Showdown with the IRB

[Nusadan]

If I recollect rightly, the 2007 RWC in France was in Oct/Nov...

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm sure an NZ RWC could have been a bit later in the year as it doesn't get that hot over there.

In Australia you wouldn't want to be playing much later than the current RWC is scheduled. It could get pretty warm by late October.

 

[Jay]

If I recollect rightly, the 2007 RWC in France was in Oct/Nov...

Sept/Oct. The final was on October 20 (god help, me I know this from memory).

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

I find this all a touch bizarre and IOCesque, as well as a case of a small country following heart over head. Sure the IRB should be able to get some dollars to pump money into developing the talents of other nations - well presumably that's the point of their existence. I don't get what seems to be a huge impost on host nations to be granted the privilege of hosting. I guess when you're talking about host nations like England - who 'spread the joy' through the UK, France and Ireland for games generally; South Africa with almost 50 million people; and Australia who had already built most of their stadia for the Olympics (so they had the right to play under 23 soccer matches I think), you have many more people and the money issues can be overcome more readily. When it comes to a country with about the resident population of Sydney, it starts to look like Montreal's problems after the 1976 Olympics - how long did they take to pay off the investment? 20 years? The IRB appears greedy, while at the same time, they put their call out for nominations to host and their rules are pretty clear (I doubt anyone thinks it will be cheap). Nobody asked NZ to throw their hat in for it. I don't really know what happened in the lead up to 2003 when Oz and NZ were originally to co-host but the impression I got was that there was some intransigence from NZ officials at the time, which I gather has brought us to where the issue is now.

Regardless, it seems to have been hugely successful so far and I'm sure people would be happy to see the All Blacks, who have been the best team going around for...well....since I can remember actually, win the bloody thing. Of course if the Wallabies can pull a few special efforts out of their backsides, I'm even happier, but um.....maybe not. However, I would think the IRB exists to benefit the game and if you have a look around the world there are a hell of a lot of Kiwis coaching in various roles and that's a fair example of the love and respect they have for union. A bit of middle ground must exist somewhere and I may be a bourbon or two beyond making good sense, but without the Kiwis, Rugby Union loses much. Then again, Tonga, Samoa and even Fiji would be stronger I guess......maybe shouldn't have said that. Erm...more bourbon!!

That Montreal situation is a even more bizzare situation. That was only payed off recently ie the last few years. There was a whole bunch of Mafia involvement and underhand stuff going on.

Agree with everything you are saying except about the AB's winning it!

 

[mark_s]

I think the IRB should shorten the RWC. The current format doesn’t work anyway as the minnow’s get dud draws given the odd number of teams in each pool. If so, then the Aus/NZ concerns may be able to be lessened. I haven’t turned my mind as to what format could work better but I would be in favour of a concurrent cup and plate competition. Maybe with the plate tournament being mid week games (Tues to Thurs) and the cup being weekend games (Fri to Sun) for pool games. The timings could be brought more into line for the knockout phases.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

The points are good, the timing was poor.

Having to shut out your sponsors & eliminate revenue generating games during the games biggest year, doesnt make financial sense.

You know when JO'N is siding with NZ, the points must be good.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

I think the IRB should shorten the RWC. The current format doesn’t work anyway as the minnow’s get dud draws given the odd number of teams in each pool. If so, then the Aus/NZ concerns may be able to be lessened. I haven’t turned my mind as to what format could work better but I would be in favour of a concurrent cup and plate competition. Maybe with the plate tournament being mid week games (Tues to Thurs) and the cup being weekend games (Fri to Sun) for pool games. The timings could be brought more into line for the knockout phases.

I have struggled with a solution to the situation you are bringing up here. Is 5 pools of 4 a better solution? I mean Samoa got the short end of the stick, but then again is it not a squad of 30 that wins the whole thing?

I think the amount of teams is a good one, Georgia have managed a win against Romania who have been known to be able to play the game. Namibia have improved significantly, they got smashed by us 147-0 and have improved. Canada have had an outstanding cup, maybe should have won against Japan but given the money that's in Japanese Rugby they have definitely punched above their weight.

To grow the game we need a presence from North America and Africa where there is significant populations.

China is another place that needs to be tapped, whether Hong Kong drive's this i don't know. A tenth of a percent of china's population playing the game is still 1.3million people playing the game. Hopefully a rivalry with Japan would be enough to drive this.

I know this post brings up more questions etc but i think the unfortunate thing that Rugby has that other sports doesn't is significant body contact and recuperation times. Maybe increasing the numbers for the squad is what is required.

 

[Braveheart81]

Rugby 7s being in the Olympics is what will grow the game in China in the first instance.

I think the scheduling issues could be partially solved by ensuring that every team has a minimum of a six day break before their key games. This might mean that minnows get beaten more heavily by the top teams but at least they would have the best chance against the teams they are actually likely to beat.

It would also mean that the ridiculous situation of Samoa getting a four day turnaround in what was almost always going to be the playoff for second in their pool against Wales would never happen.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

Rugby 7s being in the Olympics is what will grow the game in China in the first instance.

I think the scheduling issues could be partially solved by ensuring that every team has a minimum of a six day break before their key games. This might mean that minnows get beaten more heavily by the top teams but at least they would have the best chance against the teams they are actually likely to beat.

It would also mean that the ridiculous situation of Samoa getting a four day turnaround in what was almost always going to be the playoff for second in their pool against Wales would never happen.

Agreed on the six day turn around but i bet that add's some significant time to the tournament. That and cost's involved with competing, maybe the IRB could have a situation like the olympics where the athletes all stay in similar accomodation and pick up the bill. The top tier nations and either eat some humble pie or take their teams to 'spa retreats' should they see fit.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think you could do it without making the tournament longer.

In the case of Samoa, I would give them a four day turnaround against South Africa which they are likely to lose anyway but give them the full week for their Wales game which is the match that they need to win to progress to the next round.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

I think you could do it without making the tournament longer.

In the case of Samoa, I would give them a four day turnaround against South Africa which they are likely to lose anyway but give them the full week for their Wales game which is the match that they need to win to progress to the next round.

No i don't think that this is fair. Every team should be allowed to be on an even playing field.

 

[mark_s]

I agree every team should be on a level playing field. Why gives teams like Samoa and USA a handicap in the RWC? You end up in the situation where the minoows have rested some of their better players when playing the top ranked teams in order to improve the chances of beating the mid ranked teams.

 

[Braveheart81]

No i don't think that this is fair. Every team should be allowed to be on an even playing field.

Without lengthening the tournament, I still think this would be a fairer option.

It's a catch-22 as having the major nations play on the weekend improves the TV audiences and therefore the value of those TV rights which results in more money going to the smaller nations to develop the sport.

I definitely think having a plate competition for the teams ranked 3 and 4 in the pools would help generate more revenue for everyone. As we've seen from many of the games between evenly matched smaller nations, they are hugely entertaining.

 

[Bullrush]

From the NZ Herald:

All Blacks: Moore blasts Rugby World Cup boycott 'blackmail'
11:30 AM Thursday Sep 29, 2011

A former English rugby international has accused the New Zealand Rugby Union of "blackmail" after chief executive Steve Tew warned that the All Blacks may not play in the 2015 Rugby World Cup because of financial issues.

"They want what is best for world rugby? Excuse us whilst we vomit," former England forward Brian Moore wrote in response to Tew's comments.

In his column for the British Telegraph, the former World Cup hooker said the NZRU and its Sanzar partners Australia and South Africa had already connived with the IRB to "screw the minnows" by skewing the tournament schedule against them.

"New Zealand now want to screw them further by doing greedy deals with sponsors."

He said such deals would "lessen the value" of the Rugby World Cup's commercial rights, with the flow-on effects hurting tier-two nations.

In comments reported by the Guardian and the Telegraph, Tew pointed to a rule preventing participating nations from working with their sponsors during the tournament as they could conflict with the Cup's own sponsors.

The rule exists because of the need to maximise profits and generate income for developing the game in nations below the top 10.

"If this was a soccer World Cup, the All Blacks' hotel would be decked out with our sponsors until Thursday [before a weekend match]. In a Rugby World Cup, our sponsors do not get a look-in. They are very excluded," Tew said.

His Australian counterpart agreed. John O'Neill said his union was NZ$20 million worse off because of "no inbound tests from Northern Hemisphere teams and a curtailed Tri-Nations season".

"All we want is what is best for world rugby," Tew said.

"I am not saying we will not be involved in 2015, but you either reform things through an evolutionary process or you plant a flag in the ground and say it's time to change."

"This explicit blackmail is only negotiation if you are Lord Palmerston," countered Moore.

He also balked at former New Zealand coach Laurie Mains' support of Tew, and his claim that the All Blacks were the biggest attraction in rugby.

Moore said his nation contributed more money to world rugby than any other, and claimed that England - and any team they played at home - were equally as attractive as the All Blacks.

"If you had to pick a country to play in your national stadium the All Blacks might be that country. But the RFU fills Twickenham for games against South Africa, Australia and all Six Nations games.

"As they cannot sell more than the capacity, all those other teams produce as much money as New Zealand, and therefore are their equal in terms of attraction."

He also said the tournament didn't need the All Blacks, Wallabies and Springboks to survive.

"The Rugby World Cup existed well before Sanzar and the Tri-Nations and though diminished without them, it will survive their absence."

 

[Swat]

"Moore said his nation contributed more money to world rugby than any other" would have been nice to supply some evidence rather than just make sweeping claims.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

"Moore said his nation contributed more money to world rugby than any other" would have been nice to supply some evidence rather than just make sweeping claims.

IM pretty sure that's accurate. They have the largest player base.

France has a huge revenue too though, so I guess they could be competing with it.

Who would have thought an English journey would get on their high horse about a statement released by the NZRFU.. whatever next...

 

[Sluggy]

I don't really know what happened in the lead up to 2003 when Oz and NZ were originally to co-host but the impression I got was that there was some intransigence from NZ officials at the time, which I gather has brought us to where the issue is now.

The NZRFU refused to sign off on the co-host agreement in March 2002, saying it could not deliver on tournament demands to provide stadiums that were free of advertising and comply with corporate seating entitlements. An attempt by them to have the RWC hosting contract varied to accomadate existing NZ stadium advertising failed, and the IRB moved the whole tournament to Australia after John O'Neill advised in response to an IRB enquiry we could host the whole thing. The only 'new' post Olympics grounds needed were Lang Park (finished upgrade 2003), and an upgraded Adelaide Oval - which were paid for by the Qld government and SACA respectively.

Many NZ journos (and internet board posters!) looking for someone to blame decided to target John O'Neill with their vitriol, accusing him of 'stealing' NZ's part of the tournament. This was most unfair - the blame lay with the NZRU and, firstly, its failure to get the sinage issue sorted well in advance, and, secondly, its misjudgement that if it stood firm in negotiations everybody else would cave in to the 'spiritual guardians'.

A special report to the union by former New Zealand chief justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum on the co-hosting program loss showed officials responsible for "some critical misjudgments over the five-year period in which the sub-host agreement was negotiated" with the IRB. NZRU chairman Malcolm McCaw, and chief executive David Rutherford were forced to resign over the issue.

Linky: http://157.166.224.103/rugby/news/2002/07/23/nz_cup_ap/

If you follow some of the links at the bottom of that report you get to this ominous quote from McCaw in April 2002.

"It probably needs a full review of the way in which the IRB goes about the appointment of host and sub-host and, indeed, the financial model."

Tew was appointed as Rutherford's replacement, and is beating an old drum.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

Without lengthening the tournament, I still think this would be a fairer option.

It's a catch-22 as having the major nations play on the weekend improves the TV audiences and therefore the value of those TV rights which results in more money going to the smaller nations to develop the sport.

I definitely think having a plate competition for the teams ranked 3 and 4 in the pools would help generate more revenue for everyone. As we've seen from many of the games between evenly matched smaller nations, they are hugely entertaining.

Yeah definitely a catch 22,

I like the idea of the plate competition. But i also like the idea of a merit side to be named, and whether they play is another story. The Barbarian side should possibly look to include players of lower tier nations. Either that or the IRB set up a side to play touring teams. I would like to see the likes fo Adam Kleeburger or Todd Clever have an opportunity to play against some stiff opposition.