'Go build a stadium': England rugby boss snubs All Blacks plea over Twickenham

[Peat]

You think this is a productive way to do business?

Its working for them so far.


p.s. On the difference between us touring them and them touring us, we pretty much never play out of window when down there. I'm pretty sure its customary for the touring team to get a cut of the profits on an out of window game - I mean, think about it. No one's going to turn up to an out of window game out of the goodness of their hearts. Someone correct me if wrong but fairly sure that's how it works.

So its not like them asking for money is a shock. Merely the amount.

p.p.s. All this talk of our game being more profitable because of all the investment we put in is, uh, generous. They've got 4.4somethingm people. We've got 53m. 1 GBP = 1.79 NZD. Pretty easy to work out which country is going to generate the most money. Not sure where the pride in having greater natural resources is.

p.p.p.s. Lions get pretty much dirt from the SH countries and bluntly next time the schedule is up for talks that should change or we walk. We made 4m between 4 nations for what is a substantial dislocation. The Aussies made AUSD35m. The cold logic of the NZRFU does suggest the Lions should either end or get more. I don't really support all this economic warfare balls but I don't think the RFU should hesitate to hold that hostage if needs be. Unfortunately, I'm guessing a lot of blazers get great trips out of it, so no dice there.

 

[Immenso]

Why hasn't Ritchie counter-offered with 26% for an out-of-window test?

Why has negotiations stalling at I say 25% , you say 50% , an example of arrogance on one side and not the other?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Its working for them so far.


p.s. On the difference between us touring them and them touring us, we pretty much never play out of window when down there. I'm pretty sure its customary for the touring team to get a cut of the profits on an out of window game - I mean, think about it. No one's going to turn up to an out of window game out of the goodness of their hearts. Someone correct me if wrong but fairly sure that's how it works.

So its not like them asking for money is a shock. Merely the amount.

p.p.s. All this talk of our game being more profitable because of all the investment we put in is, uh, generous. They've got 4.4somethingm people. We've got 53m. 1 GBP = 1.79 NZD. Pretty easy to work out which country is going to generate the most money. Not sure where the pride in having greater natural resources is.

And our way is working for us. Also I'm not arguing they should get nothing, just not 50% of gate receipts. Yes our population is much larger but support for rugby in this country lags well behind other sports whilst in NZ it is THE national sport and strongly associated with the national identity. Very simple maths but if 1/20 English follow rugby and 1/2 New Zealanders do, the funding gap is much closer. That's assuming all other things being equal.

Found some numbers, don't know how reliable they are. England has 6.2 registered players per 1000 and NZ has 32.5 per 1000. RFU revenue was £207.9 million whilst NZRU revenue was £55 million. https://news.markets/comment/englands-rugby-riches-increasing-wheres-national-success-7136/ This highlights what I say, the disparity in incomes is not proportional to the population difference. Whilst lower, it's by no means non-existent. NZRU are roughly equivalent to the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Unions, all of whom have built larger capacity stadiums than NZ.

 

[Immenso]

We are not entitled to All Black games and you aren't entitled to 50% of the gate revenues, simple. The thing is, we aren't demanding the ABs come to England and play us whilst the ABs are demanding numerous NH unions give them 50% of the gate receipts for simply turning up to play. So England turns you down, what next? The ABs are also making the same demands of Wales and will just keep demanding until they get someone who concedes. You think this is a productive way to do business? Make demands until you find a situation where the power imbalance is enough that they will roll over

Your use of the word 'demand' is coming over shrill, the red mist is making you see things that aren't there.

The NZRU aren't demanding they play in your stadium and receive 50% for the ABs just turning up.
The ERU aren't demanding 75% for the NZRU to send the ABs to play.

As to the "what next" if ERU turn them down? I think that's pretty obvious. The answer is Chicago, Tokyo, Hong Kong like recent years, or Dublin or Cardiff.

Hell the provocative choice would be Wembley, but that would actually be arrogant and un-diplomatic.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Your use of the word 'demand' is coming over shrill, the red mist is making you see things that aren't there.

The NZRU aren't demanding they play in your stadium and receive 50% for the ABs just turning up.
The ERU aren't demanding 75% for the NZRU to send the ABs to play.

As to the "what next" if ERU turn them down? I think that's pretty obvious. The answer is Chicago, Tokyo, Hong Kong like recent years, or Dublin or Cardiff.

Hell the provocative choice would be Wembley, but that would actually be arrogant and I'm-diplomatic.

Cardiff? Unlikely, the ABs have been saying exactly the same things to the Welsh and are getting a similar response! Also there is no ERU, it's the RFU. I'm yet to see anyone show how the NH benefits beyond simply playing the ABs... As it stands, teams playing England outside the window do get a share and what has happened is the ABs have asked for a share bigger than anyone else gets.

 

[Immenso]

Cardiff? Unlikely, the ABs have been saying exactly the same things to the Welsh and are getting a similar response! Also there is no ERU, it's the RFU. I'm yet to see anyone show how the NH benefits beyond simply playing the ABs... As it stands, teams playing England outside the window do get a share and what has happened is the ABs have asked for a share bigger than anyone else gets.

Yes they get a share 25%. Maybe other teams will follow suit at expect more than 25%, maybe WRU CEO will be less 'arrogant' and 'demanding' and will counter-offer at a level NZRU accept.

Maybe NZRU will suggest they play Wales at New York or Hong Kong? Or Auckland?

Lots of maybes. Getting so red hot over mutually beneficial negotiations stalling or failing at the first hurdle in a world full of maybes is just weird.

Maybe nothing happens, we get all mercantile - and RFU are ok with not enriching NZRU and NZRU happy not to enrich the RFU.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yes they get a share 25%. Maybe other teams will follow suit at expect more than 25%, maybe WRU CEO will be less 'arrogant' and 'demanding' and will counter-offer at a level NZRU accept.

Maybe NZRU will suggest they play Wales at New York or Hong Kong? Or Auckland?

Lots of maybes. Getting so red hot over mutually beneficial negotiations stalling or failing at the first hurdle in a world full of maybes is just weird.

Maybe nothing happens, we get all mercantile - and RFU are ok with not enriching NZRU and NZRU happy not to enrich the RFU.

Do you know what that means? Where exactly is the RFU getting any benefit in these negotiations? It is NZ saying give us more for the same and the RFU turning around and saying no, we will pay the same for the same. The negotiations are between NZ getting a share of the revenue same as anyone else or NZ getting a much larger share of the revenue but offering nothing in return. If you say you want more and offer nothing in return whilst simultaneously threatening a withdrawl if you don't get your way, that is a demand. At the moment it looks like the WRU CEO is on the same side as the RFU boss.

And STILL nobody has said, where is this supposed huge beneficial arrangement the NH has over the SH?

 

[Immenso]

And STILL nobody has said, where is this supposed huge beneficial arrangement the NH has over the SH?

not sure what you're asking here, not a point I have made - but if I was to presume to answer it is - Do the NH sides stay on after June to play an extra test in July at Ellis Park, Eden Park, Homebush for a 25% share?
No.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know what that means? Where exactly is the RFU getting any benefit in these negotiations? It is NZ saying give us more for the same and the RFU turning around and saying no, we will pay the same for the same. The negotiations are between NZ getting a share of the revenue same as anyone else or NZ getting a much larger share of the revenue but offering nothing in return. If you say you want more and offer nothing in return whilst simultaneously threatening a withdrawl if you don't get your way, that is a demand. At the moment it looks like the WRU CEO is on the same side as the RFU boss.

It is mutually beneficial as it is a game neither are obligated to play, both do it to make extra money in a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If RFU can negotiate 25% fee for other willing participants, then no problem. They can go forward with a mutually beneficial arrangement with another partner where mutuality is tilted 75% in their favour.

If NZRU can get a 50% equivalent elsewhere then no problem.

If neither can't, they will come back with a counter offer.

No demands, no arrogance, and I'd suggest no red mist.

 

[ncurd]

Question: How is it decided who plays who in a test window? And the revenue share on those games?

Whilst I do understand NZs right to demand more money for out of window test. I'm mostly concerned this is over to 2017 AIs and we didn't play them this year. What I don't like is possibility NZ are refusing to play us in window so they can extort more money out of window.

Someone said we don't have a right to out of window games which is true but we do have a right to.in window games.


Side note: Lions money do the Rugby Unions see any of that money or is it just the Lions? Because from Richie's perspective there a difference if the RFU see none of it.

 

[saulan]

Whilst I do understand NZs right to demand more money for out of window test. I'm mostly concerned this is over to 2017 AIs and we didn't play them this year. What I don't like is possibility NZ are refusing to play us in window so they can extort more money out of window.

Someone said we don't have a right to out of window games which is true but we do have a right to.in window games.

I think this argument is a conspiracy theory. Their schedule is full up for the EOYT. England are the ones missing out playing them this year. From an SA perspective, Scotland aren't playing us at all this year. It doesn't have to do with having anything against Scotland or trying to get more money from them, it's just how the negotiations ended up.

England have a right of in window games and they have four of those lined up. There is no right to play the All Blacks in that window.

In all honesty, I don't really get this fallout from RFU. You wanted to play them, they made an offer, the next step is to make another offer and stay at the negotiating table. If it doesn't work out, don't say anything about it in the media. What is the point in publicly damaging relations with the New Zealand's rugby union?

 

[ncurd]

I think this argument is a conspiracy theory. Their schedule is full up for the EOYT. England are the ones missing out playing them this year.

It's not an argument it's a question to how the in-window fixture are decided.

Yes we are missing out on playing them this year (2016) fair enough but this is negotiations over next year (2017). I wonder how we miss out two years in row....

 

[saulan]

It's not an argument it's a question to how the in-window fixture are decided.

Yes we are missing out on playing them this year (2016) fair enough but this is negotiations over next year (2017). I wonder how we miss out two years in row....

I must have missed that, because I was under the understanding that this is all 2016 related. I just tried to look it up and I couldn't see any fixtures for next year's eoyt. Last year the fixtures only got announced at the start of December. Can you provide any sources on it? Have England already confirmed their matches for the 2017 eoyt?

 

[ncurd]

I must have missed that, because I was under the understanding that this is all 2016 related. I just tried to look it up and I couldn't see any fixtures for next year's eoyt. Last year the fixtures only got announced at the start of December. Can you provide any sources on it? Have England already confirmed their matches for the 2017 eoyt?

In previous thread this has been about negotiations for 2017 games and playing and out of window fixture. I know the 2017 fixture have not been finalised/announced but I can't imagine we are doing this and having a public spat over a second game.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Rage rancher, calm down, there is no need for your borderline racist labelling, this isn't even about rugby or countries mate, it's about marketing and profits, from blokes who know bugger all about the game except the gate takings, sponsorship and tv money. Have a go at the individuals not the countries or the teams.

England are the big earner. They have the stadia, the population and the player base. They have the biggest earning capacity in world rugby by a fair distance. Nobody can compete with that now of for the foreseeable future.

The All Blacks are the hottest brand on the market and thats been the case for a long time.

Some bigwigs at the AB end are pushing for more money?
Some bigwigs at the England are pushing to keep the money down.
Old news.
So the AB's may not play somewhere for a while to increase the exclusivity of the brand and increase potential market demand.
So the powers that be that control the purse strings will hold out on paying the extra to get them into a game.
In the meantime both parties cause the fans (us) to miss out on the games we would like to see.
Nothing new here.

My key concern here has nothing to do with marketing and revenue.
It has everything to do with this statement from Mr Ritchie...
"The Six Nations and the autumn internationals are important bedrocks, so we don't anticipate change there."

No All Blacks at Twickenham is hardly the end of the world but it's a small shame in rugby terms the teams won't meet for a long old time. For me, it's disappointing that England are not on the itinerary because they are a world power, whether they are running hot or at a low ebb, like the Japies and the Wobblies England are a world power and they demand attention. Not having them on the itinerary makes for a poorer fare at the table. I still enjoy the AB's playing any team on the list but it would be a little more attractive if the Poms were on the menu as well.
However with no change to the AI series and no upgrading of the old tournament for the 6 Nations, I can see this holding back NH development and letting the SH teams either catch up (where applicable) or advance ahead.

 

[saulan]

In previous thread this has been about negotiations for 2017 games and playing and out of window fixture. I know the 2017 fixture have not been finalised/announced but I can't imagine we are doing this and having a public spat over a second game.

Apologies, my understanding was that this was all negotiations for a game in 2016, not 2017.

 

[smartcooky]

Question: How is it decided who plays who in a test window?

WR makes up the schedules

And the revenue share on those games?

There is no revenue sharing in those games.

Whilst I do understand NZs right to demand more money for out of window test. I'm mostly concerned this is over to 2017 AIs and we didn't play them this year. What I don't like is possibility NZ are refusing to play us in window so they can extort more money out of window.

Someone said we don't have a right to out of window games which is true but we do have a right to.in window games.

That wont happen (as I said earlier, WR makes up the schedules)

There are six nations in Tier 1 in Europe, the Four Home Unions, France and Italy. There are only three in-window Tests in the NH autumn, so on average, we would expect to play each team every two years, except that the RWC gets in the way with no NH Autumn international in that year so it can skip a year..

If you look at how often NZ have played England, in-window and out of window, in England over the last few years....

RWC 15
Sat, 08 Nov 2014
Sat, 16 Nov 2013
Sat, 01 Dec 2012
RWC 11
Sat, 06 Nov 2010
Sat, 21 Nov 2009
Sat, 29 Nov 2008
RWC 07
Sun, 05 Nov 2006
Sat, 19 Nov 2005
RWC 03
Sat, 09 Nov 2002

..... 2017 seems like a reasonable time for an out of window test, with the next in window test in 2018


* * * * *

I find the some of the responses in this thread laughable

The NZRU want to negotiate for a better deal out of the out of window tests = the NZRU is arrogant
The RFU refuses = the NZRU is arrogant
Richie jumps up and down and acts like a schoolboy having a tantrum = the NZRU is arrogant

It seems that negotiation between the RFU and the NZRU is fine, just so long as the RFU gets everything it wants and doesn't have to make any compromises

Someone made a comment before about shrill and the red mist - I tend to agree!

Could be wrong but didn't the SH push for the pro sport.

Not quite!

Anyone who thinks the game was not professional in the NH before 1996 is naive. Since before the inaugural RWC in 1987, players were being paid either under the table or via a workaround with book writing deals and promotional front companies.

The fundamental difference between SH and NH as far as the beginning of professionalism goes is is quite simple. The SH went into it unwillingly, but knowing that it was inevitable, they made sure that they got the best outcome they could to keep the National Unions in control of the game. In the meantime, the NH Unions, especially the RFU, had to be dragged into it kicking and screaming.

As far as professionalism goes, the RFU really dropped the ball. They had more financial clout than any other National Union in the world, probably more than the next half dozen unions combined. They could easily have bought and contracted all the top players in England and then sub-contracted them out to the Clubs; if the NZRU could contract their top 150 players, the RFU could certainly have contracted their top 500. But the useless, Gin-swilling old school tie codgers that ran the RFU (Will Carling correctly referred to them as the "57 Old Farts") chose to remain in complete denial and acted like a bunch of ostriches; hoping that professionalism would all just go away. The NZRU, ARU and SARU realised they were under threat from the WRC (World Rugby Corporation) run by Kerry Packer. Luckily for us, one man had the vision to see and understand the threat and the skill to do something about it - Jock Hobbs. He has been rightly hailed as "The man who saved NZ rugby".

So, while Jock Hobs was saving the game in the South, and while the 57 Old Farts sat on their hands in the North, the Clubs moved, contracted the players and effectively swiped the game out from under the NH unions' noses. The current mess is the result.

NOTE: Read "The Rugby War" by Peter Fitzsimons.... it tells the whole story, and its a compelling read for anyone interested in the history of the modern game

 

[Peat]

It's not an argument it's a question to how the in-window fixture are decided.

Yes we are missing out on playing them this year (2016) fair enough but this is negotiations over next year (2017). I wonder how we miss out two years in row....

Possibly WR organised things this way after we played them six times 2012-2014.


Mind you - after all the blood and thunder is done - I don't know how the logistics and realities of it would work, but its not the worst advice the All Blacks have ever had. Going by wiki, if every game this year had been played in Eden Park, that's another 55k tickets sold. If NZ had a 60k seater stadium which they were always filling, that's another 120k tickets on top of that. We're talking about 2m a year, probably a little under, that they could be getting, not counting extra food/in stadium sponsorship sales. Now I don't know how much a 60k seater stadium in Auckland would cost and how much it would bite for NZ to pretty much only ever play in Auckland again but it looks appealing.

That said, I'm gonna guess the NZRFU have considered that one a couple of times what with it being, like, you know, their job. They probably even had fancy coloured pie charts when they did it! So I'm guessing it's a non-goer for the moment for whatever reason.


Besides, to go back to the blood and thunder, lets say they do that... how does the conversation next time they speak go?

a) "Oh thank you most wise of the English princes, our increased financial might means we have no need for your money. Please let us play at your Twickenham out of window, we'd be ever so grateful".

b) "Yeah, we're still making 50pc of Twickenham on out of window games, you interested or not?"

You'll probably all guess from the sarcasm that I don't think its A...

 

[Immenso]

A national stadium in Auckland hosting every test wouldn't work for the NZRU from an internal politics pov. Financially I doubt the prices would be sustained if your are rely on basically the same pool of Aucklanders to make up that 60k 5 times a year rather than the current 48k 2 times a year, scarcity value and all that.

NZ basically had a chance just 10 years ago to build a 60k stadium in Auckand for the 2011 World Cup, consensus was it would be a white elephant so went with 48k upgrade with temporary seats. NZ just isn't a big sports attending country.

On the direct ownership of stadiums - Rugby union in NZ has gone the opposite way. The major grounds all used to be owned by the provincial Union of that city, or a trust of both the local rugby union and cricket association (Eden Park still has this structure, all the others are now municipal owned)

 

[smartcooky]

Immenso

You may not be aware that Canterbury never owned Jade/AMI stadium. That was owned by the Victory Park Board

 

[nzlizard]

Don't see what the fuss is about.

If you want an out of calendar game the AB's want a certain % of takings for that, if England don't want to pay it then fine. lets all move on and not worry about the game. Not a big deal at the end of the day.

As for the comment about NZ players playing in the NH, no dramas either, they are simply offered a **** load of money and choose to accept, nothing us NZ fans should be getting upset about.

Really see this as a non issue.