Serious question for Kiwis - do you want ABs withdrawn from current international calendar agreements?

[Amethyst]

Anon loved his cricket as far as I can remember but talked kak about everything else. Is it him you are referring to?

[Ellafan]

Anon loved his cricket as far as I can remember but talked kak about everything else. Is it him you are referring to?

The similarity in posting style is quite striking.

[Amethyst]

Not Anon, unless he's moved to SA.

Can you detect a VPN?

He cant even detect a pulse

That's a harsh thing to say of someone with one foot in the grave.

[Enzedder]

Not Anon, unless he's moved to SA.

Can you detect a VPN?

He cant even detect a pulse

As though Anon could even be bothered with that, just to act like a dumb Saffer.

[Certain Navigator]

I'm under the impression a quid pro quo deal would only make NH unions lose money. The issue is still the Southern Hemisphere model of Rugby is financially flawed.

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.

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.

If by 'works', you mean 'has a vastly greater population', then I agree with you.

[Certain Navigator]

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.

This is a red herring, given the population differences. NZ building a 100,000-capacity stadium would be a white elephant par excellence.

It's also a myth, as the SH does have big stadia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... uth_Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... y_capacity

Even Eden Park, with a capacity of a 50,000, is about 10 times bigger than Twickenham on a population-adjusted basis.

Just as proponents of a global calendar seem to have trouble understanding that seasons change as you change hemispheres, many in the NH seem to have trouble understanding that populations change as well. *That's* what drives gate income, not stadium size.