England V All Blacks



  • Look (I'll do a @gollum 🙂 ) it's pretty damn obvious that NZR are trying to engineer (to use the terminology from @gollum's post) more equitable revenue sharing. And it's not just gate takings.

    The ERU hate that idea because they will stand to fund the world game.

    So NZR is never ever going to agree to a revenue sharing match unless the England Rugby Union agree to revenue sharing in the longer term.

    Am surprised this isn't glaringly fucking obvious to anyone and everyone.



  • http://mobile.nzherald.co.nz/chris-rattue/news/article.php?a_id=22&objectid=11818690

    Some more Rattue bullshit ( do NOT read this @taniwharugby ) does he not realise that three out of the English forward pack are Polynesian?

    Also apparently the ABs were not dominant until there were lots of Island players. Pinetree and BG Lochore will choke on their weetbix when they read that tomorrow morning.

    One test AB Damian McKenzie gets a mention because he is part Maori and therefore awesome. Ben Smith and Beauden Barrett are pasty and white and therefore not worth a mention and are shit.



  • @MN5 North Island, South Island, Chatham Islands.



  • I think this is hilarious.
    All of a sudden the tune has changed. We have previously offered to play England as an 'extra' game if they are prepared to stump up and the RFU have told us to fuck off, they don't need us and would rather make lots of money selling out Twickers to nobs wanting to watch England thrash someone who will play for a pittance.
    Now they are in form and on a roll they want a crack outside of the schedule to try and take number one world ranking. Tew will be pissing himself knowing he now has the upper hand in negotiations and will be looking to set a long term deal.

    Personally I don't think this is a good time for the match for the ABs though. We have a Lions series which doesn't allow a lot of player development and three EOYT matches already lined up that we have to squeeze new players into.
    We have already seen that by the end of the year we are just hanging in there and this would probably disrupt existing longer term plans.



  • Its not a great time for us to play them, but if it can be leveraged into a revenue share deal longer term it should definately be chased by Tew. If they could weasel a 5 year deal where we play England at Twickers every year & get a 30%+ rev share thats huge money.



  • @gollum said in England V All Blacks:

    Its not a great time for us to play them, but if it can be leveraged into a revenue share deal longer term it should definately be chased by Tew. If they could weasel a 5 year deal where we play England at Twickers every year & get a 30%+ rev share thats huge money.

    Fuck that.
    alt text



  • We have always maintained that if England want us to play at Twickers outside of the WR programme it has to be on a 50/50 revenue share.
    No need to back down from that.



  • If the Poms want us that bad pay to play baby! They'll make heaps more than a baabaas game with higher ticket prices anyway

    alt text



  • @Crucial said in England V All Blacks:

    We have always maintained that if England want us to play at Twickers outside of the WR programme it has to be on a 50/50 revenue share.
    No need to back down from that.

    We could back down if it gets us 5 games, 1 a year every year, with a rev share. Thats the bigger picture

    1 game at 50/50 is good. But 5 tests at 70/30 means we can keep Retallick, Barrett & Coles for 5 years



  • @gollum said in England V All Blacks:

    @Crucial said in England V All Blacks:

    We have always maintained that if England want us to play at Twickers outside of the WR programme it has to be on a 50/50 revenue share.
    No need to back down from that.

    We could back down if it gets us 5 games, 1 a year every year, with a rev share. Thats the bigger picture

    1 game at 50/50 is good. But 5 tests at 70/30 means we can keep Retallick, Barrett & Coles for 5 years

    I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.



  • @Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:

    I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.

    From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.

    Whats not to like?

    The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing



  • There is already a scheduled game next year that they don't have to share with us and the following year is RWC



  • @gollum said in England V All Blacks:

    @Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:

    I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.

    From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.

    Whats not to like?

    The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing

    What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.

    Also as @Crucial says. There is already a game next year. Then it is RWC and after that there is always the option of Eng v NZ games being organised within the window.

    This smacks to me of the RFU getting a bit arrogant because England are No2 and they feel that they might be able to knock over NZ at Twickenham and that's all.



  • @Catogrande

    I agree from an RFU point of view they just want a 1 off to exploit the current strength, thats all this is about.

    But the NZRFU will be trying to leverage a more long term deal, and that not neccesarily terrible from an RFU point of view



  • @Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:

    @gollum said in England V All Blacks:

    @Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:

    I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.

    From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.

    Whats not to like?

    The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing

    What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.

    Except we are only talking about games outside of the WR window. So it is unlikely that, for example, England would arrange a game with Samoa and have Samoa demand 50/50

    There are always set costs to hosting a game and it is crazy to expect in a normal arrangement for one party to wear the cost and the other not, so a 50/50 revenue share is unrealistic. A profit share is more likely and even then the RFU would have a baseline expected return for their outlay so lower ticket prices would mean a lower %
    With NZ though the tickets would sell instantly, the prices would be high and the profit also high.
    Anyway Ian Ritchie needs to eat a fair bit of humble pie if this game is to happen.



  • @Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
    There are always set costs to hosting a game and it is crazy to expect in a normal arrangement for one party to wear the cost and the other not, so a 50/50 revenue share is unrealistic. A profit share is more likely and even then the RFU would have a baseline expected return for their outlay so lower ticket prices would mean a lower %

    With NZ though the tickets would sell instantly, the prices would be high and the profit also high.

    A 50/50 profit share would only work if both parties are interested in maximising profit. England are not.

    If we are going to maximise profit here the game would be hosted at Wembley that has a greater overall capacity but more specifically greater suite capacity. RFU obviously want this at Twickers for many non profit generating reasons and that's totally understandable.

    If RFU is waiving the stadium rental fee then the difference between profit and revenue becomes less of an issue providing they aren't playing silly buggers on the TV rights or tickets (i.e. rolling the autumn internationals into a 4 game package and then counting the NZ fixture as 1/4 of the value) etc



  • @rotated said in England V All Blacks:

    @Crucial said in England V All Blacks:
    There are always set costs to hosting a game and it is crazy to expect in a normal arrangement for one party to wear the cost and the other not, so a 50/50 revenue share is unrealistic. A profit share is more likely and even then the RFU would have a baseline expected return for their outlay so lower ticket prices would mean a lower %

    With NZ though the tickets would sell instantly, the prices would be high and the profit also high.

    A 50/50 profit share would only work if both parties are interested in maximising profit. England are not....

    And that is it in a nutshell.



  • Apparently the Baabaas game NZR were trying to book Twickenham for was going to be the first game of the tour not the last. This is the slot England now want.

    One thing that occurred to me when I read that during the last cycle between the RWCs NZ and England played 6 times was that this may well have contributed to the mess Lancaser found himself in and vice-versa for Eddie Jones this cycle.

    Basically England have been able to get a building programme and change going without second guessing how well the plan is working when they don't match the ABs. They have been able to gain confidence rather than cockiness that gets regularly shot down.

    If this game goes ahead it would be a huge bonus for Eddie's plans whatever the outcome. Even if the ABs win it would likely be close and not only would we have to show our hand a little but it would provide tangible markers to England for the extra improvement needed. They could carry on with the current mantra which is 'we aren't the best yet but are striving to get there'.

    Ah fuck. Bring it on.



  • So if it doesn't go ahead the ABs are either too greedy or scared...win/win for England!



  • @Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:

    @gollum said in England V All Blacks:

    @Catogrande said in England V All Blacks:

    I see this from a NZ POV but I'd doubt the RFU would go out on a limb like that. It would be to much of a precedent. It would surprise me if the Autumn 2017 game gets the nod.

    From an RFU point of view its 5 sold out games, with "name your price" TV over a period where England will be strong & building to a WC, then coming off a WC where its a rerun of the final.

    Whats not to like?

    The unscheduled one off's are far harder as the clubs have a hissy fit & the ABs do their "3m or piss off" thing

    What's not to like is having all the other countries banging on the door for a similar deal. This is especially so as we sell out pretty much every England game (caveat that for some the ticket prices are lower). So for the RFU whilst an increase in revenue would be nice it is likely not worth the potential problems.

    And theres the crux of it.

    NZ is fighting a battle that will benefit rugby worldwide but will disadvantage some, most particularly England.

    Why should the host nation take ALL the money when the visitors are generating half of it?


Log in to reply