Serious question for Kiwis - do you want ABs withdrawn from current international calendar agreements?

[Guy Smiley]

In case you haven't seen it, pasted below is Hansen's interview on Stuff - where he says NZR should withdraw from current international tour/game arrangements and take control of who the AB's play, and who gets the money. This was put out a month ago, but no-one seems to be discussing it.

Interested to know if you agree with him, and think that 100+ years of rugby co-operation should give way to mammon, or you think that traditions and affiliations are worth something and should be kept?

I suppose it has a parallel in Rugby Australia going it alone and spurning any trans Tasman competition suggestions.

That seems to be a popular suggestion.... from that we can extrapolate some merit in the idea as we’ve been assured the Aussies know more about these matters than we do. By Aussies, of course.

[Amethyst]

The Kiwi's just want to play with themselves. They've told us so over and over again. On the odd occasion that anyone else are privileged to play the self-appointed spiritual guardians of rugby, the spiritual guardians must benefit exponentially monetary.

[stunt_cunt]

The Kiwi's just want to play with themselves. They've told us so over and over again. On the odd occasion that anyone else are privileged to play the self-appointed spiritual guardians of rugby, the spiritual guardians must benefit exponentially monetary.

Are ticket prices higher for All Black matches?

[Enzedder]

The Kiwi's just want to play with themselves. They've told us so over and over again. On the odd occasion that anyone else are privileged to play the self-appointed spiritual guardians of rugby, the spiritual guardians must benefit exponentially monetary.

Who's they? And your post doesn't make sense. The All Blacks don't want to just play with themselves - we have your guys to do that for us.

[Amethyst]

The Kiwi's just want to play with themselves. They've told us so over and over again. On the odd occasion that anyone else are privileged to play the self-appointed spiritual guardians of rugby, the spiritual guardians must benefit exponentially monetary.

Are ticket prices higher for All Black matches?

Nobody cares, bro.

[Ellafan]

The Kiwi's just want to play with themselves. They've told us so over and over again. On the odd occasion that anyone else are privileged to play the self-appointed spiritual guardians of rugby, the spiritual guardians must benefit exponentially monetary.

Are ticket prices higher for All Black matches?

Nobody cares, bro.

Except England rugby - who get about 50% of their gross income from tickets and corporate hospitality. Do they really sell tickets to AB games at Twickenham for US$250 each?

[A6D6E6]

Are ticket prices higher for All Black matches?

Nobody cares, bro.

Except England rugby - who get about 50% of their gross income from tickets and corporate hospitality. Do they really sell tickets to AB games at Twickenham for US$250 each?

I think that is extremely unlikely given we use sterling and not dollars for our currency.

[Jb1981]

This is from a couple of years ago.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepe ... html%3famp

The most expensive match will unsurprisingly be England’s first Test against New Zealand in four years, with adult tickets ranging from £70 to the top end fee previously mentioned [£195], while in contrast to that the first autumn international against Japan will see prices ranging from £25 to £70

.

[Glaston]

The real question is how much will NZ pay to get England to play them at Eden Park.

[Jb1981]

The real question is how much will NZ pay to get England to play them at Eden Park.

I’d chip in a fiver but wouldn’t be prepared to go higher than that.

[Ellafan]

Nobody cares, bro.

Except England rugby - who get about 50% of their gross income from tickets and corporate hospitality. Do they really sell tickets to AB games at Twickenham for US$250 each?

I think that is extremely unlikely given we use sterling and not dollars for our currency.

I converted a figure I saw elsewhere of £160 to US$ for the purpose of the question, but someone else who is not a smart arse like you has actually answered it - It's around US$300 for premium tickets.

[Amethyst]

England would pay more to play the actual world champs at Twickers. They've got nothing to prove against NZ.

[Ellafan]

England would pay more to play the actual world champs at Twickers. They've got nothing to prove against NZ.

You appear to have missed the point.

[Amethyst]

England would pay more to play the actual world champs at Twickers. They've got nothing to prove against NZ.

You appear to have missed the point.

Didn't some suggest that NZ are currently still the biggest drawcard? Everybody wants to have a go at the reigning world champs, especially if they haven't played them yet after the RWC.

[Biffer]

Why I find hard to fathom is that the All Blacks sell out Murrayfield most NH Autumns, making millions for the Scottish union every time they play there, but the Scots have toured NZ just once in the last 15 years. The WR calendar and scheduling is a sham, designed solely to benefit the Home Nations.

All Blacks play Scotland every two or three years, not every year. And NZ haven’t wanted to play Scotland because we’re not a big enough TV draw.

[Biffer]

Fuck this global season bollocks.

Rugby is a winter sport and there's only really a 6 week gap without for NH players anyway with club rugby finishing late may/early June and June Tours before it starts again mid August. The NH season works, it's the SH's responsibility to find something that works for them.

That's pretty much the terrible attitude preventing the global season in a nutshell.

Well done, earl. From your little corner in the middle of nowheresville.

Because that proposal for a global season is wank, why should the NH move their season to align with the SH? The NH season is the one that works.

This is exactly it.

The SH nations can’t find competitions that work to generate income for them so want to fuck up the NH competitions. It’s mental.

[Ellafan]

England would pay more to play the actual world champs at Twickers. They've got nothing to prove against NZ.

You appear to have missed the point.

Didn't some suggest that NZ are currently still the biggest drawcard? Everybody wants to have a go at the reigning world champs, especially if they haven't played them yet after the RWC.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. But let's put aside the precise £, $ or Rand figure for a moment and focus on the issue at hand.

The point is that at the moment England (and everyone) rugby retain all the revenue from the spring window games* for themselves (*but not the rare 'extra' out of window ones). Likewise when they travel it goes the other way.

Now that the existing international tours agreement has been well and truly scuppered by the Chinese Flu, frustrated, and terminated for all time, I posed the question for AB supporters - would they rather see something like the old system, with its revenue retention model from pre 1995, or shall we join the 21st century and, perhaps, call it 50/50 profit share ?

Asking you as an RSA supporter, should the Springboks get proper, fair and equitable recompense for filling stadiums in the old dart, or should we continue with the current model where the home nations milk the colonial nations' attractive and highly skilled rugby teams'' marketability and keep the money for themselves - and then send development teams south in June because their players are all crocked after playing 39 games in the English and French club comps?

Got it now?

[Biffer]

It's not up to us punters to get it done. World Rugby needs to take responsibility for a Feb to end of October global season. We in the SH get that the 6N is your cash cow, and it can still happen.

Why does there need to be a global calendar season? Why also does it have to fit the Southern Hemisphere calendar and not the other way round? It's not the Northern Hemisphere who keeps complaining the season is a problem. If the SH wants to fit a global calendar then simply switch the dates of SH rugby to fit the NH.

Oh and there is a reason why the 6 Nations shouldn't be moved much. Having it's own block of time when there are no other major sporting events is a bonus and part of it's success.

Trust me. No one is suggesting moving your Six Nations. We get that it's a cash cow that allows rugby fans to get a sneaky away lay in exotic cities like Rome and Cardiff.

With player burnout being an issue, it has been suggested that a global season might assist in player attrition. Given the lack of interest in the NH, that might just be a fantasy.

If February to the end of October doesn't work for a global season, what might? Just canvassing views. I don't want to upset anyone in the NH, like the idea of professionalism or the Rugby World Cup once did.

Some of the global season. proposals suggested that the Six Nations should move to April / May.

[A6D6E6]

You appear to have missed the point.

Didn't some suggest that NZ are currently still the biggest drawcard? Everybody wants to have a go at the reigning world champs, especially if they haven't played them yet after the RWC.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. But let's put aside the precise £, $ or Rand figure for a moment and focus on the issue at hand.

The point is that at the moment England (and everyone) rugby retain all the revenue from the spring window games* for themselves (*but not the rare 'extra' out of window ones). Likewise when they travel it goes the other way.

Now that the existing international tours agreement has been well and truly scuppered by the Chinese Flu, frustrated, and terminated for all time, I posed the question for AB supporters - would they rather see something like the old system, with its revenue retention model from pre 1995, or shall we join the 21st century and, perhaps, call it 50/50 profit share ?

Asking you as an RSA supporter, should the Springboks get proper, fair and equitable recompense for filling stadiums in the old dart, or should we continue with the current model where the home nations milk the colonial nations' attractive and highly skilled rugby teams'' marketability and keep the money for themselves - and then send development teams south in June because their players are all crocked after playing 39 games in the English and French club comps?

Got it now?

England and many of the NH unions have invested tens or hundreds of millions in developing their stadiums to increase their revenue. If the SH unions would do similarly, perhaps they wouldn't need to keep handing out the begging bowl.

[eldanielfire]

Are ticket prices higher for All Black matches?

Nobody cares, bro.

Except England rugby - who get about 50% of their gross income from tickets and corporate hospitality. Do they really sell tickets to AB games at Twickenham for US$250 each?

If that is £200 GB, which I think is close to $400 NZ then yes. BTW they did last time because it had been such a long period since England played New Zealand. That spike in prices was as much rarity as anything else.

As for the who needs who argument, despite a bit of a bonus England doesn't need any particular team to tour. 6 Nation tickets are almost on par with the last All Blacks match and Twickenham pretty such sells out regardless.

The issues with the RFUs finances were due to terrible management, it's been long rumoured that the people the RFU hired for the 2015 RWC screwed up as they were from the 2012 olympics, didn't understand Rugby and didn't understand that the £50 million made from AIs was going to be missing in a RWC year. The RFU magnified that screw-up with a ton of building plans for Twickenham (to expand the east side corporate) which ended up costing twice as much due to other problems. Then COVID-19 arrived at the worst possible time. NO Premiership final, no barbaas game, no AIs with crowds.

[Amethyst]

I thought SARU got a cut of the revenue from a Boks/England test at Twickenham (and I'm almost sure this has happened before). Seems to be the right thing to do to help the poorer unions.

[eldanielfire]

NH unions have invested tens or hundreds of millions in developing their stadiums to increase their revenue. If the SH unions would do similarly, perhaps they wouldn't need to keep handing out the begging bowl.

I've constantly made this point. The Southern Hemisphere Unions complain about not having money but keep rejecting the sporting model that brings in lots of money at test level while treating their domestic teams like such an afterthought fans don't seem to buy in as big as they should, therefore limiting the potential income from that source. They then complain NH Unions have so much more money than them.

The solutions are they, just apply them.

[Ellafan]

England and many of the NH unions have invested tens or hundreds of millions in developing their stadiums to increase their revenue. If the SH unions would do similarly, perhaps they wouldn't need to keep handing out the begging bowl.

OK, then, you guys don't need the Boks, ABs, Wobblies & pumas to tour and hand over all the revenue to make budget. So, no problem equitably sharing it.

[MrMojo]

I'm not close to the financials but I'm sure it wouldn't be rocket science to work out a quid pro quo deal.

Give the Jaapies, Aussies, and Kiwis a share of the gate that gets so many expats to Twickers and Aviva Stadium and in turn hand back a fair bit when the UK and Irish rock up to Stadium Australia, Eden Park and Ellis Pork.

But your fans only pay about £3.50 for a front row ticket?

[A6D6E6]

England and many of the NH unions have invested tens or hundreds of millions in developing their stadiums to increase their revenue. If the SH unions would do similarly, perhaps they wouldn't need to keep handing out the begging bowl.

OK, then, you guys don't need the Boks, ABs, Wobblies & pumas to tour and hand over all the revenue to make budget. So, no problem equitably sharing it.

The NH doesn't need the SH to the same extent the SH needs the NH. That is self evident from the begging.

[SaintK]

I remember chatting with Toga a few years back, and he assured me that the RFU could sell out Twickenham three times over regardless of who England were playing, such is the demand for tickets there. And that the ticket prices are always at a premium, so a ticket to watch the All Blacks costs the same as a ticket to watch Italy, Georgia or Swaziland. Therefore there is no need for the RFU to make any compromises or cut any deals because they already have more money than they can ever spend.

He and you are both talking out of your arses.
I manage international ticket sales and allocations at my (small) club.
England potentially sell out Twickenham up to 2x over for 6N matches and matches against Tier 1 nations. Ticket pricing is scaled accordingly, the last time the AB's were at Twickenham the Premium tickets were £160 whereas they were at £135 for the other matches and for that year's 6N. Tier 2 matches are priced much more reasonably with good concessions for kids and family groups, I am not aware of any of these recent matches completely selling out. Offical corporate hospitality is adjusted accordingly.
There has been major financial mismanagement at the RFU in recent years and there is currently another round of serious redundancies which will have a hugely disproportionate effect on the community game unfortunately.
The time is probably right for some negotiations to take place but the RFU need every penny they can make for the forseeable future so I'm not sure there are many deals to cut in the current climate.

[Ymx]

England and many of the NH unions have invested tens or hundreds of millions in developing their stadiums to increase their revenue. If the SH unions would do similarly, perhaps they wouldn't need to keep handing out the begging bowl.

OK, then, you guys don't need the Boks, ABs, Wobblies & pumas to tour and hand over all the revenue to make budget. So, no problem equitably sharing it.

The NH doesn't need the SH to the same extent the SH needs the NH. That is self evident from the begging.

You say begging one more time R2D2!

[Amethyst]

The new world champs will be charging an appearance fee. What should be a reasonable charge?

[A6D6E6]

OK, then, you guys don't need the Boks, ABs, Wobblies & pumas to tour and hand over all the revenue to make budget. So, no problem equitably sharing it.

The NH doesn't need the SH to the same extent the SH needs the NH. That is self evident from the begging.

You say begging one more time R2D2!

Always happy to oblige. Begging.

[Ymx]

The new world champs will be charging an appearance fee. What should be a reasonable charge?

No one wants to pay so much for a team like the Boks who would no doubt wipe the floor against them.

Much more for a safe and closer NZ match surely?

[Ymx]

The NH doesn't need the SH to the same extent the SH needs the NH. That is self evident from the begging.

You say begging one more time R2D2!

Always happy to oblige. Begging.

Listen pal, and I haven’t yet decided if you’re clearly either a droid/bot or simply an RGB hex colour.

But I’ll figure it out.

I’m watching you

[Amethyst]

The new world champs will be charging an appearance fee. What should be a reasonable charge?

No one wants to pay so much for a team like the Boks who would no doubt wipe the floor against them.

Much more for a safe and closer NZ match surely?

Mate, we need to make some money first before taking on the top challenger...oh,wait.....

[Ellafan]

The new world champs will be charging an appearance fee. What should be a reasonable charge?

No one wants to pay so much for a team like the Boks who would no doubt wipe the floor against them.

Much more for a safe and closer NZ match surely?

Mate, we need to make some money first before taking on the top challenger...oh,wait.....

You blew it Anon.

[Ellafan]

You say begging one more time R2D2!

Always happy to oblige. Begging.

Listen pal, and I haven’t yet decided if you’re clearly either a droid/bot or simply an RGB hex colour.

But I’ll figure it out.

I’m watching you

[Jimmy Smallsteps]

Didn't some suggest that NZ are currently still the biggest drawcard? Everybody wants to have a go at the reigning world champs, especially if they haven't played them yet after the RWC.

Maybe you're right, maybe not. But let's put aside the precise £, $ or Rand figure for a moment and focus on the issue at hand.

The point is that at the moment England (and everyone) rugby retain all the revenue from the spring window games* for themselves (*but not the rare 'extra' out of window ones). Likewise when they travel it goes the other way.

Now that the existing international tours agreement has been well and truly scuppered by the Chinese Flu, frustrated, and terminated for all time, I posed the question for AB supporters - would they rather see something like the old system, with its revenue retention model from pre 1995, or shall we join the 21st century and, perhaps, call it 50/50 profit share ?

Asking you as an RSA supporter, should the Springboks get proper, fair and equitable recompense for filling stadiums in the old dart, or should we continue with the current model where the home nations milk the colonial nations' attractive and highly skilled rugby teams'' marketability and keep the money for themselves - and then send development teams south in June because their players are all crocked after playing 39 games in the English and French club comps?

Got it now?

England and many of the NH unions have invested tens or hundreds of millions in developing their stadiums to increase their revenue. If the SH unions would do similarly, perhaps they wouldn't need to keep handing out the begging bowl.

Your one dedicated rugby stadium in a country of 60+ million that you play EVERY game in.



I apologise. The RFU needs applauding, stat.

[A6D6E6]

Maybe you're right, maybe not. But let's put aside the precise £, $ or Rand figure for a moment and focus on the issue at hand.

The point is that at the moment England (and everyone) rugby retain all the revenue from the spring window games* for themselves (*but not the rare 'extra' out of window ones). Likewise when they travel it goes the other way.

Now that the existing international tours agreement has been well and truly scuppered by the Chinese Flu, frustrated, and terminated for all time, I posed the question for AB supporters - would they rather see something like the old system, with its revenue retention model from pre 1995, or shall we join the 21st century and, perhaps, call it 50/50 profit share ?

Asking you as an RSA supporter, should the Springboks get proper, fair and equitable recompense for filling stadiums in the old dart, or should we continue with the current model where the home nations milk the colonial nations' attractive and highly skilled rugby teams'' marketability and keep the money for themselves - and then send development teams south in June because their players are all crocked after playing 39 games in the English and French club comps?

Got it now?

England and many of the NH unions have invested tens or hundreds of millions in developing their stadiums to increase their revenue. If the SH unions would do similarly, perhaps they wouldn't need to keep handing out the begging bowl.

Your one dedicated rugby stadium in a country of 60+ million that you play EVERY game in.



I apologise. The RFU needs applauding, stat.

Well apart from the fact that it isn't, what is your point?

[Enzedder]

No one wants to pay so much for a team like the Boks who would no doubt wipe the floor against them.

Much more for a safe and closer NZ match surely?

Mate, we need to make some money first before taking on the top challenger...oh,wait.....

You blew it Anon.

Not Anon, unless he's moved to SA.

[Ellafan]

Mate, we need to make some money first before taking on the top challenger...oh,wait.....

You blew it Anon.

Not Anon, unless he's moved to SA.

Can you detect a VPN?

[average joe]

You blew it Anon.

Not Anon, unless he's moved to SA.

Can you detect a VPN?

He cant even detect a pulse

[JM2K6]

I can't remember the last time Anon legitimately had a multi but people remain obsessed over the idea