All Blacks to Boycott RWC 2015?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Sports/Story/A1Story20110928-301894.html

As he says, it would be the action of last resort - but if commercial arrangements stay the same as the current WC then it is exceedingly unlikely that New Zealand would participate.

While I have sympathies with countries losing money each of his potential solutions effectively means a loss to someone else:

1) Move the WC so a full Tri Nations can be played - note NH countries lose all their AIs all ready. This must mean moving it later, thus heavily impacting even further on the European season. They do not want to affect the Super XV by playing Tri-nations earlier, but do want to ride roughshod over the HC timetable.

2) Pay more to Tier 1 countries. This thus reduces the cash available for improving world wide rugby and is a narrow minded and short term view. The better the level of world wide rugby and it's exposure, the higher the TV and Commercial revenues and thus the money coming back to the Unions.

3) Relax the restrictions placed on the individual sponsors of countries (ie allow shirt sponsorship and other commercial activities for team sponsors rather than official IRB sponsors). This will obviousley reduce the value of the sponsoship package. It is however the best of the 3 solutions.


Any way, what do you think? Is mentioning this during a WC the right time? Should they have raised it earlier - seeing as they knew the arrangements in place for this WC?

As a side note - if the RFU had mentioned this and were mooting the possibility of boycotting a WC in NZ they would have been pilloried from every corner of the rugby globe. Will double standards be applied?

i think thats untrue, i mean would many european fans fork out £1000's to go to new zealand if there wasnt a WC on (considering the economic state atm) i highly doubt it, its due to their faithfull support to teams.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/oneill-has-grim-fears-for-future-world-cups-20110928-1kxfa.html

Fantastic.

And there we were thinking the ANZAC spirit was dead Emack.

Nice to have you with us Aussies.

emack2 wrote:Like it or not the All Blacks are THE most successful team in or out of RWC on games won/lost.

No, they're not. Outside of the WC and combined with the WC, yes, but in the WC they have an 83% match win rate, compared to SA & Aus' 86% & 85%.

welshy824 wrote:i think thats untrue, i mean would many european fans fork out £1000's to go to new zealand if there wasnt a WC on (considering the economic state atm) i highly doubt it, its due to their faithfull support to teams.

Around 250,000 of them a year Welshy.

Several high quality tourism publications, and the Daily Telegraph have recently voted NZ as the best overseas holiday destination. You'd be surprised if you haven't been out there that the roads are regularly clogged with Brits in Maui camper vans. Six of my work colleagues went out last year, more than have gone this year for the world cup.

It's a reasonably comfortable 20 odd hours sitting in a seat, watching movies, drinking wine and eating cheese regularly and after a nice little snooze, you're there. It's really not like there's a treacherous journey past Cape Horn with the squally winds on skirvy rashions any more welshy.

Last time I was out, my neighbours at the beach place I was staying were Polish, Dutch and Italian. You might be living in a forgotten time there.

Whilst that is certainly true of cities that have hosted the olympics. It is not true of the Soccer world cups nor is it true of the rugby world cup in wales Those cities have traditionally been major tourist destinations, with a large national infrastructure and close to the areas where tourists come from. Sydney an exception to the distance rule.

It is not true of World cups in Rugby or Soccer. Here are the figures on the welsh world cup 1999 where your statement is demonstrably incorrect.

"The completion of the Millennium Stadium enabled Cardiff to host the
Rugby World Cup (RWC) Final in 1999. This provided a huge boost to tourism
figures.The STEAM results show that while tourist expenditure was down during 5 months in 1999, there were huge increases during the Rugby World Cup
months. For example expenditure in October and November was up by 122%
and 78% respectively and therefore overall annual expenditure was also up.
Visitor revenue, visitor numbers and employment supported by tourism
increased by 15%, 13% and 17% respectively on 1998."

NZ despite its beauty and attractions and great hospitality is not a major tourist destination is it? Nor is it in close enough in proximity to anyone other than Japan or Australia. British rugby fans, French, Russian, American, Canadian, Irish, all the rest of the world that have come visiting would not have come in the numbers over the year were it not for the world cup. Those tourist who are looking for teh adventure and beauty that travelling in NZ brings will still come.

There I managed to talk about NZ tourism without mentioning hobbits.

Grey I want to make it clear Im not upset by NZ fans or the Team, I think NZ as a place is great and the people are welcoming friendly and they know their rugby, for a welshman thats enough. I am however disgusted with both the timing and the content of Steve Tews comments. Come on Ive been here and on the old 606 and before that the scrum v site as a poster and I dont think anyone would call me a wummer yet some of the outright falsehoods bandied about over this issue I am appalled by.

grey i am sure new zealand is a beautifull place to go- i cant wait to visit. Your still worng tho pal

TheGreyGhost wrote:

welshy824 wrote:i think thats untrue, i mean would many european fans fork out £1000's to go to new zealand if there wasnt a WC on (considering the economic state atm) i highly doubt it, its due to their faithfull support to teams.

Around 250,000 of them a year Welshy.

Several high quality tourism publications, and the Daily Telegraph have recently voted NZ as the best overseas holiday destination. You'd be surprised if you haven't been out there that the roads are regularly clogged with Brits in Maui camper vans. Six of my work colleagues went out last year, more than have gone this year for the world cup.

It's a reasonably comfortable 20 odd hours sitting in a seat, watching movies, drinking wine and eating cheese regularly and after a nice little snooze, you're there. It's really not like there's a treacherous journey past Cape Horn with the squally winds on skirvy rashions any more welshy.

Last time I was out, my neighbours at the beach place I was staying were Polish, Dutch and Italian. You might be living in a forgotten time there.

i realise many people go on holiday to new zealand every year, i mean i know my auntie has been there from aus and my great uncle is currently living there. what i am saying is surely NZ gets more tourism this year considering it has the WC as tbh NZ although being a beautiful country wouldnt be my first choice as a summer holiday as very expensive compared to turkey or greece etc (espicially as a teenager) and i mean it is the same for the olympic games as next year rather than going abroad on holiday me and my family are travelling down to go to the games as our holiday then most likely carrying on with the caravan to dorset for the main holiday (unfortunately going to see horse riding so i would prefer to go abroad but...)

Oh and just as an aside dont you actually gain a game in world cup years from Argentina joining the tri nations and an extra two games every year outside a world cup?

You can't just check the figures in the given year TO. You have to project from prior figures to later figures and you will see the blip is generally self correcting. This is more likely to be true of somewhere like NZ where British tourists are either likely to visit once in their lives or not at all - they're more likely for that time to be during a major event of interest. But you can't treat the jump in figures as purely a consequence of the event. You have to factor in future lost revenue against the individuals propensity of visiting anyway.

I'm not making this up. Anyone with any experience or training in this area will tell you the same thing.

Grey you are clearly travelling with a better class of airline than me. or is it business class. Im 6 foot 4, so a 20 hour flight with less room than cattle on the way to a slaughterhouse, screaming kids generally entails a couple of valium and as much vodka as possible so I slump into a stupor. Movies are always out of date and honestly never had wine and cheese on a plane. And yes I have flown NZ airways as well as others. Emirates is the best but no wine on those flights.

TycroesOsprey wrote:Oh and just as an aside dont you actually gain a game in world cup years from Argentina joining the tri nations and an extra two games every year outside a world cup?

Look we're having a little grumble and throwing our toys out of the cott while the world is looking. Just ^accept we have a valid point^ and move on. It'll all be forgotten in a few weeks when the RWC is the greatest idea ever. Just wait and see.

TheGreyGhost wrote:You can't just check the figures in the given year TO. You have to project from prior figures to later figures and you will see the blip is generally self correcting. This is more likely to be true of somewhere like NZ where British tourists are either likely to visit once in their lives or not at all - they're more likely for that time to be during a major event of interest. But you can't treat the jump in figures as purely a consequence of the event. You have to factor in future lost revenue against the individuals propensity of visiting anyway.

I'm not making this up. Anyone with any experience or training in this area will tell you the same thing.

fair point grey but surely those people who do go during the world cup spend more than people who usually go as people at the WC will buy seats be more likely to buy accomodation near the venues (more expensive) spend more money on booze and food and buy more memorabilia?

TycroesOsprey wrote:Grey you are clearly travelling with a better class of airline than me. or is it business class. Im 6 foot 4, so a 20 hour flight with less room than cattle on the way to a slaughterhouse, screaming kids generally entails a couple of valium and as much vodka as possible so I slump into a stupor. Movies are always out of date and honestly never had wine and cheese on a plane. And yes I have flown NZ airways as well as others. Emirates is the best but no wine on those flights.

I'm always hungry on Air NZ (sorry ANZ, but it's true). I'm not sure which class of Emirates you got on...but I managed to get utterly liquored on an Emirates flight. I think three hang-overs between here and Melbourne. Cathay Pacific have those great slinky seats even in cattle class, you can kind of stretch into the seat in front without getting metal bars cutting off the circulation in your calves or thighs. Of course I can never condone the smell of fish rice at breakfast time.

TheGreyGhost

Having the notorious tight fisted O'Neill on your side may not be a good thing. The man is a fool.

What a surprise he too wants more money, he's always complaining.

Aus could be one of the rugby economic powerhouses if it tried... but the ARU are too damn lazy. They don't bother to have a domestic competition to develop talent, they're not even showing all Aus' games on non satellite TV.. let alone all games like other 'tier 1 nations'.
How can they utilise their own domestic financial resources when they don't even bother to develop a serious home fan base.

You say fantastic but what do you actually want? More money for unions but how?

So Tew said unions lose because of a) reduction of 3N to 4 instead of 6 games and b) no lucrative autumn internationals.

You want to host 5 more tests a year during the RWC... good luck looking for a slot... its jam packed.

You want your players to end up getting stress/fatigue based injuries?

Just remember that the 3N next year will include more travelling to Argentina, that 6N summer tours are once again beginning.
Team doctors have already stated that the rise in the number of tests & SR games is detrimental to their players health... and you want more?

overall annual expenditure was also up.
Visitor revenue, visitor numbers and employment supported by tourism
increased by 15%, 13% and 17% respectively on 1998."

Mate 99 figures are better than 98 figures and the Welsh tourist board and cardiff chamber of commerce have supplied those figures and attributed the increase to the world cup.

first you say tourist figures dont increase, so I give you facts now you say Im interpreting those facts wrong?

You said the IRB dont fund grass roots rugby with the world cup, I provided you with their own details on how they do.

Others said NZ will not benefit from the world cup, I provided details from the beeb showing a 1.2 billion boost to the economy.

Every point you have made I have given you statements press releases etc from the relevant bodies that refute your points.

Youve accuse me of being patronising, condescending or having a pop at NZ but at no point have you given me facts!

I'm just revelling in the ANZAC spirit fa...nothing logical in it at all, like dying to defend the wrong turkish beachhead.

As long as we're in it together, not matter what the odds, or how horribly we get pummelled it's nice to have an opportunity to the cousins over the ditch and put some of the recent over-blown bad blood under the bridge.

Not that I'd equate sporting management to an actual war or anything.

grey ghost i have posted reasons how and why a sporting event improves the economy in the given country maybe you should look at it before you keep going on..and although you are close to the truth in terms of numbers visiting especially in NZ,many people may only go there once in a lifetime and if they didnt go to the world cup they may go after- you are forgetting the die hard fans that follow there teams around the world- Which lets be fair here make up alot of the following fans - basicaly if you get it again they will go agian- if you dont they wont! can you accept that.

ooh yes Cathay pacific are great I did very naughty things on a flight from KL once on one of their planes.

So it was you that used all the hand cream and tissues in the forward port toilets?

Even the NZ Herald doesnt agree http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10755099

Is the NZRFU actualy saying that If the All Bklacks do not win this RugbyWorld Cup, they will not take part in any other Rugby World Cup, simply because they have not won since 1987, so it is a waste of time the All Blacks playing, because if they could not win at home, they never will win it.

Just seems a bit like sour grapes to me.

hmm and whilst I hate to agree with Brian moore http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/sport/rugby/5702779/Brian-Moore-slams-NZRU-blackmail-tactics

Cathay Pacific, toilets are not as big as you may think I needed the hand cream to squeeze in.

I think the respondent who proposes a breakaway from the IRB is just about right on the money.

The IRB is still a hang-over from the days when the RFU and IRFU ruled the rugby world.

We need a Kerry Packer figure to arise from some wealthy media conglomerate and push the cronies off their trough. Sort out the laws, align the seasons and generally bring harmony to the rugby playing world.

i dont understand why NZ actually took the WC if they knew it was going to make a loss, how does that work???

and tbh having someone like tagheur sponsor the WC surely means its not making bad profits?

it doesnt make an effective loss- any loss born (if there is gonna be one) isnt real- the economy boost is massively substantial which counters it 100 fold.

there problem is that NZ cant use there own sponsers in the world cup, and that they loose a few tour matchesw were there recieve much more revenue.

point is tho who are they gonna play against if they leave!!

it is all abit nuts from my point of.

i could understand the kiwis and other nations wanting to earn more out of the world cups with there own sponsers etc. but as long as the money earned by the world cups as it stands is put back into world rugby then it is a very short sighted view from the top nations to want more of the pie

Well Mark Reason thinks NZ are wrong (surprise)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5701348/NZ-must-reap-what-it-has-sown-over-World-Cup

And between celebrating the ghost of his Dad (again) and taking pops at various rugby legends, manages to make his predictable anti-NZ points again.

So, clearly Tew is right. Thanks for clearing that up Mark. You trouser sausage.

GELEDGE,the All Blacks have WON more games than any other in a RWC fact.NOT stats based on win /loss of finals/wins %.
SA were`nt in 1987 or 1991 so it is physical impossibility they won more games.For what the trivial point is worth.

yeh thats a fair point, NZ leaving the world cup actually means they lose more money as there will be no other teams to play against so what little revenue they claim to be making will be lost aswell.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5701479/Lockout-threat-for-World-Cup-players-from-IRB

Players participating under duress from the IRB. Interesting stuff.

No wonder Tew felt he had to speak out.

The players are clearly being massively exploited and it's thanks to the smarter amongst them such as SBW to use their individual powers in a collective angle to leverage the IRBs hands off the money pot.

TycroesOsprey wrote:ooh yes Cathay pacific are great I did very naughty things on a flight from KL once on one of their planes.

Air NZ are too in that regard-take it from a card-carrying member of a certain club...

They give out actual cards now?

Do you get loyalty points??

CAN YOU EXCHANGE THEM FOR AIR MILES???

so whats the answer then grey- reduce the teams in teh world cup to ten and just split all the profits up. or keep it as it is but dont give any help to the lower tier nations(they then wont be able to afford cometiting and will get worse and worse)

how is that a moving forward sport , how is that promoting it world wide so rugby can compete with sports such as tennis,golf and football!!

think of the bigger picture

I don't have a point Mystrioakey. I was just enjoying a good argument.



And another thing...

honestly I dont have a clue who his dad is, and I dont see his criticism of fitzpatrick as a pop at the player more his stance taken in 94-95 along with Pienaar. As for Paul Rees being one of the finest journos well Im not sure I would agree with that either but heres somthing he said i do agree with and I have been saying throughout this thread.

"The World Cup enhances the All Blacks 'brand'. If New Zealand win, then more sponsors will be interested in backing the team and so the value goes up. But so too will the value of New Zealand's players"

Everyone should do what the wru do - increase thier income streams outwith of worldcup years, Wales play 4 tests each autumn compared to 3 by most other home unions. I can see both sides of the argument but ultimately for rugby to grow we need all the top countries competing in a world tournament - this will get sorted - and England 2015 will be a commercial and rugby success.

NZ sponsorship is fairly sewn up by those Germans who make the expensive Noir Couture.

The wage bill will just keep increasing.

mystiroakey,

The issue is not who NZ are going to play if the pull out. The issue is that the NZRFU may be insolvent if things continue the way they are going and would not be able to compete at a RWC anyway.

It was interesting reading today that all 3 Sanzar nations had been advocating for this, so it is not just NZ and Aus. It was also interesting that the International Rugby Players Association were told that they had to sign away all rights for their players during the RWC (that is players from all countries) and if they did not then the players would be locked out of the RWC (see link) and according to Rob Nichol (IRPA executive director Rob Nichol) on radio in NZ this morning RWC Limited would not even meet food costs for players during the RWC and in particular those from the 2nd and 3rd tier nations who are operating on a shoestring.

The big issue appears to be that RWC Limited is now so divorced from the meber unions that it is failing to distribute its earning in a fair and equitable manner and is retaining huge profits and reserves on the basis that it needs them to "grow" rugby globally while it lets the Tier 1 and 2 countries contemplate financial ruin.

Some may object to how Steve Tew has handled this, however he has an obligation to his NZ member unions and the SANZAR nations to try and right the balance that currently means that 3 of the best nations in world rugby are not receiving their just desserts.



http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5701479/Lockout-threat-for-World-Cup-players-from-IRB

england 2015 will be massive for sure.

surely garanteed the biggest crowds and tv revenues of all time.

Also money made on sponsership will be massive- that money can and will go back into world rugby. New zealand have decided to try and muscle in on the pot. but either way they will be there and this will all get sorted out

"The issue is that the NZRFU may be insolvent"

how can that be- surely this is not due to international rugby- that over time must and does make a profit(one year may be a loss- but the other 3 outweigh)- is the money being lost domestically then.

if the above is the case nz only have themselves to balme and need to sort that side out- they cqant just run a loss domestically and take money out of an international pool to pay for it!

there are no problems that i have heard of from other nations- if the above isnt the case then what is the problem!

There has been reports in the media of problems at the top of both English
and French rugby boards.Comments about self seeking,jobs for the boys.Looking after themselves.rather than what is good for there national
teams.
The IRB is a NH dominated body,they have more votes than the SH .
So everything has to be done by getting Nh votes added to Sh votes.
Before anything can be done NH has to agree it.The IRB is and always was a self seeking body.
As to the NZRFU the provincial sides,the lifeblood of the All Blacks have been
having financial problems.Hence the sudden 2 tier ITM[Currie Cup has recently adopted a similar stance.
They have not fielded A sides NZ MAORI/Junior All Blacks in Churchill or Pacific Nations cups.As of yore for finacial reasons they usually won those anyway.
Steve Tew has used a time when he can get maximum impact for his negoiations.

Im not saying the RWC is perfect, I desperatly want a plate competition for Tier 2 nations and those tier 1 nations who screw up (Im welsh it gives us a chance of winning somthing other than the six nations beasting England is getting passe).

I have serious issues with anyone who says FIFAs business model is somthing to aspire to given the overt corruption of that organisation.

Heres a question for you, What if Brazil, arguably the best known brand in world football if not the biggest commercially decide to boycott the world cup because they want more money from FIFA through sponsership. Do you think that would end the Soccer world cup? Brazil would be laughed at by blatter et al whilst he toddled off to the bank?

Did the olympics end when the usa boycotted in 1980? or USSR in 84? nope. Both the USAAA and Soviet Athletics federation did though.

Maybe if the All Blacks had for ALL theall black strips used by other countries as well they`d be better off.
Yes ,I am just stirring the pot too nothing like a good debate it has been flat all week.

Otagolad wrote:mystiroakey,

The big issue appears to be that RWC Limited is now so divorced from the meber unions that it is failing to distribute its earning in a fair and equitable manner and is retaining huge profits and reserves on the basis that it needs them to "grow" rugby globally while it lets the Tier 1 and 2 countries contemplate financial ruin.

And now esteemed gentlemen of the board, Mr Beaumont will explain to you by way of short video presentation how $1.2M of world cup takings were spent growing grass roots rugby via the purchase of a small bespoke rubber manufacturer in Algeria, two hundred kilos of direct marketing pharmaceutical imports from Acapulco and the personal assistant services of just over one hundred Brazilian festival dancers.

WelshinEdinburgh,

The problem for the SANZAR nations is that the NH unions have increased their non-RWC yearly revenue with fantastic TV deals for the Autumn internationals, however the flip side of that is those games are against the SANZAR and SH teams and they are not receiving a penny of that income.

So in effect the SANZAR nations are playing each year in the NH in order to increase the NH unions coffers (the SANZAR countries do get a cut of the gate so that is why they go). Without the SANZAR nations playing in the Autumn tests the NH teams would have very reduced revenues, and there has as we all know been talk previously of not sending teams from SANZAR to the NH for the Autumn tests and were it not for binding commitments to sponsors etc. such a withdrawal might have occurred.

Frankly, what this is about is a fair sharing of global revenues. I accept that the greater viewing numbers are in the UK/Ireland/France, however without games against the SH sides the NH sides would, as I mention above, have their revenues significantly reduced.

It is the NZ/Aus business plan that is wrong. By choosing to pay the players wages,to keep control of them,they bare the total cost without the home financial ability to support it. If they choose to allow players to play abroad some of the cost would bourne by somebody else. They would still have access to the players during the International window but not total control.

The bit about other countries second strip being black is crazy. You dont hear England complaining about other teams wearing white.

Big difference between the legacy of the All Blacks, unsallied by overt advertising, and the change-a-day white, red, stripy, purple or tequilla sunrise sponsorladen advertising space born by the England players.

Just sayin'...

Hang on people keep sayin that all the other tier one nations are faceing bankruptcy or insolvency? Thats just not true England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France are all operating at a profit. I dont know about the boks but Argentina and Italy also have money in their coffers.

Euro nations do not have more power in the IRB everyone has a single vote, and traditionally Wales has sided with SANZAR on countless issues having a world cup in the first place for instance as have Ireland on a number of occasions. The RFU refused to join the IRB at first which is why its based in Dublin. so saying its a NH club is not correct.

this is like the many of the ELV, Aus wanted them cos it would suit their game and they would be more successful. the NH did not because they were totally incompatible with the 15 man code.

Its about the greater good of teh game

GG if I remember correctly it was the threat of a breakaway professional league made for TV that prompted the IRB to agree to turn the game professional in the first place as many of the top 6n and 3n players were allegedly signed up. Instrumental in pushing for that were NZ and Australia.

Incidentally I'm sure there's a quote from just before the pro era from a NZ player along the lines of "I'm rugby's first millionaire, but I'm still amateur", possibly you might know who said it.

Mr Tew may have a point in terms of the loss of players and revenue for New Zealand but it's been made very badly and at a very inappropriate moment.

Whether or not he's been misquoted, it reads like "give us more money or we won't play", your neighbours from the bigger island may offer vocal support (I'm sure they'd like more money too), but I'll bet you anything they'll be on the plane in 2015 regardless of the finances.

Regarding how "famous" the All Blacks brand is, yes I'm sure many people have heard of them in the US and Asia and one or two may own a shirt, and yes I'm sure most tourists pick up an AB item as a momento of a trip there, however that doesn't nessecarily translate into genuine interest, as pointed out above lots of people wear ManU or Barcelona soccer shirts but couldn't find them on a map.

Also given the huge amount of knock off sportskit hat comes out os China/SE Asia I doubt if Adidas or the ABs see much of the revenue anyway.....

There's a PhD and a book for someone the link between the ABs and New Zealands self esteem and image as place, very few other countries must have such a close connection and indentification with a sports team as a national symbol and bellweather....

Of course we'd miss you up here in the north but the game (rather shockingly) would continue without you, the 6n would still sell out, Oz and SA would still come here and the Jeff, Robocop and HC would continue as before.

The best analongy I can think of is golf without Tiger Woods, yes things were not the same, but the tournaments went on, in his absence new stars emerged - Rory McIlroy, Dustin Johnson, Martin Kaymer, and more importantly absolutely nothing changed at anyones local golf club just because Tiger wasnt there at the top of the pro game. Same will happen without the AB's.

On the bright side, it's not going to happen anyway.......

mystiroakey,

The reason for insolvency comes down to revenue streams. The SANZAR nations just do not generate the same revenue as the NH unions (because of a far higher take from TV rights both from domestic and international competitions), whilst at the same time they are having to pay the top players an international level salary etc. (and to be honest they can't compete with the top English and French clubs and only the pride in the AB's jersey has kept a number of top players in NZ).

The SANZAR nations also do not have the same levels of sponsorship (outside the AB's shirt deal which is marginally the highest from what I understand) and they do not have the same level of financial commitment from wealthy individuals (e.g. in Eng/France where clubs are privately owned). You only have to look at Aus to see the lengths the ARFU has gone to to try and keep its top players e.g. getting wealthy individuals to sponsor players.

So simply, the costs of running rugby in NZ/Aus/SA on limited revenue streams whilst lining the pockets of NH teams from their TV rights (see earlier post) has put the NZRFU and the other SANZAR countries in a precarious position which is nether fair nor equitable.

ermm i see that i was right-

aus and nz are the brazil and argentina of the rugby world i see, Your leagues are not sustanable, maybe its time to give up trying and ship your players- you can make loads from breeding players. It was a failed buisness model and now you want to steal the pot to pay for your mistakes.

you guys may be top of the rugby pile- but us in europe have the league pedigree lol