thread, just because you do not agree with them does not make them STUPID ***S.

The whole point of a forum is for people to talk and discuss topics to gain understanding of the matter in question. Posts by Ranger etc have done this. Allowing others including my-self to get a better understanding of the article.

If any thing blame the sensationalism of the media for causing grief.

 

[Shaggy]

According to this article on New Zealand's stuff website, it seems that the players have been wanting reform for some time too

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5701479/Lockout-threat-for-World-Cup-players-from-IRB

Lockout threat for World Cup players from IRB TOBY ROBSON

Fed up, in the dark and under duress.

Rugby's professional players say the IRB must reform itself and its flagship tournament if they want to avoid the World Cup disaster floated by New Zealand Rugby Union boss Steve Tew.

International Rugby Players' Association executive director Rob Nichol has revealed the game's top players only signed the current RWC terms of agreement after an IRB threat of a lockout.

''We had said all along that no matter what, we will take the field, but we are unhappy with the commercial model and we might not sign it,'' he said yesterday.

''I have correspondence that shows RWC told us they would lock us out if we did not sign ... We had to decide, 'Do we sign up or put the tournament at risk?' We signed.''

All Blacks hooker Keven Mealamu said he would be ''devastated'' if he was denied the chance of playing at the tournament and Nichol confirmed IRPA would never consider a boycott or strike.

However, he said Tew's claim that teams may not be able to compete in 2015 unless there was major change at the top of the game was reality.

''It's costing the top 10 nations, by the IRB and national unions' own numbers, between $35 and $50 million worth of lost profit to compete in Rugby World Cup,'' Nichol revealed. ''That's after the IRB distributions over a four-year period are taken into account. It's costing not just the professional level of the game, but the amateur level.

''If we don't fix this model it's not that we don't want to go, but we won't be able to afford to go. That would be sad. What we have here is a model we inherited from many years ago.''

Tew wants the commercial model changed to allow national unions to leverage the tournament's earning power through sponsors as is the case with football's Fifa World Cup.

Nichol acknowledges the IRB's commitment to a review of the commercial model in May, but says the ''stalemate'' in the game will continue as long as the players are excluded from the negotiation table.

''They risk coming up with their model in May 2012 and the players saying, 'no we don't like that'.

''From a players' perspective we've said, 'that's great and it's good they have recognised there's an issue and will do some work around it, but for goodness sake involve the players'.''

He said frustration levels had peaked in the buildup to the tournament when revenue-sharing proposals, and even efforts to gain a per-diem for amateur players, had been roundly rejected.

Change to the cup's commercial model needed to be accompanied by constitutional reform at the top of the game, Nichol said.

That meant ''self-interested'' national union representatives being replaced by ''skilled independents'' on the IRB board.
''It's a very political and structurally flawed environment because you have the national unions trying to keep the IRB away from the players because the national unions say, 'we contract and pay the players'.

''The very people they [the IRB] are governing are in fact governing them. Even if the IRB management wanted to involve us I don't think the national unions by and large would let them.

''The national unions don't want the players around the table because we aren't in full agreement about what the commercial model should look like.''

Nichol believed there was risk associated with talking about the issues so publicly, but after eight years of little progress, felt there was little other choice.

''We appreciate Steve and the NZRU supporting on this issue, but we don't want them to push so hard they get off side with their fellow national unions.

''Good on Steve Tew for raising this issue. It's something everyone is talking about largely behind closed doors. It would be nice if some other unions came out and said, 'to be honest he's right'.''
- Fairfax Media

 

[UilamOsa]

Also, http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/uni...ars-for-future-world-cups-20110928-1kxfa.html

 

[smartcooky]

A little harsh mate.
If any thing blame the sensationalism of the media for causing grief.

No, that isn't what I am talking about. As recently as last night there were STILL people posting that Tew was talking about HOSTING the world cup. It was blindingly obvious that he wasn't, so either people CAN'T read or they DIDN'T read.

Anyhow, John O'Neill of the ARU has now come out and BACKED UP what Tew has said.

[TEXTAREA]Last night Australian Rugby Union chief executive O'Neill said leading nations faced cumulative losses of almost $100 million in cup years. "The current economic model is unsustainable and unacceptable."
The Australian union was AU$16 million ($20 million) worse off because the Rugby World Cup caused "massive disruption" because of "no inbound tests from Northern Hemisphere teams and a curtailed Tri-Nations season".

[/TEXTAREA]

Full article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10755144

Anyone who thinking the 2015 Four Nations wont be curtailed is mistaken. The contingency plan is to reduce it to one round, and perhaps hold it as a tournament in one of the four countries.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Are you in NZ mate??
I'm just asking because I heard on the radio the other day ticket sales are at 80%.
As far as I know, thats better than most other tournaments.

just bear in mind that if it starts raining at a game, people will retreat under cover. I noticed this during the games on the weekend.

 

[FlukeArtist]

A little harsh mate.

On a whole I believe there has been some wll reasoned and balanced arguements on this thread. Branding people STUPID ***S is neither balanced or well reasoned.

When you look at the initial post that started this it is easy to understand some of the reasons for the comments made.

New Zealand have threatened to boycott the 2015 World Cup in England because of a lack of funding throughout the game. No other way to read or understand this header from the paper. Simple to read and easy to understand, It clearly states that New Zealand have threatend to boycott the 2015 WC.

Tew is adamant that unless significant changes are made, the All Blacks will consider sitting out the 2015 event. "The IRB did put an extra £1 million on the table for the major unions six months ago, which helped and which was appreciated, but frankly the prospects of us going to England in 2015 under the current model are very slim. We cannot continue to sign on for an event that costs us so much money.

When you read the comments and the article as a whole it is clear that Tew is saying unless things are sorted out with the IRB, the AB's might not go to the WC.
Later posts clear up the comments and reasons behind his thinking leading to a pretty interesting thread. How ever based on his initial comments it is pretty easy to understand some people views on this thread, just because you do not agree with them does not make them STUPID ***S.

The whole point of a forum is for people to talk and discuss topics to gain understanding of the matter in question. Posts by Ranger etc have done this. Allowing others including my-self to get a better understanding of the article.

If any thing blame the sensationalism of the media for causing grief.

I think why SmartCooky made that comment SaintJay is because (it appears to me too) there are a LOT of posters on here who have not taken the time to actually READ THE ARTICLE, and have just waded straight into bagging the NZRFU/ Steve Tew/ NZ RWC hosting.

And to be fair they come across sounding like they have an agenda, or worse they come off just sounding like %^&*ing Idiots.
I mean "Teh Mite" immediately grabbed the opportunity to have a go at NZ getting the hosting rights back in 2005!!! one has nothing to do with the other!! He woudl have known this if he took the time to READ the article.

All I am saying is; if you're going to chuck your 2 cents worth in; at least have a 4%^&*ng clue what you are talking about.

 

[Saintjay]

I think why SmartCooky made that comment SaintJay is because (it appears to me too) there are a LOT of posters on here who have not taken the time to actually READ THE ARTICLE, and have just waded straight into bagging the NZRFU/ Steve Tew/ NZ RWC hosting.

And to be fair they come across sounding like they have an agenda, or worse they come off just sounding like %^&*ing Idiots.
I mean "Teh Mite" immediately grabbed the opportunity to have a go at NZ getting the hosting rights back in 2005!!! one has nothing to do with the other!! He woudl have known this if he took the time to READ the article.

All I am saying is; if you're going to chuck your 2 cents worth in; at least have a 4%^&*ng clue what you are talking about.

Don't get me wrong I agree on the not reading things properly etc. I feel that it was easy to undersatand the initial posts given the way the press had made it look.
I just felt calling people STUPID ***S was a little harsh.

The later posts have been pretty reasoned and informative.

When I first read the article I thought WTF why are the AB's threatening to hold the WC to ransom over money. Others on this thread then explained the reason with some cracking posts and articles. The inital article began with New Zealand have threatened to boycott the 2015 World Cup in England.

Making the reader ill informed, hence I think some of the comments. Later the matter has been discussed in detail and I think what Tew has said is right. The way it was initialy reported could have been put better by the Telegraph. Tew prehaps could have made his arguement better to prevent the bloody media turning it into what it has. I am under no doubt they are going for the look at those greedy All Blacks wanting more money or they will not play arguement, with the intent of causing exactly what has happend on this forum.

All that did was cause a storm in a tea-cup on here with the way it was reported. With people seeing it as a chance to knock the AB's.