I think your missing the point.
My post was speculation as is everything around the cost of international rugby. Unions do not share budgets and neither do the irb.
I do not understand how you can say the wru are not subsidizing anything. You have no proof and are going against logic.
I know that where there are subsidies, the IRB is 90% certain to be the ones doing them.
Benefits for tier 2:
Only travel to one country thus save a ton on logistics and travel costs.
Get good quality opponents in a relatively easy to access location for the professionals.
Possibly media exposure for sponsors (speculative as unknown if matches are televised.)
Not cost of renting stadium, marketing, insurance or staff to run stadium.
The first two points would have applied to if the matches were in London, in fact the travel would have been much easier in London.
The IRB would have rented the Stoop, and probably would do similar stuff in North Wales to. Canada/USA/Tonga/Samoa wouldn't have to pay for any of the marketing, staff or renting stadium elsewhere in Europe anyway. Georgia, Romania, Portugal, Japan all have their own rugby stadiums.
France isn't exactly a billion miles from Eastern Europe anyway. That's one of the benefits of Europe, lots of countries relatively close.
Another thing that is bad for Tier 2, is that I doubt any Russians will even know these matches are going on. If they were in Russia, they would at least get some more coverage and help grow the game there a little. I also doubt Canadians/Americans will be following the matches from there, so having neutral matches will get no new audience into rugby from any of the Tier 2 nations.
Costs of wru:
Renting stadium,marketing, insurance, staff to event.
Possible cost of boarding or subsidizing in a fashion.
I doubt the rent will cost the WRU that much ,they won't subsidise anything. They just need to employ a few people on matchday, but otherwise it's probably the IRB footing the bill. I shouldn't think the rent of the stadium is that much anyway since they're so desperate to use it.
Benefits for wru:
Ticket sales
If on tv the advertising revenue.
The benefit is they get to use their stadium and give North Welsh some rugby to watch as well as getting a bit of cash, without actually having to do much costs at all.
Cost irb
Getting nations to event
Possible boarding
The IRB normally gets the bill for a lot of things with Tonga involved.
Benefit
Long time member gets extra revenue without having to fork out as much cost.
Tier 2 members get the matches they want.
The WRU getting a bit of extra cash is hardly benefiting the IRB.
Tier 2 members don't get exactly as they want anyway, as has been mentioned before Canada/USA plays Pacific Islanders annually from next year anyway so it would have been better to play teams who they will meet much more rarely.
The wru aren't the terrible evil doers like you portray but they also aren't doing this out of altruism. For me the real interesting factor is the games originally be scheduled inLondon and then being changed the north Wales. That's 2 different unions and brings to question if irb and rfu are having any difficulties. I find it Also interesting that USA rugby was very unhappy regarding the change.
Maybe some of the matches were meant to be curtain raisers for tier 1 games and rfu pulled out?
You're making up possibilities to suit your argument.
I never called the WRU evil. Just stating that they are hosting these matches (which is more inconvenient for the nations involved) for their own purposes. That is a fact.
The RFU weren't anything to do with the entire thing, they've got nothing to pay, and the IRB would have just rented the Stoop for the matches. That is between the Stoop and the IRB, the RFU weren't involved.
Don't make up possibilities about the RFU pulling out of the matches. The facts are known, and are on the USA rugby article. The IRB were going to hold the matches at the Stoop but the WRU persuaded them to give them to North Wales for the WRU's benefit.
A European tour by a tier 2 would not be logistically feasible unless it was subsidized by irb/host nations or the team was an A team. Travel costs and loss of tv revenue (from jersey sponsors) would be a huge cost by itself. That's without covering insurance.
Nope. It's not that hard to do logistically. In fact I think your own nation Canada did exactly such tour as recently as 2010, the USA also did a similar tour that year as well.
The IRB would be subsidising those matches a lot, much like they are with this series of matches as well.
Also as far as we know, these matches aren't yet confirmed of being on TV at all. Every single Georgia and Romania match is always shown on TV, Spain and Portugal ENC matches also get on TV, so there would be TV revenue so there isn't a loss, there is a gain.
Also if you're that bothered about travel, then play a 2/3 match series tour like Tier 1 is doing in June.
. I love seeing us play the likes of Canada and USA (Think that was my first ever live match in the Millennium when I was 7) and think we should be playing them more! One of the reasons why I'm almost more excited for Wales' tour to Japan than the Lions Tour!
