England are always a worry at home – any team will get a lift from loud support from home fans. So I don’t understand why the NZRFU are stacking the odds against the All Blacks on such a regular basis by going to England virtually every year.
The All Blacks have played England at home five of the last six years – England go to New Zealand once or occasionally twice every 10 years.
I understand the money angle. The ABs get a good appearance fee and the NZRFU need the money.
Most All Blacks earn less than club players in Europe. The only reason they stay in New Zealand is because the NZRFU will only pick All Blacks from New Zealand resident players.
So the NZRFU needs to maximize its income to pass the money on to the players and also to grow the game at the grass roots level.
So at first glance, a fee of $3,000,000 per game for the ABs to play at Twickenham looks very good.
(I do not have a ‘pound’ symbol easily available so I used a 2:1 exchange rate and the figures did vary a little from source to source so I used the figures in the web articles given below.)
Look at Samoa as an extreme case. There are few if any of their best players reside in Samoa. As a consequence, how often do they get to pick their best players?
And how often do the northern hemisphere clubs find excuses not to release the players, no matter what the IRB does to try and stop this?
The players wind up being the meat in the sandwich and usually end up bowing down to the clubs, because the players (and their families) need the money.
The only way around it is to swap allegiances and play for a northern hemisphere country. This is great news for Samoan rugby (not).
So to fill the coffers, the NZRFU plays almost every year in England to claim a big fee from the RFU.
But is this fee big enough? And why England all the time? Why continually give England home advantage?
I’m sure the other northern hemisphere teams would be happy to host New Zealand more often for a fee.
Why help to develop the game in a country New Zealand hates to lose to? The country of arguably the worst winners in world rugby (ask anyone who has lost there).
And what would the All Blacks ‘brand’ be worth if England had won even half of these home games? Not to mention the world rankings.
As one of the senior executives of AIG (an American) revealed, they consider the ABs to be the most successful team in sporting history and their huge sponsorship of the ABs is directly related to this record.
I would be happier if in return, the English came to New Zealand a bit more often, reflecting the ABs going there every year (except Rugby World Cup years) and bring their best team.
But they don’t.
Including Saturday’s game, of the last 10 Tests, eight have been played in England and of the total of 36 Tests played against, England 12 have been played in New Zealand – that is one in three.
Make no mistake, home advantage is a huge factor. By my reckoning, in 18 years of Super rugby, the final has only been won once by the visiting team.
And how many times have England sent their second or third XV to NZ? I make it three of the last four visits.
It was announced this week the 2014 tour will be a below par team due to home commitments. I say they are protecting their top players from the possibility of long-term psychological impact of being trounced in NZ.
I am sure this will definitely be on their minds when considering the 2014 touring squad, since England will be hosting the Rugby World Cup one year later.
For well over 15 years now, the English team (and interestingly the British press) have continued Sir Clive Woodward’s policy of never calling the New Zealand team ‘the All Blacks’ due to the historical ‘fear factor’.
Then there’s the money on offer for England.
The RFU announced up to $NZ40,000,000 in team bonuses for England over two years.
Two years!
The RFU has announced its bonus package for the English team. It is unbelievable. Starting with the current three November games (NZ$500,000 for three of three wins) and finishing at the end of 2015/16 season, the team could earn an extra NZ$40 million, including the Rugby World Cup (win bonus NZ$10,000,000).
To win the Six Nations the bonus is NZ$740,000, if by Grand Slam this becomes NZ$1,200,000.
This is on top of the basic NZ$240,000/year retainer for squad members, standard selection fee of NZ$20,000 per game and minimum win bonus of NZ$6,000.
This does not include their club earnings or any extra payments to established “stars” within the team.
Another factor is the RFU’s annual income for the last year as NZ$320,000,000.
If this is the order of magnitude of the money the RFU has to throw around then the NZRFU may well be selling itself short.
The NZRFU could consider playing France more often or demonstration games in Hong Kong, Japan or North America.
As it stands it would appear that the RFU can afford it and there is only one World Champion team. And if England is so keen to play the ABs, why not do it in New Zealand more often?
Still it is too late for this Rugby World Cup cycle. I just hope that in future the NZRFU choose not to stack the odds so firmly in favour of one team like it has with England.
They appear to have done their best to help develop the game in a country the ABs hate to lose to (and really needs no help).
And make it part of the contract that whoever it is the ABs play, then send their best teams to New Zealand in return.
What will the cost be to the All Blacks if England beat them in the Rugby World Cup 2015 final after the NZRFU sent them to ‘Twickers’ year after year for England to practice and figure out how to beat them in the comfort of their own home?
While I know there are benefits to the ABs from this contact I would suggest England, having a home Rugby World Cup in 2015, have gained the biggest advantage.
Only time will tell if this plan of constantly playing England away has paid off or back-fired.
But if the ABs start losing to England regularly in the near future or at World Cups, I know what I will consider to be the root cause.
SAVAGE
Guest
And that is the problem with your game......your clubs call the the shots. Do yourselves a favour, send your best team down here for the 3 test series, no excuses. You want to prove to the world you can beat the ABs on regular basis........you got three cracks at it next year in our backyard. Because if you want to hang around for your Aviva championship, you're going to get your backsides kicked 3 nil. It will take you guys at least a game to get yourselves together, so scratch the first game, the second game you'll get used to playing with each other again, series over. The third game might be a test match.
Dan
Guest
But he's also a catholic, which traditionally hasn't been all that compatible with being a monarchist in Great Britain, because well... Ya know, history.
Old Bugger
Guest
GG You're kidding about the 1st BC game in Sydney....??? If you're not, then there must be a deal stitched up somewhere....surely??
TheGreyGhost
Roar Rookie
NZ will happily go to London every year simply because NZ in no way fears England or sees them as a threat. The very same reason why England will never quite commit to sending a full strength team to NZ. The ready-rolled excuse of "development" is too easy a straw for the management team to grasp at before the tour even kicks off. Personally I'm more worried about how the NZRU managed to give away the first Bledisloe Cup test to Sydney for the next decade. Surely it can't be that the All Blacks don't fear the Wallabies as well?
rory
Guest
Tony Abbot is more English than the Queen is. Not Gillard though - she's welsh
swerve
Guest
Let's call this "the last post" and I say this with absolute respect for those who died in all wars. Why a poster would include anything war related (read the above posts) on a sport discussion forum is beyond me and shows a lack of empathy and respect. In relation to Gallipoli I think Australia especially has been led a little up the garden path by the views on notable anti British republicans like Rupert Murdoch (he financed the movie and did so with a condition, that it contain anti british sentiment) I suspect that some base their knowledge on this single version of the events ie the movie. I post the following link with absolute respect to all who died, were wounded or who came home. It does tell some truths but is certainly not a scorecard. Please read it I also attend ANZAC services every year as an Englishman honouring the Australian and New Zealanders who made the supreme sacrifice with my children who I am sure will continue to do this when I am no longer around. I am more than happy to engage in friendly banter but when my own ancestry in maligned to this degree I need to make some stand. http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Brits-made-major-Gallipoli-sacrifice-too/2005/04/20/1113854234288.html I hope no one ever sees the need to use these sad events to give us their opinions on a sports discussion site again because the two are poles apart. Thanks JimmyB I've read your posts with interest and "dips me lid" to you.
Matt
Guest
The ABs are trying to create regular 'match rehearsals' leading up to the 2015 WC. Flogging England and France in NZ achieves nothing but a false sense of security and a poor gauge of form. Hansen and co are trying to eliminate the 'wot ifs', and for the benefit of young players coming into the team who didn't play in the 2011 final. From 2016 onwards don't be surprised if the AB's play their final RC and BC deciders in Tokyo.
richard
Guest
never had that happen before.
richard
Guest
I would be amazed if it wasn't the only reason.The reality is the NZRU needs the money,and the EOYT's generate the largest revenues each season.Look at this season,the NZRU demanded twice the amount of money to play Wales ( rumoured to be in the vicinity of 1.5 million pounds).Understandably Wales said no. NZ's motives are hardly altruistic,And I think most AB's would rather not do an EOYT if if they weren't obligated to. KOK - interesting theory about where rugby could be headed,but we have been hearing this talk of the AB's dominance disappearing ever since the game went pro.And it still hasn't eventuated.Not saying it couldn't happen,but if it does,like you I hope I'm not around to see it.
richard
Guest
I would be amazed if it wasn't the only reason.The reality is the NZRU needs the money,and the EOYT's generate the largest revenues each season.Look at this season,the NZRU demanded twice the amount of money to play Wales ( rumoured to be in the vicinity of 1.5 million pounds).Understandably Wales said no. NZ's motives are hardly altruistic,And I think most AB's would rather not do an EOYT if if they weren't obligated to. KOK - interesting theory about where rugby could be headed,but we have been hearing this talk of the AB's dominance disappearing ever since the game went pro.And it still hasn't eventuated.Not saying it couldn't happen,but if it does,like you I hope I'm not around to see it.
Dan
Guest
Well it's a combination of facts (the role of the monarchy as servicing purely British interests isn't in dispute here), my opinion and the general democratic sentiment. But absolutely, she'd make a fine President ;-) .
JimmyB
Guest
You're entitled to your opinion Dan, but that's all it is, your opinion. Good luck to you mate in your cause. Julia Gillard for President!
Dan
Guest
Polling shows it's very much older, white people who are primary supporters of it. Even still, there is a majority of the population still in favour of us becoming a republic despite it. In any case, it doesn't really change the fact that support for the monarchy is purely a result of immature emotional ties, and that the monarchy itself actively undermines our interests in favour of Britain's, and is culturally now as far removed from us as it is geographically. Put it to you this way, what exactly is the argument for keeping the monarchy? There really isn't anything beyond "it's not the right time", or "if it aint broke, don't fix it" (the calling card of the loser 40 year old living with his folks, who never does anything to improve his lot).
JimmyB
Guest
I think you might be surprised at the cross section of people who support the Queen.
Dan
Guest
As I say above, the Queen and the royals are paid by the British tax payer to effectively enhance British trade and cultural interests. In effect, this means that the royals are undermining Australian competitiveness in certain areas to enhance Britain's. So she can be as hard working as she likes, she still doesn't do anything that further's Australia's interests and I don't think anyone would miss that. Actually, I don't think a lot of people here even notice her existence now. Honestly, if you ask anyone here that's under 60 you'll find that they'd more than happy to see Australia split from its ties to the foreign royals. It's really only old, conservative white people that want us to hang on to this silly anachronism.
I suppose it all depends on how threatening the guests become, eh?
JimmyB
Guest
Understood, but I thought there was a way of treating guests. ;)
We all get our turn mate. This is an Aussie site, and the Kiwi's live next door. The rest of us are merely guests here. ;)
JimmyB
Guest
I'm relaxed mate, just getting a persecution complex that's all. Ain't a lot of fun being a Pom on this site anymore.
JimmyB
Guest
I'm sorry to hear that Swerve, although I completely understand your reasons. Good natured banter seems to have been replaced by outright hostility and hatred. Bigotry is an ugly condition and it just wouldn't be accepted the other way around and quite rightly. I like to think that the English or the British have relatively broad shoulders when it comes to this sort of thing, but unfortunately you can't reason with outright hatred. As we all know each nation has it's fair share of agitators, however what has disappointed me most is not so much the haters but more that the reasonable, mature and intelligent posters from Australia, NZ and SA simply sit back and allow almost all of the hateful posters to carry on without comment or censure. On top of that there appears a tacit condoning of this behaviour from the editors. Given some of the truly mundane words that require moderation, the word HATE seems to be perfectly acceptable. I too have questioned whether the Roar is worth the aggro, I too first visited the site to discuss and debate sport and hoped for and got some good natured banter along the way, however things have changed and taken IMO a more sinister tone. I have grown to suspect that there a good deal of SANZAR posters on here who would be quite happy to operate within a bubble and have no input whatsoever from 'foreigners'. I seem to almost exclusively be pulling up haters these days and discussing sport seems to have gone by the by. Sad face.