England V All Blacks
-
-
@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.
-
"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.
-
@Virgil said in England V All Blacks:
Is sharing a record with England any better then losing it to them?
All seriousness, I think it adds to the intrigue of when we play them next year, especially if England can maintain a high level of success until then.
-
Had to laugh at the comments that it was the pressure of back to back Grand Slams that got to them.
Lucky they didn't have the pressure of RWC knockout games in their run then considering the pressure of the pool games was too much.@Crucial look at how well we had been playing then had that 18th at EP, against a struggling Wallaby team, the pressure is real.
They can talk about how it isn't a focus or they hadn't spoken about it, but it will affect them, and let's not forget most of the abs had failed against Aus the last time the record was on the line
Without talking about how we approached the Chicago test.
-
Hats off to the Irish. You really do have to applaud them for their some of their recent feats.
-
Aaaand it's off.
