Steve Tew getting the excuses in

[NJR1]

Like I said, I knew it wouldn't count :lol:

 

[monkeypigeon]

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!

There should be a link to a page that sets out why the 'New Zealand are poachers' misconception is wrong because it ruins at least one thread a month.

I see where NJRI is coming from with the 'Financial Prudence' argument, so the initial biting off the head seems a bit unnecessary but I agree with the rebuttal that the prudence is probably already there and it's impossible to budget for 13million over four years without making seriously detrimental cuts.

And as far as New Zealand are concerned, they're right not to risk their domestic game for the sake of one competition every 4 years.

 

[JW.]

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.

Not to be harsh, but there is always an onslaught on England our Rugby or anything about England to be honest.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Not to be harsh, but there is always an onslaught on England our Rugby or anything about England to be honest.

While England does cop some stick we're a distant distant 2nd to the amount of crap that gets slung at NZ at every/any opportunity

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

While England does cop some stick we're a distant distant 2nd to the amount of crap that gets slung at NZ at every/any opportunity

And as I've said elsewhere, if Olyy (and to be fair several others) was your stereotypical English supporter I'd be saying go England this weekend against Scotland. Sadly, he's a little outnumbered.

Also, don't think I don't realise that we have some A-Grade idiot fans over here. I do. More often than not they do mostly respond like idiots rather than start things though.

 

[monkeypigeon]

And as I've said elsewhere, if Olyy (and to be fair several others) was your stereotypical English supporter I'd be saying go England this weekend against Scotland. Sadly, he's a little outnumbered.

Olly isn't English, he learned all his foruming in New Zealand and was poached by Sale...

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Olly isn't English, he learned all his foruming in New Zealand and was poached by Sale...

Lol, some gold quality Irish posting there for you!

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Olly isn't English, he learned all his foruming in New Zealand and was poached by Sale...

I'm waiting to see whether England are interested in my talents before declaring for Wales as I'm eligible through residence as of this month :lol:

 

[JW.]

I'm waiting to see whether England are interested in my talents before declaring for Wales as I'm eligible through residence as of this month :lol:

Haha, we should do it just to deny Wales!

 

[smartcooky]

But how much do NZ lose so much money on this short period of time(that is the RWC) on sponsorships?

So simple, it pains me to have to explain it to you.

The NZRU makes $2.5 to $3 million for each home test it plays, in a combination of gate takings, sponsorships and television rights.

In RWC year, we don't get to play any June Tour matches, and we miss a home match against either the Springboks or the Wallabies.

That is four home tests at $2.5 to 3 million = $10 to $12m in lost revenue every world cup year

On top of that, sponsor payments are shortened in RWC year by 9 to 15% due to the All Blacks being not allowed to do any kind of promotional work for the Sponsor during the six weeks of the world cup. They aren't even allowed to drive their sponsored cars or wear any kind of branded apparel that is not by an official, authorised IRB sponsor. Even regular TV ads featuring All Black players that normally run on TV during the other 46 weeks of the year, are not allowed to be played during the world cup.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

I'm waiting to see whether England are interested in my talents before declaring for Wales as I'm eligible through residence as of this month :lol:

Well after you almost ran an old lady over last weekend in Morrisons with your dodgy driving :lol: ... you be lucky ...

 

[Shaggy]

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

Well, he hasn't up until now has he ... and now that he has, you are criticising him for it

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.

Really? ... my bad then - I subscribe to the only stupid question is the one that you don't ask when you need something clarified


... maybe you could ... I don't know, consider the possibility that you might have phrased what you said a little differently so it was easier to understand, or, maybe, consider the possibility that maybe not everybody has been on here for seven years?


... not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but I don't get the Alistair Campbell reference

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.

Correct, no one has a god given right to expect to turn a profit, but conversely, no one has a god given right to expect commercial terms to remain the same from here to eternity either,if the terms aren't favourably for both parties.


... I don't really care what it sounds like to be honest - it's a tactic for a financial negotiation, providing the end result is that all of the unions that make a loss get a better deal. I can't disagree with his tactics when Tew and others have been trying to resolve this by negotiation for eight years now.

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.

Yes he's timed it deliberately for now to get maximum exposure for this issue, but really, it's not an us verses them attitude, or anything like what happened to the Irish 800 years ago or anything historic - it's a financial negotiation, and it's got more to do with the here and now, and the very near future, than anything else

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.

Yes, that's certainly part of his job, and another part is to represent New Zealand on the International Rugby Board, and part of their job is to grow the game etc. Though these duties conflict some times, I don't see that one necessarily has to come at the expense of the other ... some of his suggestions on sponsorship, wouldn't have a great impact on the profit margin of Rugby World cup ltd


... The only thing it has to do with sport, is that you need this money to pay the players

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?

I guess that's the difference between New Zealand and England, where the NZRU own the clubs, (they still need money to pay the players regardless of whether they are All Blacks or not)


...Don't the players from all the major test playing nations get paid to play?

More people please pay attention to this.

Thanks ... it's really not worth getting worked up about anything on here

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Well after you almost ran an old lady over last weekend in Morrisons with your dodgy driving :lol: ... you be lucky ...

I don't remember that....which is probably why it happened

People shouldn't walk down the middle of the roads in car parks anyway - you wouldn't do that anywhere else

 

[ranger]

Like I said, I knew it wouldn't count :lol:

There is a difference between hiring a trained foreign mercenary and raising immigrant children

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

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.

No, was just saying that if in the future we can't afford to even pay a 30 man squad due to financial losses, the decision to not allow sponsorship during the cup may be a deciding factor in how well we do and therefore make it that we're fielding total second XV's or worse. In that regard monetary policy will have bought someone else a bigger chance of a world cup.

 

[smartcooky]

This from Spiro Zavos of the Sydney Morning Herald; not a writer I like all that much, but he hits the nail exactly in the head here.

[textarea]The NZRU through Steve Tew, with the support of the ARU's John O'Neill, has said that enough is enough. Good for them. For years they have tried to make the IRB see sense. What they want is fair and appropriate. But they have been continually confronted with hostility and rejection.

First, they want the sponsors of the Wallabies and All Blacks to have an association with their teams during a cup. FIFA, the organisation that runs the football World Cup, does this. Why wouldn't the IRB?

Second, they want all future RWC tournaments to start in the second week of October and finish about November 20. This schedule allows for the northern hemisphere nations to run their main tournaments, the Heineken Cup and the Six Nations, in full. It also allows the southern hemisphere nations to run Super Rugby and a full Four Nations tournament (NZ, Australia, South Africa and Argentina).

This is an elegant solution to the difficult matter of balancing the rugby interests of the northern and southern hemisphere powers. The October-November schedule applied in RWC 1999 and RWC 2003. It did not apply in RWC 2007 in France, it does not apply for this World Cup tournament and it will not apply for future tournaments. Why is this? The September-October schedule was forced through the IRB, with the complacent agreement by the northern hemisphere powers, by the French rugby authorities to protect their club competition. Unlike the ARU and the NZRU, France and the other British rugby unions do not "own" their players, the clubs own them. Often the clubs put their own interests ahead of the interests of their national unions and international rugby in the way they handle their players. One of the dark secrets of this RWC tournament, for instance, is the grubby way the IRB has allowed some European clubs to force their Islander players to play for the club rather than their nation. These players have been told their contracts will be ripped up if they take part in this RWC tournament.

The irony in all of this is that the ARU and the NZRU risked their financial futures by holding the first RWC in 1987. The IRB has effectively stolen the tournament from these unions. Now they are manipulating the schedules and the business model to expose the NZRU and the ARU to financial burdens that could destroy their balance sheets. The perfidy of the northern hemisphere unions in all of this is astounding.[/textarea]

 

[Saintjay]

Different point of view by Mark Reason, aside for hs comments on England, he has come up with this little joke.

Be careful what you wish for. A quarter of a century ago the southern hemisphere wanted a World Cup and did a fair bit of gloating when it came to pass. At the time my dad warned that it would come at a price, but no one wanted to listen.

A few years later a bunch of southern hemisphere players tipped the world into professionalism. They had no idea what the implications were. They saw the money in the game and they wanted their part of it. Sean Fitzpatrick and Francois Pienaar spoke like they were union leaders, but they were only really interested in the highest bidder.


So forgive me if I cannot feel a great deal of sympathy for Steve Tew when he moans that New Zealand cannot afford to play in another World Cup and are in danger of losing their players to the northern hemisphere. Sorry Steve, but you and the Aussies got yourselves into this mess. You were greedy for power and you were greedy for money, and now you are bleating because there are bigger players on the world market.


Tew said to Paul Rees of the Guardian, one of the world's finest rugby journalists: "We do not believe the All Black brand is remunerated in an equitable manner for the value it brings to the places it plays in.


"We understand the home unions have invested in stadiums and that they are paying back debt, based on a stream of income they have become accustomed to, but if we keep having to spend more money retaining our players in New Zealand because their club environment in Europe continues to put the price of players up and we do not get any more money out of the game, then eventually we will go into the kind of recession that Welsh rugby went into for a period of time."


Tew then went on about brand equity and how New Zealand supplied 39 players to the World Cup outside the All Blacks squad and so were the biggest exporter. Blah, blah, blah. There is a market in rugby meat and that market is controlled by the big European supermarket chains.


I am not a huge fan of capitalism and would rather buy free range, but your average rugby fan shops at the big superstores.
If New Zealand cannot afford to pay its own players at a rate determined by the global market then they will have to go overseas. It is the same reality faced by the farmers. The UK market will pay top dollar for its lamb, just as France, the UK and Ireland will pay for its rugby players. New Zealand signed up to this deal when it rushed into professionalism.

A few noble souls like Jock Hobbs saved the country from its worst excesses - but when you sign a deal with Murdoch, you lose control of the 'brand' as Tew and James O'Connor like to call it.
Tew spoke about Super Rugby players being paid to go to Ireland for sums above their market value. Sorry Steve, but you presumably mean above New Zealand's market value. If other countries are paying what they can't afford, then they will go bust like Greece.


Tew also said: "We lose NZ$13.2m [£6.7m] worth of revenue after income from Rugby World Cup and costs are adjusted. It cannot carry on...I am not saying we will not be involved in 2015, but you either reform things through an evolutionary process or you plant a dag in the ground and say it's time to change."
There's a bunch of folk who protest every year in London about capitalism. They smash up a few banks and put a few dags in the ground. They probably then go home and buy their tea from a supermarket.


The World Cup enhances the All Blacks 'brand'. If New Zealand win, then more sponsors will be interested in backing the team and so the value goes up. But so too will the value of New Zealand's players. I didn't see New Zealand standing up for Fiji - where it has still to play a test unlike a lot of the 'selfish' northern hemisphere countries - or Samoa or Argentina when all their players were being drained by the big French and English clubs.

There are many reasons why I don't think rugby is the better for professionalism. But it is a bit late now to negotiate a new deal. You shall reap as ye sow - and then have to sell overseas.

 

[JW.]

No, was just saying that if in the future we can't afford to even pay a 30 man squad due to financial losses, the decision to not allow sponsorship during the cup may be a deciding factor in how well we do and therefore make it that we're fielding total second XV's or worse. In that regard monetary policy will have bought someone else a bigger chance of a world cup.

Thats all I asked really . How much the loss of the sponsorships etc. were and if those were the reasons that the NZRU are losing money or if it was just already losing money.

The above would ruin half a season of the French/English and Celtic league, I don't see the problem with the dates as they are now? The Tri-nations was finished as was Super-Rugby?

I agree with the sponsorship stuff, but the bottom half of that post is ********.

The irony in all of this is that the ARU and the NZRU risked their financial futures by holding the first RWC in 1987. The IRB has effectively stolen the tournament from these unions. Now they are manipulating the schedules and the business model to expose the NZRU and the ARU to financial burdens that could destroy their balance sheets.

The IRB deserve the right to host an the RWC as they are the international rugby board, you can't let the ARU or the NZRU run the RWC as they participate in the tournament. The sponsorships deals are affecting everybody not just ARU and NZRU, just the other nations have a bigger financial budget, so can take the loss. So they aren't just trying to destroy the ARU or the NZRU. Great way of feeling sorry for yourself.

Also IMO NZRU would benefit if they let the club own the players? Like in England/France/Celtic?

 

[Shaggy]

Different point of view by Mark Reason, aside for hs comments on England, he has come up with this little joke.

Be careful what you wish for. A quarter of a century ago the southern hemisphere wanted a World Cup and did a fair bit of gloating when it came to pass. At the time my dad warned that it would come at a price, but no one wanted to listen.

A few years later a bunch of southern hemisphere players tipped the world into professionalism. They had no idea what the implications were. They saw the money in the game and they wanted their part of it. Sean Fitzpatrick and Francois Pienaar spoke like they were union leaders, but they were only really interested in the highest bidder.


So forgive me if I cannot feel a great deal of sympathy for Steve Tew when he moans that New Zealand cannot afford to play in another World Cup and are in danger of losing their players to the northern hemisphere. Sorry Steve, but you and the Aussies got yourselves into this mess. You were greedy for power and you were greedy for money, and now you are bleating because there are bigger players on the world market.


Tew said to Paul Rees of the Guardian, one of the world's finest rugby journalists: "We do not believe the All Black brand is remunerated in an equitable manner for the value it brings to the places it plays in.


"We understand the home unions have invested in stadiums and that they are paying back debt, based on a stream of income they have become accustomed to, but if we keep having to spend more money retaining our players in New Zealand because their club environment in Europe continues to put the price of players up and we do not get any more money out of the game, then eventually we will go into the kind of recession that Welsh rugby went into for a period of time."


Tew then went on about brand equity and how New Zealand supplied 39 players to the World Cup outside the All Blacks squad and so were the biggest exporter. Blah, blah, blah. There is a market in rugby meat and that market is controlled by the big European supermarket chains.


I am not a huge fan of capitalism and would rather buy free range, but your average rugby fan shops at the big superstores.
If New Zealand cannot afford to pay its own players at a rate determined by the global market then they will have to go overseas. It is the same reality faced by the farmers. The UK market will pay top dollar for its lamb, just as France, the UK and Ireland will pay for its rugby players. New Zealand signed up to this deal when it rushed into professionalism.

A few noble souls like Jock Hobbs saved the country from its worst excesses - but when you sign a deal with Murdoch, you lose control of the 'brand' as Tew and James O'Connor like to call it.
Tew spoke about Super Rugby players being paid to go to Ireland for sums above their market value. Sorry Steve, but you presumably mean above New Zealand's market value. If other countries are paying what they can't afford, then they will go bust like Greece.


Tew also said: "We lose NZ$13.2m [£6.7m] worth of revenue after income from Rugby World Cup and costs are adjusted. It cannot carry on...I am not saying we will not be involved in 2015, but you either reform things through an evolutionary process or you plant a dag in the ground and say it's time to change."
There's a bunch of folk who protest every year in London about capitalism. They smash up a few banks and put a few dags in the ground. They probably then go home and buy their tea from a supermarket.


The World Cup enhances the All Blacks 'brand'. If New Zealand win, then more sponsors will be interested in backing the team and so the value goes up. But so too will the value of New Zealand's players. I didn't see New Zealand standing up for Fiji - where it has still to play a test unlike a lot of the 'selfish' northern hemisphere countries - or Samoa or Argentina when all their players were being drained by the big French and English clubs.

There are many reasons why I don't think rugby is the better for professionalism. But it is a bit late now to negotiate a new deal. You shall reap as ye sow - and then have to sell overseas.

... and here was my response to his article on the Stuff website - original article here http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5701348/NZ-must-reap-what-it-has-sown-over-World-Cup

... My response

New Zealand, being a member country of the IRB, is more like being an angry share holder, than "a bunch of folks that smash up banks"/"protest capitalism".You failed to mentioned that there are other major unions (share holders) that aren't happy with the current commercial model, or that the international players association think that the current model is unsustainable, and were threatened with lock out if they didn't attend the current cup.
Various rugby unions have been trying to get this model looked at and changed for 8 years - you tell me what business in any capitalist environment will refuse to talk about any major shareholders concerns for 8 years

... his focus is clearly to sensationalise the issue, which he does by leaving out crucial facts, rather than providing a view with any balance

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I don't see the problem with the dates as they are now? The Tri-nations was finished as was Super-Rugby?

Both were cut short, I believe
I know the 3N definitely was, and I thought that the SuperXV was but I've seen people say that they're continuing with the current format, or something?