IRB caves in to NZ "blackmail"

Turns out that the ABs weren't bluffing, had support from their SANZAR colleagues and are not "replaceable" at all.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5770586/South-heavyweights-shake-IRB-money-tree

Top marks must go to the NZRFU for their rapier precision and timing. Straight under the posts! 7 points.

I expect Barnes will be appointed referee for the final now if NZ make it

ok thats sorted then- the top teams have more money- what about the developing teams?

I'd like to see those unions explaining a boycot to their fans if their bluff had been called.

it seems as if the only reason they won was because us english need to organize the next one and they were holding back dates. they played a trump card and probally new they couldnt loose

Quite odd as its compeltly the opposite of what the IRB announced yesterday, that they werent going to change teh commercial model and that they were looking at options to minimise impact on the NH domestic season.
Instead WC players could miss 4 months of the club season, without even accounting for the 6 nations. Cheers IRB.

So to protect the SH season we bollox up the NH season.

Like our season isn't messed around enough as it is. The NH Unions lose way more money due to WC than the SH ones do.

Sadly yet again we see that Bullies can win.

So will the next WC clash with the Heineken Cup.There could be serious trouble from the clubs if that happens.

So NZ had managed to take another step in blocking the development of the World Wide game, by stopping money being distributed to the smaller teams that really need it.

That following their 'purchase' of the 2011 World Cup, when it should have gone to Japan - is IMO a terrible state of affair for the 'untouchable' NZ

Typical New Zealand Arrogance.

Give us more money because NZ has the biggest brand in the AB!

Can only play the RWC when NZ off season!




All the NH sides should walk away now because the RWC is always played in the height of our domestic competitions.

Has anyone read the article?

The IRB is to "look closely" at the commercial model. The SANZAR nations walk our unless finances "are discussed".

Wow. Quite a set of "concessions".

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Quite odd as its compeltly the opposite of what the IRB announced yesterday, that they werent going to change teh commercial model and that they were looking at options to minimise impact on the NH domestic season.
Instead WC players could miss 4 months of the club season, without even accounting for the 6 nations. Cheers IRB.

i dont think they are changing the commercial model- but are reimbursing potential lost revenues during world cup years to the top tier nations

Sod them :-)

TheGreyGhost wrote:...Top marks must go to the NZRFU for their rapier precision and timing. Straight under the posts! 7 points.

I suspect it'll turn out to have been a forward pass...

The IRB should call the bluff of the so called "heavyweights".

South Africa,New Zealand and Australia only have their interests at heart as usual which is very selfish.

New Zealand in particular are the biggest sinners. Complaining about the cost of their own world cup then demanding changes!

The money should be poured into developing the likes of Russia,USA and Japan as well as other nations.

How much money do you think has been lost in revenue because of the world cup in New Zealand in the NH domestic season?

Beshocked...its not about the profitability of the event itself, its that the profitability is outweighed by the lost revenue form other sources and how much of the revenue is being held by the IRB in reserve...not being distributed to anyone.

"How much money do you think has been lost in revenue because of the world cup in New Zealand in the NH domestic season?"


i agree with you 100%. The kiwis problem is that it runs a loss domestically even thopugh they make a profit from international- they want more of that pot to pay for a failed league.
but these are englands and kiwis figures for 09-10 and it wasnt even a world cup year- yet the kiwis run a 7.5 mill loss!!!

"The Rugby Football Union's results for 2009-10 show an income of £112million and profits of £25.8m. In contrast, the world's best team — Saturday was their ninth successive Test win over England since a Martin Johnson-led victory in 2003 — earned £46m last year yet made losses of £7.5m."

from

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/interviews/article-23895911-england-wont-win-rugby-world-cup-next-year-says-rfus-new-chief.do

If New Zealand, South Africa, and Ausrtralia, dont want to play in the Rugby World Cup, then so be it...Why should the IRB be held to ransom just to help out these three Nations.

The Rugby World Cup should be about helping delveloping nations, not simply helping these three Nations with their finances.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Beshocked...its not about the profitability of the event itself, its that the profitability is outweighed by the lost revenue form other sources and how much of the revenue is being held by the IRB in reserve...not being distributed to anyone.

right firstly a world cup may run a loss(govt takes on that loss- so its nothing to do with the kiwis rugby union accounts)- but that is outweighed 10 fold by tourism and economy boosts. so that also isnt the problem

The kiwis were making a point that they couldnt afford to keep playing world cups because they lost to much in potential revenue during those years. the fact that the kiwis had the world cup or not is immaterial to the point at hand- I think some were whinging about this world cup running a loss- in terms of costs to revenue- but all the same that point is mute and outlinned in my first passage due to the knock on economy boost!


you are right when it comes to the IRB reserves though- they have 240 million dollars of them- so IRB you really should be making it clear about what happens to these extra funds and if they are being held back- why? whats the plan of attack.

Don Alfonso wrote:Has anyone read the article?

The IRB is to "look closely" at the commercial model. The SANZAR nations walk our unless finances "are discussed".

Wow. Quite a set of "concessions".

Interestingly, this key point seems to have been missed, Don. Agree to talk. Tis all.

On the other hand, I agree - partially - with the SANZAR nations. A full analysis of the monies and how they are distributed are a part of each RWC. What is needed is some forward thinking to ensure everyone benefits, large nations and small. And by looking at the full picture of all revenue streams. No one should ever be suffering financially due to a RWC.

Reminds me of the recent NFL lockout in America. A key point of contention between the Clubs and Player's Union was whether clothing sales are part of the NFL revenue stream or not. This number is huge. Turned out the NFL agreed to include clothing sales, but found out the Player's Union were also selling clothes which needed to be included as well.

"No one should ever be suffering financially due to a RWC"

this is the point- no team does suffer financially due to a world cup they just dont make as much revenue overall!

the kiwis run losses anyway during non world cup years. they just run a bigger loss during world cup years.

The point to note is that they gain from international rugby on the whole, but its there domestic league that is the problem and that causes there losses. It is very very simple. NZ want more money from the IRB to fund losses domestically. This is fine in a way- they can try for anything they want, and they won. BUT they need to sort there own domestic issues out, or they are gonna keep going for more and more out of the international pot. They are robbing peter to pay paul.

I do agree as i stated before that the IRB needs to explain what they are doing with the extra money they seem to be hording back or distrubute it fairly(and fairly means giving the up and coming nations alot of help FIRST!)

Also another story going about at the moment is with liverpool- they want to be able to sell tv rights themselves not through the premiership. Now why do they want that money- its obvious pay inflated wages which they cant afford-- but all the same what are the FA doing with there 'loads of money'.


Whats the right thing to do- its a tough one- whats the lesser of the evil!

New Zealand throwing their weight around was never a concern but Australia and South Africa jumping in too, the IRB had to listen.
Basically as another poster stated the wording is "persuading International Rugby Board heavyweights to look closely at changing the commercial model to the 2015 World Cup".

Nothing has been agreed or changed yet, If the world Cup dies then the 3 Nations will suffer a lot from it, because that is where a lot of their money comes from anyway.
I doubt the World Cup dates would be altered, I don't think the 6 Nations clubs would take kindly to their players being away a further 4 weeks, especially since clubs like Leicester, Northampton and Wasps are already up shít creek due to loss of players. Unless the English and French Unions agree to scrap relegation for World Cup years, or at least introduce some sort of play off, so they have some kind of safety net.

I doubt Wales or Ireland care either way as they see the Rabo Direct as a development league anyway and will be more than happy to see young players getting experience from first team games.

The only real issue is the northern Hemisphere teams not being able to have World Cup warm up games as they would clash with the club season, and not being able to play in November either, so I cant see this happening at all. The 6 Nations teams simply cant afford it.

"Basically as another poster stated the wording is "persuading International Rugby Board heavyweights to look closely at changing the commercial model to the 2015 World Cup". "

not sure what you guys are talking about with this wording!

it has 100% been agreed that teh top tier nations are going to be reimbursed with any potential losses-. anything else that will be discussed later is immatrial to the threats- the 3 SH teams will play in the 2015 wc- however the tourny is scheduled . but whoever teams lose out they will be reimbursed

the qoute you guys need to worry about is this one below

"The big breakthrough was an acceptance that the loss of income incurred by every tier-one country during World Cup years should be made good.

"We probably achieved as much as we could hoped to at the meeting," New Zealand Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew said. "

Yep, the IRB are over SANZARs knee, and about to get a good spanking. You can't have the top 3 teams in the world missing from your "world cup" or it turns into a sad six nations re-hash. Still England might have a shot at a semi-final in that case

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yep, the IRB are over SANZARs knee, and about to get a good spanking. You can't have the top 3 teams in the world missing from your "world cup" or it turns into a sad six nations re-hash. Still England might have a shot at a semi-final in that case

One gracious post after the loss to France and we're back to baiting England eh GG, tut tut tut!

The question is, given how many top players play in New Zealand, how the feck is the domestic league making a loss and our mud-wrestle league still rakes it in. Oh right, New Zealand - best team in the world, world's most average fans.

A large number of easily pleased fans I guess.

Hang on, just paying out the IRB reserves to developing rugby nations is lunacy. Any gains seen as a result of just giving them money (which would be at risk of being syphoned off or just used to pay players' wages) would need to be artificially sustained by repeated payments. In other words providing unearned income for those nations, paid for out of capital reserves! THE only way to spread those funds is capital grants scheme, to create infrastructure in those countries that they can then use to generate their own income. But if you do that for some, you have to be prepared for any old country to come along and demand the same!

When the money goes in the coffers, I'll believe it. Most of that story is journalistic padding. An honest headlne would have been "Men Have Meeting In Room!!"

The three unions also pointed out that the IRB has more than $240m in reserves and can afford to relax its restrictive commercial view.

This is something that could be worth discussing, I'm assuming this is New Zealand dollars we are talking about, so £120m in British money.

If the IRB has that much stashed away then you's have to wonder why it hasnt been invested in tier B nations. Samoa had to ask the people on their islands to donate them money so they could compete and pay the travel fares, yet the IRB can have this much in the kitty.