• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

If the Lions finish the series as losing 3-0....

LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)

G.O.A.T
TRF Legend
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Messages
25,465
Country Flag
Ireland
Club or Nation
Leicester
Especially if they are big loses, could that spell the end of the concept?
I could certainly see the tour changing and getting rid of the midweek games.
But is the tour in general at risk?

I know Tigers CEO isn't a fan of the lions tour and he isn't the only one in the PRL who thinks it shouldn't
1) be happening in modern rugby era.
2) Be as long as it is.

Personally i love the lions tour but outside the 2009 SA series i just haven't felt a spark during the tour. Aus was alright but that was only because we won.

Just this whole tour since the first game v the NZ barbarians has felt flat.

And you have to think with the amount of rugby being played already is the Lions tour once every 4 years the best thing for the players and the game?
 
Format should change regardless. I love the tour, but it's not worth anyone's career. I don't think the results have much to do with that, but a single win would definitely delay the inevitable.
 
Format should change regardless. I love the tour, but it's not worth anyone's career. I don't think the results have much to do with that, but a single win would definitely delay the inevitable.

Yeh i can see it being a 6 game tour, 3 warm ups and 3 tests no mid week games.

I wonder if the Home Nations will try to get more of a slice of the Lions revenue pie. What is it £1 million for each union or something stupid compared to how much it is worth to the likes of the New Zealand, Aus and SA Unions.

I do find it funny that NZ fans think it is just the English who have a problem with it judging by the comments at the bottom of this article.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...e-test-could-decide-future-of-129year-crusade
 
Apparently the lions contract with South Africa is up at the end of this tour, so that could spell trouble.
 
The concept will survive as long as the players and fans want it to. IMO It will always appeal to a British and Irish players' ego to be a Lion and to be known as the best of the best of the B&I isles and to be part of its history. Lions fans will always be up for a Jolly to SA, Aus and NZ.

As for schedule - yes it will have to adapt and looks like mid week games will be cut. Problem with that is that it just does not give enough time to build a team, so it will suffer, so I hope after this series good preparation time and meaningful games can be found in the calendar. I would not be against the next tour being a tour of the Americas - 3 tests v Pumas, Jaguares, a couple of games v USA and Canada. That is doable and winnable in 2021.

Tigs - I know what you mean by this tour feeling a little flat, but I think the time difference doesn't help, being so early for the UK. As does the fact that the scale of task facing the Lions being so big, that it feels like a foregone conclusion what the result of the test series will be. But at least this time round the mid week games were competitive, which can't always be said four years ago or in SA.
 
Totally agree the number of games is silly. The modern game needs less games not more, but I'd like to see the lions be accommodated somehow.

I get the 'flat' feeling. I personally feel this is a combination of such low expectations of beating NZ, coupled with peoples perception of Gatland. I firmly believe that a coach of a national team should not be allowed to coach the Lions. Even if they have no bias (which i think is impossible), then people will still suspect some bias anyway.
 
There is a recurring theme of rugby fans from other countries getting skelped by the ABs and their Super Rugby teams and losing their enthusiasm for the sport. Be grateful you don't support Italy!

I know that isnt the main thrust of this thread but I don't think big decisions should be made in response to an unusual peak in NZ superiority. A peak that might easily not be here in five years time and likely won't be here in 12 years time when the Lions visit again.

If Aussie sides were competing with NZ then fans would be turning up. Similarly, if the Lions had picked their strongest 23 and NZ weren't as dominant I think we'd all be royally entertained.
 
Yeh i can see it being a 6 game tour, 3 warm ups and 3 tests no mid week games.

That has certainly been the trend. Just looking at the tours to NZ
1959: 35 matches (6 tests) (tour was to Australia & NZ, two of the tests v Australia)
1966: 33 matches (6 tests) (tour was to Australia & NZ, two of the tests v Australia)
1971: 26 matches (4 tests)
1977: 25 matches (4 tests)
1983: 18 matches (4 tests)
1993: 13 matches (3 tests)
2005: 11 matches (3 tests)
2017 9 matches (3 tests)

I wonder if the Home Nations will try to get more of a slice of the Lions revenue pie. What is it £1 million for each union or something stupid compared to how much it is worth to the likes of the New Zealand, Aus and SA Unions.

You almost answered your own question

The Home Unions get only £1m each, but they get it every four years
The Host Union gets around £3m, but only every 12 years.

The host nation does get the benefit of all the travelling fans coming to the host country and spending their £££


I do find it funny that NZ fans think it is just the English who have a problem with it judging by the comments at the bottom of this article.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...e-test-could-decide-future-of-129year-crusade

And for the most part, that is true. Its the PRL (the English professional rugby organization) that whinges about Lions tours more than any other rugby body, and its English media who are heard complaining about things the most.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the Lions tours were shorter. and I like the idea of a four week/seven match tour... four warm up matches, followed by three tests... for a NZ tour, something like this...

1. v Provincial Barbarians
2. v Super Rugby Champions (or top qualified SR team if a NZ isn't champion)
3. v NZ Maori
4. v NPC Champions
5. v New Zealand (1st test)
6. v New Zealand (2nd test)
7. v New Zealand (3rd test)

I would not like to see them disappear altogether and I'll bet there would not be this call to end them if the Lions had a winning record. I don't like seeing the traditions of the game stripped away because when that happens, the game loses something important, and it becomes just another run of the mill soulless professional sport, like wendyball.

If the problem is that Lions tours are hard on the players after a grueling NH domestic season, perhaps they are looking in the wrong place for a solution.
 
Last edited:
You almost answered your own question

The Home Unions get only £1m each, but they get it every four years
The Host Union gets around £3m, but only every 12 years.

The host nation does get the benefit of all the travelling fans coming to the host country and spending their £££

.


"We're in a tough financial situation. At ARU level we did in excess of $140m revenue in 2013 on the back of nine wonderful Lions matches. But that revenue will drop to about $100m this year and in 2015 it will fall further to about $80m because of the financial impact of the World Cup"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...ustralian-rugby-in-shadows-of-its-rival-codes

"After two years of losses, the 400,000 tickets on sale for the nine-match tour will raise the ARU's revenue by 45 per cent to A$140m."
https://www.ft.com/content/70fd6eaa-d316-11e2-aac2-00144feab7de?mhq5j=e1

So the ARU made a revenue of £82,662,777.72 of the lions tour.

I would not like to see them disappear altogether and I'll bet there would not be this call to end them if the Lions had a winning record. I don't like seeing the traditions of the game stripped away because when that happens, the game loses something important, and it becomes just another run of the mill soulless professional sport, like wendyball.

If the problem is that Lions tours are hard on the players after a grueling NH domestic season, perhaps they are looking in the wrong place for a solution.

Yeh if they are winning of course it wouldn't be a problem but they aren't.....

I don't want it to go completely but 2 big loses and i think there could be a real threat certainly the biggest threat to it in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
"We're in a tough financial situation. At ARU level we did in excess of $140m revenue in 2013 on the back of nine wonderful Lions matches. But that revenue will drop to about $100m this year and in 2015 it will fall further to about $80m because of the financial impact of the World Cup"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...ustralian-rugby-in-shadows-of-its-rival-codes

"After two years of losses, the 400,000 tickets on sale for the nine-match tour will raise the ARU's revenue by 45 per cent to A$140m."
https://www.ft.com/content/70fd6eaa-d316-11e2-aac2-00144feab7de?mhq5j=e1

So the ARU made a revenue of £82,662,777.72 of the lions tour.

I don't think your math is right

They made a total of A$140m during the year the Lions toured (2013)... that dropped to $100m in (2014) the following year (no Lions, no RWC) so the difference between a Lions year and a non-Lions year with no RWC is A$40m

At current exchange rates A$40m = £23m and they get that every 12 years (so £1.9m p.a.)

The four Home Unions get about £1m each per union, per tour. Three tours in 12 years, so that is 4 x 3; about £1m per year. Averaged out, the split is Lions £1m ARU £1.9m p.a. Yes is not an even share, but its nowhere as inequitable as you are claiming.

IMO this is a fair balancing of the revenues considering that the RWC costs the three SANZAAR unions a huge chunk of revenue through not being able to run a full Rugby Champion in RWC years... Six Nations does not have to face this problem.
 
i'd say a 90% difference in income is quite substantial

for world cup years i don't know why the rugby championship can't start during the mid year tests... the start of the championship is moved up a month anyway
 
I have also found this tour a bit flat, mainly because I have to watch a lot of rugby (which is great) to get to a test series which in all honesty if NZ bring their A or B game they'll put a minimum 15 points on the best we have to offer,could be a bit of an anti climax, I can't help but feel that England or Ireland would have a better go at NZ over 3 test's, Moving forward I'd think about extending it to maybe every 8 years so it is basically a once in a lifetime opportunity for a player.
 
I don't think it's moot either, you'd bank on Ireland and England winning in the same scenario, would expect it from Wales and Scotland could have nicked it too.

Gatland and the Lions haven't proved anything imo.

I think we'll get some perspective next week when the same/similar Lions team and tactics will likely have to face 15 ABs for the entire match.
 
The interest level in the tour has gone through the roof since the Lions won the 2nd test.
It has started appearing in newspapers that weren't showing any coverage.
People I haven't heard from in months and months are sending cheeky texts etc.
We all wanted a contest, at 1 a piece the excitement is building and not even Wimbledon coverage is blocking out the Lions profile.
 
How about adding a tour of Argentina into the mix so that the cycle is Argentina, (4 years later) Australia, (4 years later) new Zealand, (4 years later) South Africa cycle?
 

Latest posts

Top