Rugby Championship Game to be Held in London?

Argentina to host Australia in London. Not sure why but fair enough.

It is a deal brokered by Mossack Fonseca

Ha why?

probably money right.

London means its potentially viable for AUS audience just about. Europe market and SA market. ARG is the deadzone for NZ/AUS right.

13hr diff between BA and Sydney. So a 2pm match would mean 3am AUS time.

London is 9 hrs so a 2pm match would mean 11pm. Not that much better but a hell of a lot more attractive viewers wise than 3am. 11pm you can still market a match, 3am you might as well air it for free.

Because its:

"All about the money, money, money"

The ARU are forever treading water finance wise. They'd flog their sister if it meant getting a few extra dollars at the moment.

I'd bet they'd even starting hiring out Folau et al to the highest bidder if it was legal.

Actually it's the Argentina home game

yappysnap wrote:Actually it's the Argentina home game

ARG home games come on about 10-11pm SA time. Middle of the night for ANZAC.  So they have little market worth. Pushing them back to UK-SA time makes them at least marketable from a AUS domestic TV point of view.

Strange. Would have thought Argentina would have been keen to try and draw as many fans at home as possible. Maybe even host a game outside of BA in Cordoba or something like that

Financial. For both teams, the income from a hopefully sold out Twickenham is a big boost to both coffers. Usually only the home team gets the gate receipts and corporate $$ so Aussie wins. The exchange rate is a huge winner for Argentina (I'm guessing a bit, I think the exchange rate has doubled in the last 4 years to about 20 pesos to the pound). More merchandising sold in the UK. Hopefully more expat fans. I'm not sure the broadcast deal changes as it's a signed contract.

Trying to avoid the lasers.

Would be ideal to raise the standard of NH rugby.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Trying to avoid the lasers.

Good point.

IMO it devalues the whole competition. They're basically saying they're more interested in money than winning the competition.

Rugby - a great game, run by men who are more interested in boosting the games coffers than spreading the game.

This could have been played in new territories and still attracted a big crowd - Brussels, or Tbilisi to name just two.

I started going off football years ago because money was ruining it, but Rugby is even worse as it happily sacrifices it's own growth in T2/T3 regions in favour of more money.

profitius wrote:IMO it devalues the whole competition. They're basically saying they're more interested in money than winning the competition.

Money is important factor in the SH... especially since European clubs are poaching their players by offering them contracts they simply can't afford.

The cost runs in many ways, a) it raises domestic contracts up and b) they lose players to club rugby making them unavailable for SANZAR selection and c) on the margins guys like Nel, Stander, Kockott, Spedding leave and end up improving rival test sides.

Its easy for the Europeans to say the SH are money grabbing.. its because they're poaching all their players in the first place. Too bad some say well sure but make no mistake, the SANZAR game and strength in depth would be much much higher had all their top players stayed in country. Its not just over the hill chaps too.

SA lost Frans Steyn an Jaque Fourie in their peak years. Both are lost, both would have had a huge number of games more. When they got them they were unfit, fatigued from playing int he off season and often overweight. Just imagine what SANZAR would be like if they got a full compliment of players.

Numbers don't neccessarily equate to being better. Look at England a large number of players but quality doesn't really rise and fall that much. Have Aus and NZ really been that hurt? Gitaeu was a loss, hence his inclusion.

Dan Carter broke his leg no when in his first 6 month stint in Europe?

Luke McAllister left in the prime of his career, Jerome Kaino, Carl Hayman, Chris Jack

Just to name a few.

NZ struggling? NZ players only go abroad when they're told they can. Don't blame any of the players for doing it to be fair.

Holding these abroad I suppose can give a nice chance for Argies abroad to see their team but it must be a kick in the teeth for supporters at home.

No 7&1/2 wrote:NZ struggling? NZ players only go abroad when they're told they can. Don't blame any of the players for doing it to be fair.

Holding these abroad I suppose can give a nice chance for Argies abroad to see their team but it must be a kick in the teeth for supporters at home.

Yes and No, when you look at Hayman and McAllister it was not, their contracts were up and they took big contracts in Europe even as first choice players and young.

Carter forced NZ's hand a number of times "let me take up this big offer for 6 months and I'll stay.. if not I'll go for 2 years etc"... and he ended up breaking leg in first stint in France.

Strange I wouldn't think there's a large expat community of Argentinians living in London.

Might well be like an Aussie home game, even then I think you'll find a lot of neutrals too.

If it's at Twickenham do the RFU get a slice of the action too? I can hardly see Ian Ritchie turning down money.

RFU is a money maker first, rugby comes 2nd.

beshocked wrote:Strange I wouldn't think there's a large expat community of Argentinians living in London.

Might well be like an Aussie home game, even then I think you'll find a lot of neutrals too.

If it's at Twickenham do the RFU get a slice of the action too? I can hardly see Ian Ritchie turning down money.

RFU is a money maker first, rugby comes 2nd.

It makes sense for AUS as TV rights is at a more sensible time (albeit not great still...11pm).

If it means broadening horizons and appealling to more AUS viewers then surely thats a good thing... rather than a 3am dead zone.

Fair enough. They only have short careers. I suppose the RFU are making money for nothing as well so it helps England. I see the logic it just doesn't quite sit right with me. Same as the Aviva games in the US; I understand the rationale, spreading the game, but the teams should be for that are of England, for their country not as some sort of francise. The inevitability of 'progress'.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I see the logic it just doesn't quite sit right with me

Yeah, the SH is like the sweat shop of rugby

It's professionalism not SH. Look at Wasps relocating. Not great for their supporters but a decision made on money and situation.

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Strange I wouldn't think there's a large expat community of Argentinians living in London.

Might well be like an Aussie home game, even then I think you'll find a lot of neutrals too.

If it's at Twickenham do the RFU get a slice of the action too? I can hardly see Ian Ritchie turning down money.

RFU is a money maker first, rugby comes 2nd.

It makes sense for AUS as TV rights is at a more sensible time (albeit not great still...11pm).

If it means broadening horizons and appealling to more AUS viewers then surely thats a good thing... rather than a 3am dead zone.

Appealing to Australian viewers in what is being branded as an Argentinian home game? Where's the love for the Argentinians?

Biggest beneficiaries are the Aussies and the RFU.

no 7 & 1/2 How does RFU making pots of money help England? Didn't help in the RWC. If the RFU spent as much effort on turning England into the best rugby side in the world as they do making money....

Ian Ritchie is a money man, that's why he's in the job - used to work in tennis, making money. Just transferring his skill set over.

LTA in tennis is one of the richest tennis organisations in the world but embarrassingly wasteful when it comes to managing the game. Ian Ritchie was part of the All England Club which ran Wimbledon but neither LTA or the All England Club have successfully put the money generated back into that sport.

Sorry thought the RFU did put some money into the game.

I doubt Argentina would sign up to giving away a home game unless it was financially very attractive for them to do so.

And the RFU wouldn't say use our facilities without getting something as well.

Love it.

All you hear Is the SH teams are the best, they are the world cup blah blah...

But oh look we need their money...cos there is none in the SH.

Isn't it for exactly the same reason for one of the Argentina 'home' games against England in 2009 being moved to Old Trafford? They (UAR) make money off a game here (with ground rental) than they do in Argentina. They don't do it often as it would be bad for the game back home, but they can use it as an option to boost the coffers. The fact they've come back to England suggests they were reasonably happy with the RFU last time.

It sure is a conundrum GeordieFalcon.

And to be fair GeordieFalcon, we may not have money in the SH but we seem to have all the coaches. And instead of developing a half decent coach. Just BUY ONE!!! Cos there is none.

ebop actually English defence coaches are pretty popular.

France had a useful English one in the past. Ireland have taken on Farrell Sr, why on earth they did, I don't know but still....

Wales have an English defence coach and of course England's defence coach is English.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Love it.

All you hear Is the SH teams are the best, they are the world cup blah blah...

But oh look we need their money...cos there is none in the SH.

I don't think the RFU is doing the RC a favour. Twickenham when not played on is simply a useless asset with high financial liabilities. 1 extra game a season won't ruin the pitch/infrastructure.
It is probably a money spinner for the RFU, for Argentina rugby and AUS rugby via better TV slots so I can understand why they would do it.  I reckon they may not sell out but may get 50-60k people watching so everyone is a winner.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Love it.

All you hear Is the SH teams are the best, they are the world cup blah blah...

But oh look we need their money...cos there is none in the SH.

boo

I think this is a week before the AP starts off so it should not harm any attendances at AP games and as RFU get some more money to spend on grass roots and academies I see this as a good thing.

HammerofThunor wrote:Isn't it for exactly the same reason for one of the Argentina 'home' games against England in 2009 being moved to Old Trafford?  They (UAR) make money off a game here (with ground rental) than they do in Argentina.  They don't do it often as it would be bad for the game back home, but they can use it as an option to boost the coffers.  The fact they've come back to England suggests they were reasonably happy with the RFU last time.

Seems strange that they chose England when they could have gone to Barcelona or San Sebastian where there are a lot more Argentinians and a big demand for rugby.

The top 14 final has already sold out the Nou camp for example. Spanish people love rugby Im sure they could have sold out the Nou camp for this too.

Perhaps they're very happy working with the RFU. As I said, this also happened in 2009.