Steve Tew getting the excuses in

[donmcdazzle]

Global economic's, i.e. high exchange rate = less cash to spend at the tournament, which mean if there were lower ticket prices = more people attending, the NZRU should have discussed with the government about profiteering, which would hinder the number of people travelling to the world cup, hence reducing the profit/margin being made out of the tournament.

The number of Tickets "Sold" or distributed does not equal the number of tickets in return for money.

Check out John Keynes over here. Are you aware of how fickle FX rates are? NZD has lost about 15% against the USD in the last month alone, should ticket prices now be adjusted for that shift? I'm sure they set the ticket prices a very long time ago. Trying to pick what the exchange rates were likely to be in advance is a bit ridiculous. Lower ticket prices are great all round, getting that balance is tough though. If they had sold every ticket to every game people would likely be bagging them for selling them too cheaply and costing themselves profit.

 

[smartcooky]

NZRU = Greedy precious windbags.

Nothing to see here.

Making excuses early.

I had some very uncomplimentary things to say about you, but I have withdrawn them because I see you have apologised

BTW, I completely agree with you about the scheduling. The minor nations have been well and truly Rogered by this... some playing four test matches in 16 days.

 

[Saintjay]

Yep got to agree, I read some where that the IRB have said due to TV etc, if they wanted bigger breaks they would have to take the comp down to 16 teams again.

So at least 4 would miss out. Seems to me it's another big f@@k you by the IRB.

I am still unsure what happend with this thread, Ranger and Shaggy seemed to sUM up the NZRU views on this very well and it would seem it has the players unions and unions across the globes support. I was not that clear on the subject and after reading all the posts and the articles I was able to come up with an informed opinion.

Althhough I do not agree with calling people stupid C@%£s, It would seem a number of people have not listened to what is being said.

I have just seen the thread Alesana Tuilagi Fined Over Mouth-Guard Seems the IRB are not happy with Samoan players making a little money either.

As they say "United we stand". I so don't see how this turned into attacks on the NZRU.

 

[smartcooky]

Yep got to agree, I read some where that the IRB have said due to TV etc, if they wanted bigger breaks they would have to take the comp down to 16 teams again.

So at least 4 would miss out.

Thats bullshit actually. They could do what they did in 1999... 20 teams, five pools of four so that there is an even number teams in each pool (so no "bye" rounds). This would mean two games in each pool each weekend... games played Friday, Saturday and Sunday

For the playoffs, they could again do what they did in 1999; the five pool winners qualify for the quarter finals and get a week off while the five second placed teams and the best third placed team go into quarter finals playoff matches, with the winners proceeding to the quarter finals.

Alternatively, they could have have the five pool winners and the three best runners up go to quarter finals

Of course, they could always increase to 24 teams, in 4 pools of 6

 

[Saintjay]

Thats bullshit actually. They could do what they did in 1999... 20 teams, five pools of four so that there is an even number teams in each pool (so no "bye" rounds). This would mean two games in each pool each weekend... games played Friday, Saturday and Sunday

For the playoffs, they could again do what they did in 1999; the five pool winners qualify for the quarter finals and get a week off while the five second placed teams and the best third placed team go into quarter finals playoff matches, with the winners proceeding to the quarter finals.

Alternatively, they could have have the five pool winners and the three best runners up go to quarter finals

Of course, they could always increase to 24 teams, in 4 pools of 6

I think this is the IRB stance off topic I know.

The fixture schedule is more onerous on the Tier Two nations like Samoa because World Cup organisers want to timetable the leading countries in prime-time slots to maximise commercial revenue. Sixty per cent of the IRB's World Cup revenue comes from broadcast contracts and that money is then reinvested in the game, to set up high performance centres in countries like Samoa and Argentina.
It is understood the only way the IRB can solve the current fixture issue would be to reduce the tournament to 16 teams, which would undermine the very point of trying to grow the game.

 

[Tricia McMillan]

Of course, they could always increase to 24 teams, in 4 pools of 6

I wouldn't be opposed to this. Might make the tournament a bit long, perhaps 6 pools of 4 each instead?

In either case, 20 teams with 4 pools of 5 teams each seems like a bit of a "broken" format, so to speak. I'm just not sure what I think is the best way to "fix" it.

Edit: As long as it doesn't involve reducing the number of teams though, that would be taking the game backwards if you ask me.

 

[Shaggy]

It's opperunism. Nothing more. Maximum exposure at a sensitive time, easy publicity to make a hissy fit sound off like a bullshit "good of the game" comment.

Yes, i think if i'd been trying to get some discussion going on an issue that threatened the participation of my union and others for eight years, and the other party refused to come to the table, I might be an opportunist as well, and use maximum exposure to get the message across to as many people as I possibly could as well

Have you been paying attention?

Sure have, but as that particular comment seemed to be less than clear in it's meaning, I thought that I would ... A/ ask for clarification on the point you were trying to make, and B/ make a comment on what I thought you said ... hence the question ... which i notice you didn't answer.

Steve Tew is not a hero. He's a Union boss threatening a strike over pay. (ironic they're called "unions" when you think about it).

Yes, I don't recall anyone calling Steve Tew a hero, you can call him a union boss striking for pay if you like ... perhaps you'll find the IRB threatening the players association with a lock out if the players didn't attend this cup equally ironic

... what he actually is, is a representative of a major share holder speaking out against the lack of action/dissatisfaction of the financial model of the company he (the NZRU) has shares in (the IRb)

ST is no better then Martyn Thomas, John O'Neil or all the other old farts killing the game. They're not in the right, the IRB isn't in the right either. Whichever way it goes, they'll styill waltz out with a bucket load of cash and the common fan is the one who looses out.

Well he's doing part of the job that the NZRU has employed him to do, isn't he (trying to get a better deal for the NZRU), those others will probably follow suit. The common fan won't have anything to watch if the bucket loads of cash that you speak of, doesn't eventuate ... money is needed to pay the players (that's the reality of professional sport)

Side note:
Too many people on this thread need to stop taking comments so personally and lighten the f-up. It's a forum where people can express opinions. No need to fling insults at members just becvause you don't agree.

Couldn't agree more, it's all about having differences of opinion, and discussing them ... there's a difference between disagreeing with what someones said, and an attack on someone personally.

... There's also no reason to jump to conclusions as to why someones disagreed with you

 

[Teh Mite]

Yes, i think if i'd been trying to get some discussion going on an issue that threatened the participation of my union and others for eight years, and the other party refused to come to the table, I might be an opportunist as well, and use maximum exposure to get the message across to as many people as I possibly could as well

Maybe he could of, you know, actually said something, A single thing in public. No? Oh.

Sure have, but as that particular comment seemed to be less than clear in it's meaning, I thought that I would ... A/ ask for clarification on the point you were trying to make, and B/ make a comment on what I thought you said ... hence the question ... which i notice you didn't answer.

If you ever read any posts I've made over the past 7 years, you'd already know the answer. Bravo on the highlighted Alastair Campbell part though.

Yes, I don't recall anyone calling Steve Tew a hero, you can call him a union boss striking for pay if you like ... perhaps you'll find the IRB threatening the players association with a lock out if the players didn't attend this cup equally ironic

... what he actually is, is a representative of a major share holder speaking out against the lack of action/dissatisfaction of the financial model of the company he (the NZRU) has shares in (the IRb)

No, he's behaving like a spoilt brat. Nobody has a god given right to turn a profit. It's a World cup. A tournament. They are only a component of a larger machine. He sounds like a spoilt brat upset because he didn't get a bigger piece of cake then his elder brother.

Nobody forces New Zealand to compete, but he'd deliberately timed it his comments to create arguments such as these. There's a hideous us vs them attitude developing. It's like when the Irish harp on about 800 years ago as if it has any baring on the world today - Playing a victim card to make a point.

Well he's doing part of the job that the NZRU has employed him to do, isn't he (trying to get a better deal for the NZRU), those others will probably follow suit. The common fan won't have anything to watch if the bucket loads of cash that you speak of, doesn't eventuate ... money is needed to pay the players (that's the reality of professional sport)

He's employed by the NZRU to make money. Same as Francis Baron was for the RFU. Doesn't have anything to do with sport.

If being an All Black is such an honour, why do players have to get paid to do so? They draw a salary away from test rugby and have insurances, don't they?

Couldn't agree more, it's all about having differences of opinion, and discussing them ... there's a difference between disagreeing with what someones said, and an attack on someone personally.

... There's also no reason to jump to conclusions as to why someones disagreed with you

More people please pay attention to this.

 

[monkeypigeon]

It's like when the Irish harp on about 800 years ago as if it has any baring on the world today - Playing a victim card to make a point.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/06/northern-irish-terror-threat-severe

It does still effect Ireland,

Not 800 years ago. Less than 100 actually. During the lifetime of some people still alive on the Island actually.

And Not playing the victim card. We just like to beat you.



And back on topic. The New Zealand crowd are right. I think just about everybody can see it...

 

[Teh Mite]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/06/northern-irish-terror-threat-severe

It does still effect Ireland,

Not 800 years ago. Less than 100 actually. During the lifetime of some people still alive on the Island actually.

And Not playing the victim card. We just like to beat you.



And back on topic. The New Zealand crowd are right. I think just about everybody can see it...

William of Orange wasn't alive 100 years ago.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Nor was he alive 800 years ago, if we're going down this route

 

[Teh Mite]

Nor was he alive 800 years ago, if we're going down this route

Ah shuddupayface!

*awaits insulted italian* :lol:

 

[Saintjay]

Your comment about the Irish is so wide of the mark it is unbelievable

Try telling the people who died in bloody Sunday that the history to it is not valid. It is only over recent years the military have said sorry.
Try telling it to the soldiers that were being killed as recent as 1995 - 1996 and there families that the history that lend to there deaths is not valid.
Or tell it to my friend who lives in Northern Ireland on the east side of Belfast, she won't go out at night because she is Catholic.

Maybe you want to tell these people they are playing the victim card.

 

[monkeypigeon]

William of Orange wasn't alive 100 years ago.

Francois Pienaar didn't play in the last World Cup.



Edit: In fairness, Teh Mite has turned this thread into his personal play thing. I must say, this takes talent.

 

[Teh Mite]

Clearly it was a perfect example then, look how many people objected straight away.

 

[NJR1]

Oh for ****"s sake.... Have you actually read the article? Have You? Really?

Let me explain....again...for about the fifth time


IT IS NOT ABOUT THE LOSSES INCURRED HOSTING THIS RWC!!!


What is it with some of people on this forum that they cannot read and understand a simple, straighforward article?

Even the idiots on Planet Rugby grasped the concept almost straight away

Clearly it's you not reading my post at all, it's simple and straight forward that financial prudence, and careful budgeting which including revenue from THIS world cup, should mean the making a loss on the next one is within budget, can you grasp THAT concept...

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Clearly it's you not reading my post at all, it's simple and straight forward that financial prudence, and careful budgeting which including revenue from THIS world cup, should mean the making a loss on the next one is within budget, can you grasp THAT concept...

It's plainly not possible to make year on year losses forever. Due to player salaries and the cost of holding local competitions our NZRFU is doing just that. To lose out on sponsorship deals every world cup period to the tune of NZ$13 million dollars, it pushes our union closer to bankruptcy. So-called financial prudence (already plenty there) will not do anything to help the situation.

Maybe we just let all our players go play up north, absolutely all of them. All our top 50 players, every year. Goodbye, we can't pay you what your worth. Then we'll start breaking even.

Then teams like England and France that money the game around can start beating us every year and feel like it's not a cheque-book victory. Oh how smug it'd feel, "we're better than the All Blacks, we're better than the All Blacks". Is that the kind of victory that the NH sides like? Is that how you guys win?

Oh that's right. That's how your football is in the premier league and how the spanish league is. That's how rugby should be?

Want to add more players to Hape, Flutey, Waldrom and Tuilagi (Good way to solve a talent and development problem)? Add a few more long standing residents to your sides like the English cricket team does? :lol:


At least us kiwi's have helped provide dozens of players born and trained in our country for the island sides to use in the world cup due to their parentage and grand-parentage. Mind you kovana seems to conveniently forget that and is knifing at the NZRFU too.


You can rabbit on about excuses all you like, but there's none better than the truth. Money makes the world go round for NH sports. So it should to a degree, that's professionalism.

Still I think there's a difference between winning with talent and buying victory via subtle sponsorship and revenue restrictions.

Personally I think all talent developed in a country should be paid for via a hefty development transfer fee. With all the players in Europe, the islands, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa would certainly be able to manage whatever their other financial circumstances might be and World Cup sponsorship wouldn't matter so much.

 

[NJR1]

Harping on about foreign imports from a Kiwi is a bit rich, Toeava - Samoan, Muliaina - Somoan, Kaino - Samoan. And I agree with you about transfer fees, however it's clear the NZRU are hopeless financially, so we should agree to disagree, however I find it strange so many Kiwi's are backing the NZRU, especially as most Kiwi's I know agree that the are crap, baffling.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Harping on about foreign imports from a Kiwi is a bit rich, Toeava - Samoan, Muliaina - Somoan, Kaino - Samoan. And I agree with you about transfer fees, however it's clear the NZRU are hopeless financially, so we should agree to disagree, however I find it strange so many Kiwi's are backing the NZRU, especially as most Kiwi's I know agree that the are crap, baffling.

Kaino came to New Zealand at four years old. Relevant? No. ALL his rugby was here.

Mils Muliaina came to New Zealand at 2 years old Relevant? No. ALL his rugby was here.

Toeava came to New Zealand at a very young age too. Relevant? No. ALL his rugby was here.


Waldrom, Hape, Flutey, Tuilagi. Relevant? Yes. They were very talented and mostly developed talent elsewhere before England took them under their wing with a nice cheque-book.


Also, a huge number of the Samoan sides over the last 5 years and several Tongans have been born, raised and developed as players in the New Zealand system. We help them.

Same thing as England? Don't make me laugh!


Also, why am I on about England? I used to like the team a lot from 1999-2004 I thought they were a team going places. I guess they still are a fairly great bunch of boys.

I can't like them like I used to though. The english supporters who started threads like these and a relentless anti-kiwi onslaught over the last 6-7 years have ruined it for me a lot.

 

[JW.]

Want to add more players to Hape, Flutey, Waldrom and Tuilagi (Good way to solve a talent and development problem)? Add a few more long standing residents to your sides like the English cricket team does? :lol:
.

I shall have you know Tuilagi played for England U16 and U18 so forth we're claiming him as developed by us. And if anyone is going to claim him its Samoa. Don't knock our Cricket team nr1. ;D

Btw I agree the IRB is weird/stupid/annoying/greedy for not allowing teams sponsorships at WC's. But how much do NZ lose so much money on this short period of time(that is the RWC) on sponsorships? When during this time the Allblacks shirts etc. sales go up massivly? You should also be making a profit before and after the RWC to even this out? Because as Tew said they're losing money to sponsorships they're losing during the RWC? In saying this he says you only lose money during the RWC and not after it because your sponsors are back? I agree it's stupid etc. by the IRB but the sponsorships lost during this 6week period cannot be the only problem for NZ?

Great to see you brought up the fact that you provide so many great players to the world of rugby something totally irrelevant here.

Still I think there's a difference between winning with talent and buying victory via subtle sponsorship and revenue restrictions.

Did you just accuse NH's teams of buying there way to victory at RWC's? Cause the last time I checked the only WC we won is in '03. Or are you going on about clubteams? With that I agree. Btw English clubteams have a salary cap, to avoid this.