NZRFU V RFU (Tews V Ritchie)

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Wow once a year

NZ play Aus 3 times a year.

Lol at comparing the two.

Domestic rugby supporters have a different mindset to national rugby supporters they tend to be more hardcore less casual tickets are usually cheaper aswell.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Don't nz and aus play each other three times a year?

 

[smartcooky]

Don't nz and aus play each other three times a year?

Wow once a year

NZ play Aus 3 times a year.

Lol at comparing the two.

Domestic rugby supporters have a different mindset to national rugby supporters they tend to be more hardcore less casual tickets are usually cheaper aswell.

Comprehension is not your strong suit is it? You could try reading what I replied to.

The argument was made that NZ playing Australia would get "old". I argue that it doesn't, and in support of that view, pointed out that your domestic comps have teams playing each other three, four, five or six times every season, and the fans seem quite happy with that.

And as for the argument about club fans having a different mindset? Well to put it bluntly, that's just BS. A rugby fan is a rugby fan, the same fans that go to domestic rugby go to test matches.

Better way of putting that is 'All Blacks wants Yanks to watch them in the USA' or 'All Blacks want Japanese to watch them in Japan'. Unions like USAR or JRFU have nothing remotely like the financial power to afford those prices NZRU ask of the RFU. They are only going there in the longer term hope that those markets open up for them in the future.

Which will be why Chicago and Denver competed against each other to host the All Blacks last year, and again for the match v Ireland this year.

Hang on, I thought you were implying they weren't interested... oops!

 

[Which Tyler]

Comprehension is not your strong suit is it? You could try reading what I replied to.

The argument was made that NZ playing Australia would get "old". I argue that it doesn't, and in support of that view, pointed out that your domestic comps have teams playing each other three, four, five or six times every season, and the fans seem quite happy with that.

And as for the argument about club fans having a different mindset? Well to put it bluntly, that's just BS. A rugby fan is a rugby fan, the same fans that go to domestic rugby go to test matches.

Charming, and hypocritical.

Didn't Aus and NZ play each other 4 times for a few years relatively recently? it got old and the mercenary 4th test was ditched (2008, 2009 and 2010 if you need to check). We have evidence for this.

You must be new to rugby (surprising for a ref) - there's a difference between the NH and the SH. If you think it's the same fans at tests as at clubs; could you please explain how there's no drop in club attendence when the internationals are being played? (And no, before you try; there's no drop in ticket prices either.) In the NH the fans who turn up to club matches rarely attend internationals, and the fans who attend internationals rarely attend club rugby matches. This may be an alien concept to you - but it's still the reality.

 

[ncurd]

When was the last time Bristol and Bath (look up how close they are on a map to get some idea of the level of rivalry) played a competitive match against each other? 2009? 4 matches more than make up for 7 years of no games, I'd be less excited about playing Leicester or Gloucester that many times this year.

And yeah nobody is making a decent argument to why NZ are in position to makes these demands of the RFU. This is a business negotiation after all and NZ want more than we give any other nation by quite some margin or we've given them before. Ticket prices don't increase at all compared to other top tier 1 nations so the RFU don't make significantly more money out of NZ over other nations. Sky might be able charge more for adverts during the match? But they aren't paying the RFU anymore for the TV rights of the matches. More specifically NZ don't reciprocate when we travel to them.

I fail to work out what NZ's position of negotiation actually is from a business PoV. The fans like us might want the match but most fans probably don't care enough whether we play that often and even if we don't play each other until the next world cup the revenue stream for RFU won't significantly increase enough from a lack of games to warrant accepting NZ's demands.

Like I say what from a business prospective (ie making money) does NZ actually bring to the negotiating table on this?

The RFU are not a charity for other nations.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I definitely get bored of playing a side X amount of times.
Think we played Worcester 5 times one season cause we had them in Europe and in the LV.
Just the way the draws work - I'm still looking forward to the euros vs Sarries but they don't hold as much glitter as the other games.

Interest for the England vs Wales game at the start of the summer was way lower than any six nations meeting.

 

[nickdnz]

I don't really care if we play England or not to be honest. I'd rather us play Georgia or Romania - than a fixture against England every year.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I don't really care if we play England or not to be honest. I'd rather us play Georgia or Romania - than a fixture against England every year.

But the point is your not going to anyway as the money isn't there.

I mean you don't play Samoa and Fiji who are right next door to you for that reason.

 

[Mumbles119]

I am bit confused about why people are getting a bit precious on here about this. After reading up more on this elsewhere, my understanding was the RFU approached NZ about this extra game outside of the test window, which means negotiations are fully open and up for grabs. So NZ responded with an opening bid. The RFU don't want to accept the bid and reject it. Just business right?
If NZ want to reconsider their bid, they can, if the RFU want to accept/reject they can, and so on.

Because this is about a one off extra game out side of the test window, this is just a business option being explored by two parties. Hypothetically however, if this was one Union trying to change the ongoing rules to the detriment of another Union, then yes, I would feel precious about it.
-

 

[Maverick1987]

But the point is your not going to anyway as the money isn't there.

I mean you don't play Samoa and Fiji who are right next door to you for that reason.

And that sound ladies and gentlemen will be the nail being firmly hit ......

Just for reference does anyone have the information regarding how much of a cut England got when they went to NZ last year ? Or how much the Lions will get this coming year ?

If it's less than the 50% NZ are asking for that makes me think Tew is a money grabbing ****

In my opinion he's overplaying his hand especially with the huge financial power the RFU have

 

[Tony Manx]

Sorry but you are in the main wrong as you seem to ignore the overwhelming corporate influence in the attendance at UK tests - few of whom go to club games!

Certainly, In France, very few club supporters actually travel and/or go to Paris tests as a percentage of its attendance!

 

[Maverick1987]

I'm not a fan of the Walesonline but this is hilarious and sure to ruffle a few feathers

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/new-zealand-rugby-chief-guilty-11697654

 

[Which Tyler]

Because this is about a one off extra game out side of the test window, this is just a business option being explored by two parties. Hypothetically however, if this was one Union trying to change the ongoing rules to the detriment of another Union, then yes, I would feel precious about it.
-

Kinda... It's a one-off game with established precedence of happening every other year for the last 8 years (and for the next 4); with the guest team receiving 25% of the gate (including NZ twice IIRC). The Welsh do the same; with precendence; though I don't know how much they pay.
This time NZ damanded 50%, and we said "no". NZ said they wouldn't come at 25% - we said "so be it".
NZ fans now going around basically "we're poor, so we need more" and simultaneously "we're great, so we deserve more"; whilst England fans are basically saying "yeah, maybe, but it's not worth it".

It's akin to someone coming into my work, me offering them a 25% discount but them demanding half price because they're special; me saying no, and both sides complaining that the other was unreasonable.

 

[Mumbles119]

Kinda... It's a one-off game with established precedence of happening every other year for the last 8 years (and for the next 4); with the guest team receiving 25% of the gate (including NZ twice IIRC). The Welsh do the same; with precendence; though I don't know how much they pay.
This time NZ damanded 50%, and we said "no". NZ said they wouldn't come at 25% - we said "so be it".
NZ fans now going around basically "we're poor, so we need more" and simultaneously "we're great, so we deserve more"; whilst England fans are basically saying "yeah, maybe, but it's not worth it".

It's akin to someone coming into my work, me offering them a 25% discount but them demanding half price because they're special; me saying no, and both sides complaining that the other was unreasonable.

Yes, I can definitely see the cheek side of it too, with the NZ bid being ludicrous. But does that ludicrous bid come from ignorance of market, or over estimation of self worth?

I know the Wales Online article is typically ridiculous. But how true is the statement around this being NRUs first salvo in the quest for the combined global season? It seems to read as though the media are just speculating, but I didn't know if there was any actual evidence of the SH strategy for getting the global season they want.

 

[Which Tyler]

No idea, if I had to guess, I'd say they overplayed their hand, on a brinkmanship game, and got called out. No harm in asking for more, but pretty stupid / childish to expect it to be given just because you've asked... Unless they really do think that they can do better, in which case they really need a new CEO.
No idea on the global season either, though we do know that they want it, and that they wan everyone else to change to suit them regardless of practicality and lack of benefit; so its a reasonable speculation.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Sorry but you are in the main wrong as you seem to ignore the overwhelming corporate influence in the attendance at UK tests - few of whom go to club games!

Certainly, In France, very few club supporters actually travel and/or go to Paris tests as a percentage of its attendance!

+1. I watch England on TV, but fail to see the appeal of traipsing to the other side of the country and spending a small fortune to be surrounded by once a year corporate jollies with no idea what's happening on the field when I can walk to my local club and watch a match with easy access to the bar, surrounded by friends and acquaintances, most have whom have been following the team / game for years.

 

[die_mole]

if the numbers are correct that the rfu gets 6mil(idk how to produce a pound sign) profit for a game with the all blacks and that the dispute is over whether the all blacks get 50% or 25% then the math is pretty simple

if any other team is willing to take 25% then they only need to produce at minimum 4mil in profits for the game to make more sense than the rfu hosting the all blacks

i dont think the all blacks are gonna bring in 150% of the profit than other teams for a game at twickers

 

[RedruthRFC]

I am bit confused about why people are getting a bit precious on here about this.

For the most part, I think it has been fuelled by some pretty one-eyed, nationalistic views and a willingness to discuss the rights and wrongs of the deal without knowledge of the relevant facts.

If as some are saying, New Zealand do indeed have other venues / opponents cueing up with to pay the same amount of money, then fair play to them, they should stick to their guns and be prepared to take one of these other offers if the RFU aren't willing to budge. From the RFU's point of view, they must have a decent handle on how lucrative a home fixture against New Zealand is compared to matches against sides lower down the rankings, so deciding whether giving the NZRU an extra £1.5m is good business or not.

If the cue of other venues / opponents isn't as long as is being made out, the the NZRU must shop around and find the best deal for them.

All of the above is of course from a purely financial perspective. For better or worse, most rugby decisions these days seem to come from this perspective first.

- - - Updated - - -

if the numbers are correct that the rfu gets 6mil(idk how to produce a pound sign) profit for a game with the all blacks and that the dispute is over whether the all blacks get 50% or 25% then the math is pretty simple

if any other team is willing to take 25% then they only need to produce at minimum 4mil in profits for the game to make more sense than the rfu hosting the all blacks

i dont think the all blacks are gonna bring in 150% of the profit than other teams for a game at twickers

Pretty much what it obviously took me longer to type!

I wouldn't be too confident in your last sentence though. For starters, it will depend on the pulling power of the visiting team. I don't buy international tickets, but I'd be surprised if tickets for England vs NZ wouldn't be at least 150% of what they would be for a match against a tier 2 side. I don't remember the exact numbers but I remember being surprised how much greater the prices for the corporate hospitality facilities at the MemStad were for matches against NZ and England versus any other nation. As I say, the unions will be armed with historical information with which to make these kinds of decisions.

 

[Which Tyler]

if the numbers are correct that the rfu gets 6mil(idk how to produce a pound sign) profit for a game with the all blacks and that the dispute is over whether the all blacks get 50% or 25% then the math is pretty simple

if any other team is willing to take 25% then they only need to produce at minimum 4mil in profits for the game to make more sense than the rfu hosting the all blacks

i dont think the all blacks are gonna bring in 150% of the profit than other teams for a game at twickers

If we play RSA, Aus or Argentina then there will be no difference to ticket prices or the number of them sold.

If we play a PI, USA, Canada, Georgia or Romania we'll still more-or-less sell out, but the prices will be cheaper, but not enough to make NZ a more attractive financial option.

The other issue is, of course, testing ourselves against the best (and ranking points up for grabs).



For NZ their alternatives would be hoping that the Welsh will pay up, or playing Aus yet again on neutral territory, which grew old very quickly a few years ago.

 

[RedruthRFC]

If we play a PI, USA, Canada, Georgia or Romania we'll still more-or-less sell out, but the prices will be cheaper, but not enough to make NZ a more attractive financial option.

As I said above, none of us are in possession of sufficient facts to be sure. Have you got some fag packet maths to support this? If the £6m pre-tax ticket revenue is somewhere near on the money (no pun intended), the £1.5m we're talking about represents a quarter of ticket revenue. It doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me to imagine that ticket revenues for a match against a tier 2 nation would be less than 75% of that for a match against New Zealand. Then there's increased TV and hospitality revenues to factor in. I really don't see it as being as clear cut as you're making out.

The other issue is, of course, testing ourselves against the best (and ranking points up for grabs).

For NZ their alternatives would be hoping that the Welsh will pay up, or playing Aus yet again on neutral territory, which grew old very quickly a few years ago.

If we were talking about a sport, I would agree wholeheartedly, but we're talking about a business! The Wellington Globetrotters does have a ring to it though! What are the chances of the Welsh coming up with a similar sum? Slim I'd have though. They have a smaller stadium than England, a poorer, smaller population and like to plead poverty themselves.