England V All Blacks
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Rapido Thanks, that sort of makes sense and whilst it is an anomaly in being the only in window sharing, as @Frye says, there is no ability to have a reciprocal arrangement.. So $1m for three tests and the regional/Maori matches is some recompense for the costs of touring. I'd guess the Lions get a lot more out of their sponsorship to defray costs. This would be easier to quantify for the Lions as opposed to a national team as the sponsorship deal is effectively on a four year cycle rather than an all encompassing deal.
They would be getting all revenues from tour merchandise bearing only the Lions brand. That's thousand of jerseys/polos/hats/scarves etc etc plus would have tie in with supporter tour deals and their own sponsorships.
All hotels and travel are possibly covered by NZ??@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
They would be getting all revenues from tour merchandise bearing only the Lions brand. That's thousand of jerseys/polos/hats/scarves etc etc plus would have tie in with supporter tour deals and their own sponsorships.
All hotels and travel are possibly covered by NZ??I don't know the answer to your last question but DHL, as the official Lions series sponsor, must be paying a bucketload for naming rights. I would assume most of that money covers tour expenses so that income from the ticket sales equals profit for both parties (NZR and Lions).
-
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
They would be getting all revenues from tour merchandise bearing only the Lions brand. That's thousand of jerseys/polos/hats/scarves etc etc plus would have tie in with supporter tour deals and their own sponsorships.
All hotels and travel are possibly covered by NZ??I don't know the answer to your last question but DHL, as the official Lions series sponsor, must be paying a bucketload for naming rights. I would assume most of that money covers tour expenses so that income from the ticket sales equals profit for both parties (NZR and Lions).
-
@Bovidae are they the sponsor for the tours to Aus & SA as well, cos they were in the 2005 tour, so while a decent wedge of money to sponsor, it must also be of tangible benefit to them??
@taniwharugby Yep, I think DHL has been the tour sponsor for all Lions tours for a while. DHL was everywhere in 2005.
HSBC was their main sponsor in 2009 and 2013. No idea for this tour as I don't think the jersey has been released yet.
-
Last Lions tour, ARU made a reported £40m. The four unions from Britain and Ireland split a profit of £6m approx. The majority of TV rights goes to the host country. They sell them. Lions gain sponsorships, etc to meet the estimated £15m cost of the tour.
Each player on squad gets the same amount - €70k. Each union receives approx the same for each of their players that go on tour to cover absences from June tours, injury cover etc.
-
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
I can see that argument for outside the window games but that throws up the argument of whether there should be outside the window games. We already have the 6N and you guys have TRC then there are the summer tours for us and the EOYTs for you guys. In between that we all have to fit in the domestic demands which are the lifeblood of future talent, then you have the RWC every four years and in between the Lions tours. We don't need more international rugby.
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the current system is as good as it could but as it stands there does not seem to be a fairer alternative. If there is I would be happy to hear it.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
That is one issue. The idea of revenue sharing generally is another issue. If we're talking about gate revenue only then you have to make a comparison between, certainly the tier 1 sides. How much is the gate at say Eden Park with its 50,000 capacity or Westpac with its 30,000 capacity? How does that compare to Twickenham with its 83,000 capacity? So the idea is we build the stadium and fill it (Not just for NZ remember but also for Aus, SA, Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, Argentina, Italy - Italy ffs), share that with NZ and then we go over and get a share of a 30K gate. So that means the RFU is helping bankroll the NZRU. Maybe we get a say in selection on the back of it. And please don't tell me that revenue sharing for NZ is anything about benefitting the worldwide game, that is for the benefit of the NZRU.
You're right that if the hosts don't play anyone then no-one makes anything, but then again if NZ only play for money and no-one wants to pay them then what?
BTW I would estimate the gate revenue at Twickenham to be between £6 and £7M rather than the bum be-smirched £50M. this based on a ticket price of £75 x 83,000. Many tickets will be cheaper but there are also the boxes which would be dearer, but somewhere in that ball park I'd say.
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
I can see that argument for outside the window games but that throws up the argument of whether there should be outside the window games. We already have the 6N and you guys have TRC then there are the summer tours for us and the EOYTs for you guys. In between that we all have to fit in the domestic demands which are the lifeblood of future talent, then you have the RWC every four years and in between the Lions tours. We don't need more international rugby.
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the current system is as good as it could but as it stands there does not seem to be a fairer alternative. If there is I would be happy to hear it.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
That is one issue. The idea of revenue sharing generally is another issue. If we're talking about gate revenue only then you have to make a comparison between, certainly the tier 1 sides. How much is the gate at say Eden Park with its 50,000 capacity or Westpac with its 30,000 capacity? How does that compare to Twickenham with its 83,000 capacity? So the idea is we build the stadium and fill it (Not just for NZ remember but also for Aus, SA, Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, Argentina, Italy - Italy ffs), share that with NZ and then we go over and get a share of a 30K gate. So that means the RFU is helping bankroll the NZRU. Maybe we get a say in selection on the back of it. And please don't tell me that revenue sharing for NZ is anything about benefitting the worldwide game, that is for the benefit of the NZRU.
You're right that if the hosts don't play anyone then no-one makes anything, but then again if NZ only play for money and no-one wants to pay them then what?
BTW I would estimate the gate revenue at Twickenham to be between £6 and £7M rather than the bum be-smirched £50M. this based on a ticket price of £75 x 83,000. Many tickets will be cheaper but there are also the boxes which would be dearer, but somewhere in that ball park I'd say.
I'm not saying NZ taking this stance purely altruistically but it will result in better funding of the game worldwide.
Equally I can see why England would resist it.
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
I can see that argument for outside the window games but that throws up the argument of whether there should be outside the window games. We already have the 6N and you guys have TRC then there are the summer tours for us and the EOYTs for you guys. In between that we all have to fit in the domestic demands which are the lifeblood of future talent, then you have the RWC every four years and in between the Lions tours. We don't need more international rugby.
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the current system is as good as it could but as it stands there does not seem to be a fairer alternative. If there is I would be happy to hear it.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
Dead right, can't pay these chaps too much, never know what they'll spend it on.
@Frye said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
I can see that argument for outside the window games but that throws up the argument of whether there should be outside the window games. We already have the 6N and you guys have TRC then there are the summer tours for us and the EOYTs for you guys. In between that we all have to fit in the domestic demands which are the lifeblood of future talent, then you have the RWC every four years and in between the Lions tours. We don't need more international rugby.
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the current system is as good as it could but as it stands there does not seem to be a fairer alternative. If there is I would be happy to hear it.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
Dead right, can't pay these chaps too much, never know what they'll spend it on.
Please don't try to pull the race card on this. There have been quite e few discussions on The Fern that have touched upon corruption in the PI unions, most notably Fiji, so do a bit of research before laying that one on me.
-
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
I can see that argument for outside the window games but that throws up the argument of whether there should be outside the window games. We already have the 6N and you guys have TRC then there are the summer tours for us and the EOYTs for you guys. In between that we all have to fit in the domestic demands which are the lifeblood of future talent, then you have the RWC every four years and in between the Lions tours. We don't need more international rugby.
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the current system is as good as it could but as it stands there does not seem to be a fairer alternative. If there is I would be happy to hear it.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
That is one issue. The idea of revenue sharing generally is another issue. If we're talking about gate revenue only then you have to make a comparison between, certainly the tier 1 sides. How much is the gate at say Eden Park with its 50,000 capacity or Westpac with its 30,000 capacity? How does that compare to Twickenham with its 83,000 capacity? So the idea is we build the stadium and fill it (Not just for NZ remember but also for Aus, SA, Ireland, Wales, France, Scotland, Argentina, Italy - Italy ffs), share that with NZ and then we go over and get a share of a 30K gate. So that means the RFU is helping bankroll the NZRU. Maybe we get a say in selection on the back of it. And please don't tell me that revenue sharing for NZ is anything about benefitting the worldwide game, that is for the benefit of the NZRU.
You're right that if the hosts don't play anyone then no-one makes anything, but then again if NZ only play for money and no-one wants to pay them then what?
BTW I would estimate the gate revenue at Twickenham to be between £6 and £7M rather than the bum be-smirched £50M. this based on a ticket price of £75 x 83,000. Many tickets will be cheaper but there are also the boxes which would be dearer, but somewhere in that ball park I'd say.
I'm not saying NZ taking this stance purely altruistically but it will result in better funding of the game worldwide.
Equally I can see why England would resist it.
@booboo Revenue sharing would obviously help the Samoas and Fijis except that it would likely lead to the Tier1 unions thinking "Fuck that, we're not going to play them, it'll cost us a bindle and we'll get fuck all back on a reciprocal match".
So much for growing the game and helping out the "lesser" nations.
And yes, we can all see why England would resist it, we make a lot of money (relatively), why should we want to share it? Please, give me a good reason.
A question or two here. What is the arrangement for both in window and out of window matches between SANZAR nations? What is the arrangement between NZ and Scotland and Italy?
-
@booboo Revenue sharing would obviously help the Samoas and Fijis except that it would likely lead to the Tier1 unions thinking "Fuck that, we're not going to play them, it'll cost us a bindle and we'll get fuck all back on a reciprocal match".
So much for growing the game and helping out the "lesser" nations.
And yes, we can all see why England would resist it, we make a lot of money (relatively), why should we want to share it? Please, give me a good reason.
A question or two here. What is the arrangement for both in window and out of window matches between SANZAR nations? What is the arrangement between NZ and Scotland and Italy?
@Catogrande I think the only out of window matches we have had were v Aus on neutral ground, so was purely money generators.
-
There's some funny stuff being written in the UK press about this. One Telegraph writer mentioned how not many England players would make a combined team except
Itoje
Billy Vunipola
Daly
FarrellWTF?
OK , even if you put aside the need for different skillsets and were a selector picking solely on playing ability to make a team to play in your own style I can't see these guys making the XV.
Itoje does not make it in as a lock over Whitelock and BBBR but would make the 23 as a lock/6 bencher
Billy V? Again a bench player only if you are playing an expansive game but if you plan to be more direct he could start
Daly? get of the grass. nowhere near the 23 even
Farrell? About on a par with Crotty but could possibly squeeze in on goalkicking duty.I think Jamie George could make the bench as reserve hooker and you can certainly look at Mako V at prop. The locks are good squad members but with Itoje on the bench aren't needed.
Jonathon Joseph is the only other one that would get a strong sniff of a jersey at 13.@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
There's some funny stuff being written in the UK press about this. One Telegraph writer mentioned how not many England players would make a combined team except
Itoje
Billy Vunipola
Daly
FarrellWTF?
OK , even if you put aside the need for different skillsets and were a selector picking solely on playing ability to make a team to play in your own style I can't see these guys making the XV.
Itoje does not make it in as a lock over Whitelock and BBBR but would make the 23 as a lock/6 bencher
Billy V? Again a bench player only if you are playing an expansive game but if you plan to be more direct he could start
Daly? get of the grass. nowhere near the 23 even
Farrell? About on a par with Crotty but could possibly squeeze in on goalkicking duty.I think Jamie George could make the bench as reserve hooker and you can certainly look at Mako V at prop. The locks are good squad members but with Itoje on the bench aren't needed.
Jonathon Joseph is the only other one that would get a strong sniff of a jersey at 13.Dunn of i I agree with that.
Itoje would be 6 for sure.
I'd take Farrell over any NZ centre. The guy is utter class and has a MASSIVE all around skill set. He'll probably be the first name on the team sheet for the Lions.
-
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
There's some funny stuff being written in the UK press about this. One Telegraph writer mentioned how not many England players would make a combined team except
Itoje
Billy Vunipola
Daly
FarrellWTF?
OK , even if you put aside the need for different skillsets and were a selector picking solely on playing ability to make a team to play in your own style I can't see these guys making the XV.
Itoje does not make it in as a lock over Whitelock and BBBR but would make the 23 as a lock/6 bencher
Billy V? Again a bench player only if you are playing an expansive game but if you plan to be more direct he could start
Daly? get of the grass. nowhere near the 23 even
Farrell? About on a par with Crotty but could possibly squeeze in on goalkicking duty.I think Jamie George could make the bench as reserve hooker and you can certainly look at Mako V at prop. The locks are good squad members but with Itoje on the bench aren't needed.
Jonathon Joseph is the only other one that would get a strong sniff of a jersey at 13.Dunn of i I agree with that.
Itoje would be 6 for sure.
I'd take Farrell over any NZ centre. The guy is utter class and has a MASSIVE all around skill set. He'll probably be the first name on the team sheet for the Lions.
@MajorRage Agree strongly on Farrell Jr. Strong defender and very good distributor (as you'd expect of a bloke who plays 10). He also has the benefit of being metronome-like in his kicking.
-
-
@taniwharugby said in England V All Blacks:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11820978
Just read that before, what a bunch of fluffybunnies
Can't wait to they lose a few games and turn back on themselves again -
@taniwharugby said in England V All Blacks:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11820978
Just read that before, what a bunch of fluffybunnies
Can't wait to they lose a few games and turn back on themselves again"However, Ritchie is believed to have countered by stating that there is a meeting of the RFU's board next week and that, as the national governing body, they may now refuse approval for the match to take place within their jurisdiction. This stance indicates the union's willingness to adopt ultra-aggressive negotiating tactics, in order to force the issue."
Had wondered about that. Wondered if teams could just organise games at Wembley or Olympic Stadium - for a hiring fee to the stadium owners, bypassing RFU.
-
Reminds me of how my 6 year old daughter acts, if you dont play with her the way she wants then she takes her toys away.
-
"However, Ritchie is believed to have countered by stating that there is a meeting of the RFU's board next week and that, as the national governing body, they may now refuse approval for the match to take place within their jurisdiction. This stance indicates the union's willingness to adopt ultra-aggressive negotiating tactics, in order to force the issue."
Had wondered about that. Wondered if teams could just organise games at Wembley or Olympic Stadium - for a hiring fee to the stadium owners, bypassing RFU.
@Rapido said in England V All Blacks:
"However, Ritchie is believed to have countered by stating that there is a meeting of the RFU's board next week and that, as the national governing body, they may now refuse approval for the match to take place within their jurisdiction. This stance indicates the union's willingness to adopt ultra-aggressive negotiating tactics, in order to force the issue."
Had wondered about that. Wondered if teams could just organise games at Wembley or Olympic Stadium - for a hiring fee to the stadium owners, bypassing RFU.
I bet Steve Tew was on the phone to Wembley right away. Or whatever they call Cardiff now.
Olympic Park has been turned into a football stadium. -
Hmm. The NZH and the Daily Mail. Hmmm.
-
@Frye said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
I can see that argument for outside the window games but that throws up the argument of whether there should be outside the window games. We already have the 6N and you guys have TRC then there are the summer tours for us and the EOYTs for you guys. In between that we all have to fit in the domestic demands which are the lifeblood of future talent, then you have the RWC every four years and in between the Lions tours. We don't need more international rugby.
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the current system is as good as it could but as it stands there does not seem to be a fairer alternative. If there is I would be happy to hear it.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
Dead right, can't pay these chaps too much, never know what they'll spend it on.
Please don't try to pull the race card on this. There have been quite e few discussions on The Fern that have touched upon corruption in the PI unions, most notably Fiji, so do a bit of research before laying that one on me.
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Frye said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
@MiketheSnow said in England V All Blacks:
@booboo said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
@gollum said in England V All Blacks:
@Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:
I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.
From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.
Whats not to like?
The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing
What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.
And theres the crux of it.
NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.
Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?
Maybe because the host nation built the stadium, does all the marketing, pays all the operational costs, and assumes all the risk.
Shouldn't receive 100% but no way should the hosts only receive 50% either.
That's one argument but when you are talking about a game outside of the schedule it becomes just like a concert. The band promoter (NZRU) is saying 'yes my band can come and play at your venue but this is the cost'. I guess that NZ are saying that if they rented a venue and paid the costs they would net 50% so that's what they want.
I can see that argument for outside the window games but that throws up the argument of whether there should be outside the window games. We already have the 6N and you guys have TRC then there are the summer tours for us and the EOYTs for you guys. In between that we all have to fit in the domestic demands which are the lifeblood of future talent, then you have the RWC every four years and in between the Lions tours. We don't need more international rugby.
Inside the window games and revenue sharing is a whole different can of worms. Why should any of the home nations or France agree to revenue sharing when the reciprocal share from a game in NZ would be so much smaller? Because NZ is a draw card? Not a valid argument when we all fill our stadia for pretty much all of the games we have anyway.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the current system is as good as it could but as it stands there does not seem to be a fairer alternative. If there is I would be happy to hear it.
Because they should share revenue with opposition so that there remains opposition.
What did Fiji get from England game last year? 150k?
Why can't there be a more equitable split of profits (that is reciprocated for all hosts) so that the game worldwide benefits?
If host DON'T play anyone nobody makes anything. Fiji turns up and plays and make 150k, England make 50m*. Something is not right there.
- number pulled from bum
At tier 1 level there will almost certainly always be opposition, revenue sharing or not. In regard to the much poorer unions like Fiji I wholeheartedly agree that there must be solid financial encouragement and I also agree that £150K was a derisory amount but the flip side of that coin is where would any extra money go? The Fijian players? The grassroots of rugby in Fiji? Improving the rugby infrastructure in Fiji? Into the back pockets of the administrators? It's a piss-poor situation and needs to be addressed but that is not something the RFU can do unilaterally.
Dead right, can't pay these chaps too much, never know what they'll spend it on.
Please don't try to pull the race card on this. There have been quite e few discussions on The Fern that have touched upon corruption in the PI unions, most notably Fiji, so do a bit of research before laying that one on me.
I think it's a little condescending to be honest. Potential for corruption is not something the RFU should concern themselves with. Let's just put whatever the fee was down to market forces and leave it at that.
-
Is sharing a record with England any better then losing it to them?
