Australian Rugby / RA

[Tex]

We could also split the Vichy French and Republicans between the two sides. Not sure what to do with the Russians. Did the heavy lifting up until Yalta and the went a bit skewiff... Plenty of Georgians in the mix

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Well, we keep hearing about how the ABs are the be all and end all of NZ Rugby. Surely another opportunity to derive revenues from them would appeal. Or is their objection based on its one of our ideas.

 

[Adam84]

there objection is that the idea isn't as valuable to them as it is to RA and if it were to be implemented it would be a home and away series... whilst states in Australia will pay $million to host this test boosting the value of it, that wouldn't happen in NZ

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If they were savvy operators knowing that we wanted this game they could have negotiated some kind of revenue sharing arrangement. So that they could benefit from it as well.

 

[Wilson]

They were offered 50/50 revenue sharing for it, and apparently there was also going to be a $200k distribution to the super sides as part of the super round.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Bled test outside international windows would almost certainly have a revenue share element already.

What NZRU is worried about is when it's their turn to host it, they wouldn't be able to pay us the revenue that we would be expecting in return.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

We could host it. Yes, they miss out on hosting but they benefit from the revenue split and don't having to worry about having to find the money every 2nd year.

 

[Rhino_rugby]

They’d lose out on hosting, but a revenue split and not having to fund it every second year might make it a worthwhile trade-off.

 

[Dan54]

That's what I meant about NZR not turning it down for noble reasons or my reasons for not liking idea. You right there is not the same big money (though there some) in NZ as Aus, so would become an Aus thing I think. NZR probably (or I hope so) and figured they can make as much money (and keep sponsors happy) by playing extra tests (outside the test winows) in USA.
Robinson made no secret that decision was made after talking to sponsors as well as super franchises etc , as well as (importantly) the players' association. It was a no win to go with it for them I think.
As I said I can understand RA's wanting it, but also NZR's not being keen, nobody is in the wrong or anything. Also probably ANZAC day sport events for some reason have never been a highly promoted thing here in NZ for some reason.

 

[Major Tom]

At the end of the day they said no but they said yes to South Africa's tour at the expense of Australia. Not really a great partnership IMO. Best way to respond is win Super Rugby and win back the Bled.

 

[Dan54]

Exactly mate, that's what I meant, they looking (rightfully) at what's best for NZ in long run.

 

[Major Tom]

Turning down big money is best for NZ in the long run? Odd.
I heard WA were going to give each super rugby team 200k! And I pretty sure it was a 50/50 split of 10mil.
Sounds like the AB's were scared to lose the game / the series tbh.

 

[Dan54]

Mate you heard?? Well that's gospel then I suppose.
I would really think NZR would sell/hire RA the Bled for $10 mill mate!
On the super teams , I would they make decisions on that not NZR or RA do they? And that surely has nothing to do with ANZAC test?

 

[Major Tom]

The WA throws heaps of money all the time for all kinds of attractions.
Ian Payton reported that it was 10mil for the test (split 50/50) and 200k for each super rugby side for a super round. That's a lot of money to turn down. Apparently, the NZ super sides weren't keen to lose their stars, and the player union cited workload problems. It doesn't really stack up to me. Only thing I can think is their government would stump up the same cash when it's their time to host, so they didn't like the idea of the ABs giving Aus extra home advantage each year.
Doesn't matter, but it will be interesting when Rugby League and Basketball continue to gain in popularity in NZ. Might suddenly see from our pov.

 

[Adam84]

Exactly mate, that's what I meant, they looking (rightfully) at what's best for NZ in long run.

Debatable...

Their reasons for declining it are based on short-term implications and disrupting 1 round of super rugby and upsetting the AB's coach preparation time for 1 test match. That's short-run impacts and not considering the long-term regional benefits that could come from a new marketable sporting event.

 

[Braveheart81]

It feels like NZRU need to have an honest conversation with their Super Rugby sides and players' association along the lines of "how the fuck do you guys think we pay your contracts?"

I'd be pretty surprised if every NZ player doesn't expect their next contract to be bigger than their last (except at the very tail end of careers).

 

[Major Tom]

I'm also not sure why they would be concerned. They have the depth to cover, we're the ones it would impact.

 

[Braveheart81]

You could also schedule the round where test players are to miss out as mostly or all local derbies and then further reduce the impact on Super Rugby by matching up teams with the most test players. That way you minimize the competitive advantage/disadvantage given to particular teams.

 

[Major Tom]

Ultimately, it's not a bad thing, given it would give fringe players a go.

 

[Dan54]

Yep mate, but I think if it all added up financially it would of been on. But from what I read it was always to be played in Aus, and I think extra tests overseas in USA are pretty attractive these days, with sponsors etc. As I said apart from in here, I hadn't heard about the super weekend though.