2011 could see Northern Hemisphere players heading south of the equator in large numbers following a new agreement reached by NZRU with their Super 15 franchises.
Next year New Zealand will have to find 20 new professional players as Super 15 squads expand from 28 to a minimum of 30 and maximum of 32. Every coach will want 32 – but from where will they come?
In reports in the NZ Herald, it’s said that agreement has been reached to begin introducing foreign players to generate commercial interest and greater diversity. It will also give a chance for Argentine players to move up several steps to get them ready for the much higher-level of rugby in the south prior to them joining the Four Nations in 2012.
It’s happened already with players such as Juan Martin Hernandez, Gregor Townsend and Freddie Michalak visiting SA teams in recent years.
The ARU amended their rules so each Super 14 team can hire international stars – one marquee and one junior. And the Rebels have been actively recruiting north of the hemisphere border.
New Zealand has been lagging because of fears that such a policy would deny a local player a chance to develop and shine. There have been one or two who’ve got under the door, however, under the new system, the NZRU will not block overseas recruitment unless the pay demands are too high. The NZRU could also say no if too many players are being recruited in the same position.
The New Zealand Players Association has greeted the decision with something approaching guarded enthusiasm, though they may feel like turkeys welcoming the arrival of Thanksgiving.
As a spokesman said: “It could generate a bit of interest and a bit of cross-fertilisation – with South Africans and Australians and others coming here. The most important thing, though, is that we don’t end up with five first-fives here, blocking pathways. The money has to be right, too. We can’t have offshore players coming at any price, as the payments are coming out of the player pool.”
Franchises will be able to offer overseas recruits a max of NZ$180,000 a season. Reports that one J Wilkinson is earning €408,000 (NZ$760,000) a season (after tax) puts that contribution into perspective. Any more will have to come from the NZRU and/or a third party.
Interestingly, players from the Pacific Islands will not count as overseas recruits as is the case now.
While the New Zealand market will be open to players from all countries, the Herald thinks it’s likely South African and Australian players will be of most interest to them, as they will have shown they can handle the pace and intensity of Super Rugby. And possibly some from Argentina.
Any players contemplating a move will have to consider the impact it will have on their test chances. For some NH players nearing the end of their test career, this may appeal to try out something different if they’ve shored up their bank balance sufficiently. For others, it may be a chance to kick-start a flagging career.
And for some of the younger ones, it’s a tempting offer to try out something new. Jamie Heaslip, the Leinster and Ireland No. 8 probably had his ear bent previously by Rocky Elsom when he was recently quoted as saying he’d like to try rugby in the S14. The attraction of a different climate, culture and a much shorter playing season than the NH were some of the reasons he stated.
However, for the market to work, players must be able to sustain test careers.
Nevertheless, with the Rebels starting up and New Zealand squads expanding, there are places for 50 more players next season.
Who’d you like to see shifting within SANZAR or heading south to try their hand?
Derm
Roar Guru
Course they can, OJ. With the plan to reduce tour schedules to 12 tests per year globally, it should all fit in fine. :)
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Pothale, here is the June Test schedule for NZ up until the end of the decade: 2012 Ireland - 3 Test matches 2013 France - 3 Test matches 2014 England - 3 Test matches 2015 RWC 2015 (England) - no June or November tours. 2016 Wales - 3 Test matches 2017 British & Irish Lions Tour 2018 France - 3 Test matches 2019 RWC 2019 (Japan) - no June or November tours. Think Ireland can handle the extra match ;)?
Derm
Roar Guru
Much ado about nothing.... I happened to read an article just now about the impact the WC will have on touring next year. Apparently the financial boffins in the SANZAR offices have just worked out that they won't have any June test income next year despite having agreed this would happen several years ago. The article says: "Australian, New Zealand and South African administrators are concerned that their match revenue will dramatically drop next season because they are not allowed to have any inbound tours as it is a World Cup year. The Australian Rugby Union estimates that the culling of five domestic Tests, including two Tri Nations matches, would lead to a revenue drop of $16m. ARU chief executive John O'Neill said yesterday that when the inbound tour decision was made several years ago, ''no one did any financial analysis of what that will cost''. ''From a northern hemisphere perspective, I guess they weren't that worried because next year they will still play the Six Nations and warm-up games in their own backyard before the World Cup,'' O'Neill said. ''For the SANZAR countries, we play an expanded Super rugby season, but there are no inbound tours and a truncated Tri Nations series. Even factoring in the IRB grant of £3.5 million which we get paid, the net detriment is still $16m. New Zealand and South Africa have also done their numbers, and the total comes to $36 million for the three countries.'' You begin to wonder at the blokes running these rugby unions. How difficult was this to forecast and work out? IRB man: John, you know how you have tests every year in June from which you make money? JON: Yeah. IRB Man: Well, will you and the other SANZAR boys agree not to have any tests in June and NH boys won't have any in November in 2011 cos the World Cup is on? JON: Yeah, okay. IRB Man: Sure there won't be any problems with that? JON: Eh no. eh....eh....eh...don't think so...or am I missing something...gimme me a minute... Five years quickly pass...... JON: Actually, now that I think of it, if we don't have any tests in June that generate income for us, then I think that means we'll have less money next year. IRB Man: You're right. JON: Any chance of a digout?
counterruck
Guest
the june tests should be abolished. the players need some rest and something has to give, june tets are the least profitable so they should go. nov tours could stay with revenue sharing arrangements formalized. test matches are losing their prestige, there is no tier 1 fixture that is rare anymore. the international calendar is getting ludicrous, the only thing worth tuning in for these days is lions tour or a RWC.
Derm
Roar Guru
Continuation of earlier conversation with Matt..... Matt - you said: "Any idea which “certain” sports stars from Irish Rugby are included in this Tax system Pothale? Are we just talking the top 10 Irish players (O’Driscoll, O’Connell, O’Gara etc) or does it go further to the Tomas O’Leary’s and Keith Earles of the team? Or even further?" See above response from MBTGOG who is more knowledgeable on this topic. It was only recently introduced so the point is moot about it keeping Irish players in Ireland. You'll find interviews with O'Driscoll, O'Gara and Darcy talking about offers they got in the mid-2000s from French clubs - in the end they turned them all down. "Do you think if Ireland didn’t have this tax break system then your opinion of foreign investment might be different also? What if BOD (31), O’Gara (33) and O’Connell (30) had headed off-shore after the 07 World Cup or the 09 Lions tour to “experience a different culture” “after serving rugby in the country” for 10 years?" See answer above. "It’s a little bit difficult to articulate the point I’m trying to make when Ireland really doesn’t suffer at all from the player drain. I guess the motivation for change is only there when it’s a direct affect (as English rugby has finally found out recently, with Haskell, Flutey, Wilkinson etc)." The need for more players in England and France is because they play the most amount of games compared to Magners. Magners is now expanding to 12 clubs making it the same size as English Premiership. However, there is also an Anglo-Welsh cup contested which means even more games. As a contrasting example that VC pointed out on another thread, Juandre Kruger (South African lock who plays for Northampton) did over 2,200 mins of play this season. By contrast, an Irish test player will have done about 1650 before June tests or even lower. "But it’s true that the major issue at the moment is the French clubs and their sugar daddy’s. Before that though it was mainly Premiership clubs. But players like Howlett, Mafi, Nacewa, Tuitupou, Tipoki and Boss would have been nice to keep too." Well their clubs were happy to see them leave at the time, and some of them were deemed surplus to requirements at test and club level. If a player wants a regular spot as well as get paid, why wouldn't they move? "More seriously though, if you look at the success and support that Leinster and Munster have had in Europe, with such a small number of import players, then you really have to question why there is this facination in France (and in some English/Welsh teams) with luring large numbers of SH players to big pay packets?" Because of the smaller Magners League, and no threat of relegation (like Super 14), Irish clubs in particular are able to concentrate of doing well in the Heineken Cup. English and French clubs have to fight on a number of fronts, including avoiding relegation. They need bigger squads and ability to rotate. "Leinster and Munster both have worryingly foreign coaching groups though!" I'm not worried at all. Declan Kidney brought two Heineken Cups to Munster. McGahan has managed a league title so far. Cheika has transformed Leinster from being the 'ladyboys' of Irish rugby to overtaking Munster at the head of the table. "Come on Pothale, do you reckon that the Wales vs Springboks game is really just at the behest of Wales? Why would he South Africans bother with this game, apart from illustrating just how many of their players have been lured by the pound and euro? This game, and the succes of Saracens, more than anything shows that it is certainly not just a NZ issue." Well, yes I do. Wales wanted to have some commemoration match for the Millenniun Stadium - they scratched around looking for a test team, and eventually persuaded SARU to play - in June at home. Unusual. P de V promptly said he wouldn't be sending the Bok team, and would use a NH contingent instead. the point i was making is that you're saying NZ is missing out due to player drain. South Africa can afford to leave their entire first XV at home and use a second team. That's a pretty strong position from my point of view. And the Saracens project is actually a pointer for the way NZ should be going. And you'll note that P de V is willing to use overseas players in his test team, unlike the ABs who restrict it to players in the country. "As the for the new 3 week tours, it certainly isn’t an increase in test matches at all. NZ has received 3 match tours for a good while now. Always 2 tests vs one team and a 3rd vs someone else. So your facts are wrong there, because there won’t be any more test matches because of this change." The point being made was not about how many test games that SANZAR were playing, it was about there being more tests for the visiting NH teams on top of their already long season. 3 test tours by NH teams have not been that frequent, and certainly not regularly against SANZAR teams. "And what will these new 3 test tours + midweek games do. Bring more money for the ARU and NZRU and seek to rebuild the gap with the provinces that have been damaged." True - that's exactly the reasons that Tew and O'Neill have stated. Not SARU though. But the gap with the provinces is an internal issue largely as the ARU and NZRU have sought to expand, rather than consolidate and concentrate. "I will admit that the Highlanders are struggling financially at the moment, as I’m sure the Lions must be. But the Force and Cheetahs are doing fine. And with the expanded competition comes more money for everyone, which will be evenly distributed giving all teams more money to make up for the longer season. On top of that there will be 2 less games against foreign teams meaning less travel costs. Conversely there will be more local games which bring bigger crowds and bigger TV audiences, so the income will go up on average per game. Teams will go up from 28 to 30 or 32 players per team, so that an increase of 7-14%. That’s not really going to dilute the playing pool THAT much, certainly in NZ and South Africa. In NZ there will also be a new contracting system that will see the talent spread around more evenly, so the Highlanders should get a fairer shot at building a strong team. And the Rebels have obviously been given exemption to contract 10 foreigners to help build their team. This, coupled with a strong showing for 3 of 4 teams Aussie teams which exposed a good number of youngsters, will see the Aussie in reasonable stead next season." Well - that's your view of the situation. There are others who would think differently. I certainly think that the bottom clubs I've mentioned are not performing and haven't been for some time. The Lions were abysmal this season and the Southern Kings should get a shot at replacing them. They can't do any worse than zero wins for a season - can they? I think the notion that SANZAR is making all its decisions on player salaries, number of clubs, expansion of Super Rugby all because they want to avoid a player drain to the North because of overpriced French salaries is stretching credulity. SANZAR has to take some responsibility for its actions. And more particularly, the NZRU do. I don't hear much about Australian and South African players heading overseas as causing a major headache. Seems to me that yours is a somewhat Kiwi-centric point of view, masquerading as a SANZAR one.
Derm
Roar Guru
Matt - I'm gonna jump this conversation down to the end of this thread cos it's getting a bit long in this section.
MBTGOG
Guest
Really interesting conversation lads. Been getting the emails and has kept me glued to the old phone. On the Irish sports tax break, it is available to all professional sports persons in Ireland irregardless of sport or ability. It's been fantastic for rugby here as it has kept us competitive with the other comps in Europe.
Matt
Guest
Any idea which "certain" sports stars from Irish Rugby are included in this Tax system Pothale? Are we just talking the top 10 Irish players (O'Driscoll, O'Connell, O'Gara etc) or does it go further to the Tomas O'Leary's and Keith Earles of the team? Or even further? Do you think if Ireland didn't have this tax break system then your opinion of foreign investment might be different also? What if BOD (31), O'Gara (33) and O'Connell (30) had headed off-shore after the 07 World Cup or the 09 Lions tour to "experience a different culture" "after serving rugby in the country" for 10 years? It's a little bit difficult to articulate the point I'm trying to make when Ireland really doesn't suffer at all from the player drain. I guess the motivation for change is only there when it's a direct affect (as English rugby has finally found out recently, with Haskell, Flutey, Wilkinson etc). But it's true that the major issue at the moment is the French clubs and their sugar daddy's. Before that though it was mainly Premiership clubs. But players like Howlett, Mafi, Nacewa, Tuitupou, Tipoki and Boss would have been nice to keep too ;) More seriously though, if you look at the success and support that Leinster and Munster have had in Europe, with such a small number of import players, then you really have to question why there is this facination in France (and in some English/Welsh teams) with luring large numbers of SH players to big pay packets? Leinster and Munster both have worryingly foreign coaching groups though! Head Coach - Michael Cheika - Australia (soon to be Joe Shmidt from NZ) Consultant Coach - Alan Gaffney - Australia Backs Coach - Chris Whitaker - Australia Forwards Coach - Jono Gibbes - New Zealand Defence Coach - Kurt McQuilkin - New Zealand Director of Rugby - Tony McGahan - Australia Backs Coach - Laurie Fisher - Australia Backs Coach - Jason Holland - New Zealand Strength and Conditioning - Paul Darbyshire - England Team Manager - Shaun Payne - South Africa Come on Pothale, do you reckon that the Wales vs Springboks game is really just at the behest of Wales? Why would the South Africans bother with this game, apart from illustrating just how many of their players have been lured by the pound and euro? This game, and the succes of Saracens, more than anything shows that it is certainly not just a NZ issue. As the for the new 3 week tours, it certainly isn't an increase in test matches at all. NZ has received 3 match tours for a good while now. Always 2 tests vs one team and a 3rd vs someone else. So your facts are wrong there, because there won't be any more test matches because of this change. What there will be is more midweek games in the provinces and more interest due to the hosting of a proper tour. And what will these new 3 test tours + midweek games do. Bring more money for the ARU and NZRU and seek to rebuild the gap with the provinces that have been damaged. I will admit that the Highlanders are struggling financially at the moment, as I'm sure the Lions must be. But the Force and Cheetahs are doing fine. And with the expanded competition comes more money for everyone, which will be evenly distributed giving all teams more money to make up for the longer season. On top of that there will be 2 less games against foreign teams meaning less travel costs. Conversely there will be more local games which bring bigger crowds and bigger TV audiences, so the income will go up on average per game. Teams will go up from 28 to 30 or 32 players per team, so that an increase of 7-14%. That's not really going to dilute the playing pool THAT much, certainly in NZ and South Africa. In NZ there will also be a new contracting system that will see the talent spread around more evenly, so the Highlanders should get a fairer shot at building a strong team. And the Rebels have obviously been given exemption to contract 10 foreigners to help build their team. This, coupled with a strong showing for 3 of 4 teams Aussie teams which exposed a good number of youngsters, will see the Aussie in reasonable stead next season. But you are right that the expansion will cost more money. It means that more players will get paid more money, but it was a change that was needed in order to keep the talent in the SANZAR countries and not leaving overseas. The extra money is being covered by there being more games played. So it's that same trend again. The SH playing more games in order to pay their players more money to keep them from leaving. The fingers still pointing I guess
Jerry
Guest
He's a poor tackler but he tries hard. Also, I think both Munster and Ireland expect people to target his channel so are pretty good at attacks down. He tends to get exposed on 3rd or 4th phase and in broken play when the defensive structure breaks down.
Derm
Roar Guru
I figured someone would chip that one in. His tackling record and concession of tries is actually not that high, and he has actually pulled off a number of try-saving/match-winning tackles for Ireland and Munster but the perception will stay with him, along with his dazed stumble into a certain Bok 10 for a penalty. :)
Photon
Guest
Pothale, South Africa would be crazy agree to playing 2 coastal tests in a three test series, the heartland of South African rugby is the highveld and the Western Cape. Trouble is the Highveld has two major stadia and the Western Cape has 1. Durban is not a place the Springboks like, you find a lot more people there who are there for the party as opposed to the rugby,the crowd is too friendly. I'm a United fan so this is tough to say, but it's a lot like how the Anfield crowd is more hostile than the Old Trafford one, from what I see and hear on the television anyway. And finally there's the small MATTER of the benefit of altitude. I for one don't think it's fair to expect a country to reject certain venues because the conditions are challenging, I mean after al we don't expect you to build a roof over Croke park to limit the effect of the rain and wind, and besides isn't that part of the challenge of touring.
Jerry
Guest
"as a kicking coach or something similar. Which to be fair, he’s got the track record for" As long as it's not a tackling coach...
Derm
Roar Guru
Matt - gotcha. It's all France's fault really then. Not the entire NH. :) Yes Ireland does have a tax break system for certain of its sports stars. There is a caveat that they must finish their playing career in Ireland though. Thus sneaking off to France for a last hurrah and payday is not as attractive. Interestingly, Ronan O'Gara was quoted recently that he'd like to finish his playing career with a Top 14 club. This was quickly clarified to his "post-paying career" in the top 14 as a kicking coach or something similar. Which to be fair, he's got the track record for. The Boks are not sending any players from South Africa for the Wales match. the Welsh match is purely at the Welsh behest who 'begged' the SA to play. So Divvy is using an all-NH lineup for the match. I note the examples of players you have given are all New Zealand players, so is the problem mainly a New Zealand one really? The return of more test matches and midweek games is at the behest of the SANZAR unions led by Tew and O'Neill. And yet both are quoted as saying they want to play less test matches after 2012. That's contradictory behaviour if they're intent on the sole pursuit of more revenue. You also have to consider the wisdom of expanding the S14 to 15 when it's obvious that teams like Highlanders, Lions, Cheetahs and Force are all struggling to keep up. Player pools are being diluted further and money is being stretched even thinner. These actions have their own negative impact, notwithstanding any player drain to the North in piursuit of more money. And indeed will possibly only serve to perpetuate it. As commented elsewhere, the expansion of the squads next year is going to require a lot more salaries to be paid. SANZAR can't keep pointing the finger at the north all the time.
Matt
Guest
It certainly appears that France are pushing up contract prices in general though, across the game globally. With the French offering more money other nations/teams are forced to raise their offers in order to retain players. So everyone is offering more money to try to attract players and less money is available to support the games grass roots. Slightly off topic Pothale, but is it true that Ireland has a tax break system for Sports starts too? Does this explain why there are so few high profile Irish players leaving for England and France (especially in comparison to Wales and Scotland)? There has been a lull of late with SH players transferring north, but after 2011 you can bet there'll be another wave of players heading north to big offers. Already there are players like Tamati Ellison, who earned his first AB's cap at the end of last season, signing to a club in Japan to beat the rush. Likewise Tim Bateman (a 22 year old Junior All Black - to Japan) and Daniel Bowden (a 24 year old NZ age grade star - to London Irish) have both signed to leave the Crusaders for 2010. As has Hooker Ti'i Paulo after he's finally managed to make the Crusaders No.2 jersey his own, he's going to Stade Francais. Another fringe All Black leaving from the Crusaders is No.8 Thomas Waldrom, who is heading for Leicester. The Blues have also lost No.8 Viliami Ma'afu and All Black winger Anthony Tuitavake. All that in the year before a home World Cup doesn't bode well. Not to mention those below the Super 14 level (that is the top 140 rugby players in NZ) who have/are leaving. But the fact is that the NZ union is forced into having the All Blacks play 14 tests a season, including yet ANOTHER grandslam this season, plus a 4th Bledisloe Cup test in Asia for the 3rd year running. On top of that they play the Boks 3 times, and the Wallabies 3 times in the Tri-Nations. All of this is not because they want the NZ players to play more, it is because they NEED the money to keep the contracts up to a level that is closer to the big european money. The Boks are also playing back to back games this June in different Hemispheres in order to gain more money, while the Aussies and Kiwis look for more ways to tack Barbarians games and Australian Barbarians games and NZ Maori and revenue sharing NH games onto their season to squeeze more money from their major cash cow. So while there isn't a HUGE number of players heading to the NH this season Pothale, the prices hikes being driven by the crazy egotistical French (followed by the grass is greener across the channel/ the sky is falling on the Premiership English) are forcing the SH into ridiculous actions to try and keep their players from leaving. All this does is annoy the SH rugby public more and serve up a undigestible calader of fixtures where the alure and meaning of test match rugby is lost. And the game then struggles for support in these countries. So, going back to the original post you can see the perspective I was using when I said: “If only the NH sides would introduce similar rules for their Club competitions; 2-3 foreigners per teams within exemption for the use of Tier 2 and 3 national players (Romania, Georgia etc). Then all nations would be able to pay their own countrymen whatever they wanted and could stop poaching each others, which will drive the (amateur) game broke in many countries.” If a foreign player limit was put on Tier 1 imports, but an open exemption was made for Tier 2 and 3 nations then the global game would be better off and unions like SARU, ARU and NZRU could pump more money into supporting the grass roots of the Sport and even be able to play games/support neighbouring developing nations like the Pacific Islands, PNG, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya. So the whole game of rugby benefits because we're not all looking at each others players enviously and paying them more than the game can sustain. Just an opinion...:)
Derm
Roar Guru
Tres drole.
Derm
Roar Guru
Thanks for the detailed response, Matt. It's less a raw nerve about Ireland that you hit, rather the one that reacts to NH sides all being lumped into one homogenous behaviour or mindset, when that's not always true or accurate. The Irish centric comments were more to illustrate a point, and is also true for Italy, Scotland and Wales who all have regional/provincial set-ups. Italy has created a new franchise region to play in the Magners next year. And their joining will bring a welcome financial fillip through Italian TV and union money. Central contracting has been successful. In England, the salary cap is a lot less than France and so has inhibited the import of some players and expedited the export of others to France. Escalating player contracts are really occuring in France only as opposed to being NH-wide. As you're no doubt aware, the cap in France is being lowered next year and a 3% cut is already on the way as you state. And yes there are significant debts - amongst some clubs. But if this points to shrinking costs in both England and France, the the market will dictate lower-value contracts over time. The advent of the Four Nations will be interesting to see the level of Argentine outflow to the South. French clubs targeting Kiwis and Aussies? Are there really that many that it's a cause for concern? Sonny Bill is a former League player - not derived from union. Tana Umaga was on his last legs. Jerry Collins left France and went to Wales - it wasn't for the bigger money. The players I mentioned previously playing in Ireland - are they really poached players that have denuded nations to such an extent they have to play more tests and more night time games? Or are you really just talking about New Zealand players? (By the way, Connacht, by any normal standard shouldn't be competing in the Magners. They are woefully undersupported and under-financed by the IRFU. They can only operate on single year contracts - a huge weakness in negotiation - and operate on a shoestring budget. They take in a lot of young Tier 2 players. The gates go to the provincial clubs directly, not channelled through IRFU. Why do you think Munster built themselves a brand new 26,000 seater stadium to go along with their second stadium in Musgrave Park.)
Matt
Guest
For all the money in Europe Pothale there is also significant debts. Clubs like Stade Francais, the great showmen of European rugby, have had their players take a 3% pay cut to help the club alleviate debts. Of ALL the English and French clubs how many would be sustainable without a private individual subsidising them? I'm not having a go at the NH model, but I am truely fearful (from a Rugby supporter perspective) that our game is becoming financially burdered because of escalating player contracts. The money is far larger in Europe than in the SH, so I doubt there'll be many players coming south in numbers. The only exception, which I alluded to, is Argentinean players who could still earn more in Super Rugby than they could in Argentinean Rugby. But the big money in Europe is not being driven by TV deals or large crowds, it is being driven by private ownership (which is not a sustainable model). Teams like Toulon, who are getting their money from a private individual, are driving up the market prices to levels that no one else can match. What this does though is push all prices up to levels beyond the reach of clubs, who must then take on debt to stay competitive. How is it good for the game of Rugby in general if Carl Hayman is being paid millions to play for Toulon at the expense of seeing him at the World Cup? Is it good for clubs to be relegated from the French Top 14 because of bankruptcy? I'm not saying that player transfers are the issue, more that the way it's being funded is the issue. I have no problem with European clubs targeting Tier 2 nation players, because this is strengthening the game in that Tier 2 county by giving opportunities and careers to players who don't otherwise have it. But French clubs targeting Kiwis or Aussies just weakens the game in these nations where players already have plenty of opportunity. And the SANZAR unions are having to play more tests each season and play more nights game per season and play massive cross border competitions across the Indian and Tasman Oceans because clubs in Europe are overspending on foreign talent to try and buys championships. Given your Irish centric commemts maybe I hit a raw nerve, to the degree that you feel you have to defend them? But truthfully the Irish model is closer to what it should be like globally. The reason for this is the Irish provinces are run by the IRU, so their first aim is the good of the Irish game (not the Munster or Leinster game). The Irish teams also have far less foreigners on average and are funded by gate and tv money (channelled through the national Union). You also have a team like Connacht who don't have to take on debt to stay alive. They are supported by the Irish system because they help the game grow in Ireland. The only thing I'd like to see more from the Irish is in Tier 2 player signings, but then that is talent dependent.
Derm
Roar Guru
Yeah ok.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
We can't afford any of the top players. Send us your weary, your journeymen.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
The schedule O'Neal revealed for the Wallabies is a "three-Test tour by Wales in 2012, a 2013 British and Irish Lions campaign spanning three Tests and seven other games and a 2014 visit by France." That's pretty much the same as what you've outlined. There's a possiblity that the third Test will be a dead rubber but there's the possibility of that in any series. I still say it's not that big a burden. As for O'Neill's comments about reducing the number of Tests the Wallabies play, I don't think the NZRU will pass up the opportunity to have extra fixtures. They may ditch the fourth Bledisloe Test but I imagine their tours to the NH will still involve a fourth game whether it's against the Barbarians or a Test side.