Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
McAlister to Leicester?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Prestwick" data-source="post: 93621"><p>Well you're sort of right, the only reason the All Blacks have this rule is because of money. Nothing else. Keeping top flight players in the country means you're directly making profit so that you can continue to produce top shelf players and continue making money. There just isn't enough dough in NZ to compete with the salaries that are offered in the NH, so you need to find some incentive to keep these elite athletes in the country.</p><p>[/b]</p></blockquote><p></p><p>That argument is true to a degree, but its about how you develop the game and expanding it's profitability that helps as well. When New Zealand negotiated that exclusive dual sponsorship and kit deal with Adidas, no such deal of such a scale had ever been negotiated in either Union or League before. </p><p></p><p>Lets not kid ourselves here. They can only keep saying "we're just a small country, we can't afford anything" for so long before people start saying in reply "well, why don't you do something about it?</p><p></p><p>If you believe the doom sayers about New Zealand, you'd think that Scotland capitalises on it's players and commercial interests more efficiently! However, in the end, its all how you work expand the game and thus your profits. </p><p></p><p>After all, everyone knows that when the yanks finally get into the swing of things with rugby, they'll be the best on the planet on market capitalisation in Rugby and making the most money, dwarfing whatever the RFU makes easily.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Prestwick, post: 93621"] Well you're sort of right, the only reason the All Blacks have this rule is because of money. Nothing else. Keeping top flight players in the country means you're directly making profit so that you can continue to produce top shelf players and continue making money. There just isn't enough dough in NZ to compete with the salaries that are offered in the NH, so you need to find some incentive to keep these elite athletes in the country. [/b][/quote] That argument is true to a degree, but its about how you develop the game and expanding it's profitability that helps as well. When New Zealand negotiated that exclusive dual sponsorship and kit deal with Adidas, no such deal of such a scale had ever been negotiated in either Union or League before. Lets not kid ourselves here. They can only keep saying "we're just a small country, we can't afford anything" for so long before people start saying in reply "well, why don't you do something about it? If you believe the doom sayers about New Zealand, you'd think that Scotland capitalises on it's players and commercial interests more efficiently! However, in the end, its all how you work expand the game and thus your profits. After all, everyone knows that when the yanks finally get into the swing of things with rugby, they'll be the best on the planet on market capitalisation in Rugby and making the most money, dwarfing whatever the RFU makes easily. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
McAlister to Leicester?
Top