Revenue Sharing
-
The RFU are certainly an extreme but is it not valid to highlight an extreme in order to illustrate a point? That is how you get attention to a matter. Show the ridiculous extremes that the current set up can lead to then work backwards to find the right balance.
-
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion. If we take England as one extreme and say Samoa as the other, it is quite a feasible exercise for England to stump up enough cash to make a material difference to the Samoan situation without it causing any problems for England. Whereas if you look at revenue sharing across the board this would hugely impact the RFU finances and not make anywhere near as much difference to say SA or NZ as a more modest payment would to Samoa.
However in order to address the bigger picture I feel we should include a formal structure for open-side flanker sharing too.
-
Neither does France, Italy, USA, Canada, Argentina. Ireland jointly own Aviva with the Football Assoc of Ireland and its still being paid off.
-
All this talk about Piutau or Fekitoa using the Olympic back door to play for Tonga. Forgets the real reason they left NZ, to provide for their families. If Bristol pay more then Tonga then the equation doesn't change and international rugby is all the worse for it.
Got to be honest with you if I was a player representing one of the island nations and had to choose between club or country. I would see that 33 times pay disparity and decide its just not worth the risk.
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion.
No but they are very useful in bringing attention to a subject so the wider discussions may kick off. Otherwise the call is simply 'Oh, it isn't an issue, let's move on'
The thing that annoys me is that you can be damn sure that a England/ Samoa game will be marketed as if it is a genuine challenge from Samoa.
I'm not looking for some multi-million pound share to the opposition, just a more equitable acknowledgement that the opposition are contributing to the product. -
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion.
No but they are very useful in bringing attention to a subject so the wider discussions may kick off. Otherwise the call is simply 'Oh, it isn't an issue, let's move on'
The thing that annoys me is that you can be damn sure that a England/ Samoa game will be marketed as if it is a genuine challenge from Samoa.
I'm not looking for some multi-million pound share to the opposition, just a more equitable acknowledgement that the opposition are contributing to the product.Are you saying for all matches? Just Nov ones? June ones as well?
-
@pot-hale said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion.
No but they are very useful in bringing attention to a subject so the wider discussions may kick off. Otherwise the call is simply 'Oh, it isn't an issue, let's move on'
The thing that annoys me is that you can be damn sure that a England/ Samoa game will be marketed as if it is a genuine challenge from Samoa.
I'm not looking for some multi-million pound share to the opposition, just a more equitable acknowledgement that the opposition are contributing to the product.Are you saying for all matches? Just Nov ones? June ones as well?
I guess that during comps (TRC,6N,RWC etc) the revenue or profit share situation is under those rules. So yeah, I guess I am talking about the June and November windows.
-
@crucial said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
@crucial I see your point but I'm not sure the extremes are particularly useful for a wider discussion.
No but they are very useful in bringing attention to a subject so the wider discussions may kick off. Otherwise the call is simply 'Oh, it isn't an issue, let's move on'
The thing that annoys me is that you can be damn sure that a England/ Samoa game will be marketed as if it is a genuine challenge from Samoa.
I'm not looking for some multi-million pound share to the opposition, just a more equitable acknowledgement that the opposition are contributing to the product.The bolded bit I couldn't agree with more and as nations such as Samoa have little chance of generating much in the way of revenue themselves it ought to be incumbent on all the richer tier 1 nations to do something about it. England should do their part and they blatantly aren't, which is shameful.
-
Sport: Samoa Rugby Union close to bankruptcy
Samoa Rugby Union's CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai says that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts.
The Samoa Rugby Union is close to filing for bankruptcy.
CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai told the Daily Mail newspaper that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts, and that they are close to insolvency.
He said without desperate support from the Samoan Government the SRU would not survive - a point referenced by the Prime Minister and SRU Chair Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in the Union's 2016 Annual Report.
"I wouldn't like to speak about the worst-case scenario. We don't want to go down the road where there is no Samoan national team because our people have a lot of passion. This must not happen," Faleomavaega said in the Daily Mail.
"This year's tour is going ahead as planned. If we can't afford to put together a team then there will be no tours. World Rugby give us funding but we still need a system of revenue sharing.
"Money is at the centre of everything. The economic model is absolutely wrong."
The Samoa Rugby Union has requested a fee of $US200,000 for taking part in next month's test against England at Twickenham, in an attempt to ease their financial problems, but World Rugby guidelines do not require host countries to share in their match-day revenues, unless the test is scheduled outside the international window.
The SRU's 2016 Annual Report revealed a net loss of $US42,000, after the High Performance Unit posted a six figure loss ($US103,000).
The report, obtained by the Samoa Observer, also said debts had been reduced from $US274,000 to $US192,000, having been closer to $US400,00 0 in 2015.
-
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Sport: Samoa Rugby Union close to bankruptcy
Samoa Rugby Union's CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai says that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts.
The Samoa Rugby Union is close to filing for bankruptcy.
CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai told the Daily Mail newspaper that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts, and that they are close to insolvency.
He said without desperate support from the Samoan Government the SRU would not survive - a point referenced by the Prime Minister and SRU Chair Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in the Union's 2016 Annual Report.
"I wouldn't like to speak about the worst-case scenario. We don't want to go down the road where there is no Samoan national team because our people have a lot of passion. This must not happen," Faleomavaega said in the Daily Mail.
"This year's tour is going ahead as planned. If we can't afford to put together a team then there will be no tours. World Rugby give us funding but we still need a system of revenue sharing.
"Money is at the centre of everything. The economic model is absolutely wrong."
The Samoa Rugby Union has requested a fee of $US200,000 for taking part in next month's test against England at Twickenham, in an attempt to ease their financial problems, but World Rugby guidelines do not require host countries to share in their match-day revenues, unless the test is scheduled outside the international window.
The SRU's 2016 Annual Report revealed a net loss of $US42,000, after the High Performance Unit posted a six figure loss ($US103,000).
The report, obtained by the Samoa Observer, also said debts had been reduced from $US274,000 to $US192,000, having been closer to $US400,00 0 in 2015.
I know.
They could build an 80,000 seat stadium. Isn't that the 'E'RFU's answer to everything?
-
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Sport: Samoa Rugby Union close to bankruptcy
Samoa Rugby Union's CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai says that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts.
The Samoa Rugby Union is close to filing for bankruptcy.
CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai told the Daily Mail newspaper that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts, and that they are close to insolvency.
He said without desperate support from the Samoan Government the SRU would not survive - a point referenced by the Prime Minister and SRU Chair Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in the Union's 2016 Annual Report.
"I wouldn't like to speak about the worst-case scenario. We don't want to go down the road where there is no Samoan national team because our people have a lot of passion. This must not happen," Faleomavaega said in the Daily Mail.
"This year's tour is going ahead as planned. If we can't afford to put together a team then there will be no tours. World Rugby give us funding but we still need a system of revenue sharing.
"Money is at the centre of everything. The economic model is absolutely wrong."
The Samoa Rugby Union has requested a fee of $US200,000 for taking part in next month's test against England at Twickenham, in an attempt to ease their financial problems, but World Rugby guidelines do not require host countries to share in their match-day revenues, unless the test is scheduled outside the international window.
The SRU's 2016 Annual Report revealed a net loss of $US42,000, after the High Performance Unit posted a six figure loss ($US103,000).
The report, obtained by the Samoa Observer, also said debts had been reduced from $US274,000 to $US192,000, having been closer to $US400,00 0 in 2015.
US£200,000 is a piddly amount to the RFU. I would be very interested to know how much they are paying the Samoa RFU. If it isn't as much as US$200k they should hand their heads in shame.
-
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@rapido said in Revenue Sharing:
Sport: Samoa Rugby Union close to bankruptcy
Samoa Rugby Union's CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai says that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts.
The Samoa Rugby Union is close to filing for bankruptcy.
CEO Faleomavaega Vincent Fepuleai told the Daily Mail newspaper that the national team's future is under serious threat from mounting debts, and that they are close to insolvency.
He said without desperate support from the Samoan Government the SRU would not survive - a point referenced by the Prime Minister and SRU Chair Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in the Union's 2016 Annual Report.
"I wouldn't like to speak about the worst-case scenario. We don't want to go down the road where there is no Samoan national team because our people have a lot of passion. This must not happen," Faleomavaega said in the Daily Mail.
"This year's tour is going ahead as planned. If we can't afford to put together a team then there will be no tours. World Rugby give us funding but we still need a system of revenue sharing.
"Money is at the centre of everything. The economic model is absolutely wrong."
The Samoa Rugby Union has requested a fee of $US200,000 for taking part in next month's test against England at Twickenham, in an attempt to ease their financial problems, but World Rugby guidelines do not require host countries to share in their match-day revenues, unless the test is scheduled outside the international window.
The SRU's 2016 Annual Report revealed a net loss of $US42,000, after the High Performance Unit posted a six figure loss ($US103,000).
The report, obtained by the Samoa Observer, also said debts had been reduced from $US274,000 to $US192,000, having been closer to $US400,00 0 in 2015.
I know.
They could build an 80,000 seat stadium. Isn't that the 'E'RFU's answer to everything?
No, but it might answer some of NZRFU problems.
-
@catogrande but it isn't the "English" Rugby Union's responsibility to fund world rugby... according to the "English" Rugby Union.
Am seriously passionate about this.
The "E"RU would make no money if they played nobody.
People paint revenue sharing as a money grab by NZ. But here is the evidence of the results of selfishness.
Remember NZ, who are NOT the richest union in world rugby, have on more the the one off occasion, shared or provided 100% of the gate profits to the minor nations. Has the ENGLISH Rigby Union?
Personally I'd like to see broadcast revenue spread in addition to gate takings.
But the arrogant fuckwittedness of "build a bigger stadium ... haw haw haw ... " is exposed here.
Signed
Seriously grumpy and a tiny smidgen piddly
Booboo -
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
@catogrande but it isn't the "English" Rugby Union's responsibility to fund world rugby... according to the "English" Rugby Union. Not sure where you got this from
Am seriously passionate about this. I have no doubt about this
The "E"RU would make no money if they played nobody. This is true, but is also true of every other RU. Why should this mean that England should help fund every other Union?
People paint revenue sharing as a money grab by NZ. But here is the evidence of the results of selfishness. I can't say in regard to "people" but most of the discussions I've had in regard to revenue sharing have been on TSF. I have heard little from the Aussie, Saffer, Welsh, Irish, Scots or occasional French Ferners in regard to this topic but have heard from a fair few Kiwi Ferners. This is often based on the premise that the All Blacks are the draw card in world rugby (Which I agree is mostly true). Thus I can see the NZ view that they would like to see some recompense for their being the draw, though this I feel is selfish. The England view (and I can see this being viewed as selfish also) is that draw or no draw, Twickenham gets filled for games v Aus and SA and mostly Argentina as well as all the 6N games. We don't need NZ to earn £££
Remember NZ, who are NOT the richest union in world rugby, have on more the the one off occasion, shared or provided 100% of the gate profits to the minor nations. Has the ENGLISH Rigby Union? Richest or not, the idea of revenue sharing is, to my mind a complex situation. The real concern with money in the game is to ensure the sustainability of the game worldwide. In the current climate this means ensuring countries such as Samoa and the other PIs can continue to select from strength and continue to field teams for tours and one-off games while encouraging the grass roots in these countries to be nurtured. It is also about encouraging the lower tier nations by helping them financially where appropriate and by providing them with opportunities. It is not about the richer nation(s) helping out the not quite as rich nations. BTW I am not suggesting here that the RFU are actually doing all they should and certainly not all they could
Personally I'd like to see broadcast revenue spread in addition to gate takings. I don't agree (perhaps not surprisingly)
But the arrogant fuckwittedness of "build a bigger stadium ... haw haw haw ... " is exposed here. How?
Signed
Seriously grumpy and a tiny smidgen piddly Accepted as fact
Booboo -
@catogrande your logic does miss the point that ticket prices set by the RFU differ with the opposition
eg this year the prices go up in each respect from Samoa to Argentina to Australia. (Baabaas v NZ pricing sits halfway between Argentina and Australia)
The drawcard argument that NZ makes is that the (E)RU makes more money out of NZ playing because NZ have put investment into being the best in the world.
-
@crucial it's difficult to quantify as NZ haven't played at Twickenham for a coupe of years now but my understanding is that for the Autumn Internationals the ticket prices for Tier 2 nations are less, and also Argentina to a lesser degree. However for Aus, NZ or SA they are generally the same. I'm paying £95 to see England V Australia this autumn and I can't recall tickets v NZ being dearer than that.
Having said that I do not feel that it is much of an argument either way. Each of the Tier 1 unions has it within their power to maximise their own revenues and I would not expect any other country to supplement the gin bill at Twickenham any more than I would like to see England helping to pay for the development of yet another world class 7 for NZ.
The case for helping out the Tier 2 nations and below is to me pretty cut and dried. We (the Tier 1 nations) need to help more in providing funding (for some) and opportunities (for others.
-
@catogrande said in Revenue Sharing:
Having said that I do not feel that it is much of an argument either way. Each of the Tier 1 unions has it within their power to maximise their own revenues and I would not expect any other country to supplement the gin bill at Twickenham any more than I would like to see England helping to pay for the development of yet another world class 7 for NZ.
It's not as if that are using the money to find a world class 7 for themselves (or if they are they aren't achieving their goal)
-
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
-
@booboo said in Revenue Sharing:
The quip about the "build a bigger stadium" was the somewhat dismissive response from Ritchie the last time this came up.
It was illogical and arrogant when applied to NZ. Given this is the same argument it's even more so to apply that to Samoa.
Let's put it this way. If you put on a concert as a promoter you own that concert, but you pay your performers. No performers = no concert. No concert = no profit.
I understand your impression about NZ fans thinking we're special. We are ... errr ... we do. But I really think the model is unfair.
Yes England will sell out Twickers and make millions of broadcast dollars no matter who they play. But will they be able to attract anyone if they don't front with a reasonable appearance fee? Is Samoa going to keep playing for $200K? Can they afford to? Again no opposition no revenue at all.
I maintain the current system is selfish and unsustainable. NZ is going into bat for sharing. Yes they'll be a primary beneficiary. But so will every other nation.
I maintain that if every other country gets on board the benefits are huge.
I do understand that it seems like English bashing, but you guys offer the most stark contrasts.
And I'm not hungover.
Think I covered everything ...
England is the outlier. Why would it make sense for the IRFU/sRUWRU to share AI revenue with the NZRU a union that has a greater income than them?
