Touch, pause, don't engage: How the old rugby world is hurting the game

You will note above I have gone back to the original statements by Tew and Cully, as reported by the Fairfax Media back in 2016. Some people on here don't seem able to perceive that, sometimes the corporate media do make sense and I think they do in this case, also clears some misconceptions. Also add that that the Fairfax articles are about 2020 onwards and the financial renegotiation is about the international window 2020 onwards, not just games outside the international window but all games.

Name calling again and twisting issues around to suit your own prejudice without giving reasons. Because it's to do with NZ, is that upsetting the fun boy.

Bakkies you often comment about SA rugby and your name, but apologise.

I'm getting bent out of shape, Jerry, because 'it's just a simple financial negotiation' is not how it was portrayed in NZ. It was the usual 'arrogant Poms deny plucky little NZ their 'rights'. The 'arrogance' in this issue came entirely from the ABs.

I'm afraid, zhenry, you're living in cloud cuckoo land. You keep making Ritchie's point for him. You're bleating about NZ's small stadiums. You also haven't got a clue about England fans reaction to this. Ritchie is under precisely zero pressure to concede ground to NZ. The general response to Tew's arrogant approach was 'tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine'. Kiwis constantly fall into the trap of believing that because the world revolves around the ABs in NZ, it revolves around them elsewhere. Your other points are laughable. You can't drive across London in an hour let alone from anywhere else. You haven't got a clue about rugby economics.

So, therefore, as everyone suspected it's not just about the 'extra' test that's a one off, the NZ agenda is clearly to go for a revenue sharing deal in which the ABs get half the revenue every year of sides that have invested and taken the gamble on a massive national rugby stadium while , presumably, spreading the AB home tests around smaller stadiums providing much less revenue in return. No other side in the world is asking for this. There's a global agreement and the ABs characteristically want a unique deal for themselves.

"They have not adopted well to the professional game" When you are economically much much smaller moving to a pure commercial foundation will do that to you. Huge surprise arrives when you discover London GDP is more than 550B and Samoa is 1.2B.

"It’s not NZ’s right to go and pursue half of another union’s home gate." It's entirely NZ's right to set a price for an extra test though, which is what they actually did. That money isn't England's by right, it's a commercial venture which the All Blacks are contributing towards the profits. The NZRU is well within its rights to negotiate for how much of those profits they get.

They only requested half the profits on an extra test outside the international schedule. It's entirely a financial negotiation, dunno why you're getting all bent out of shape about it. Btw, I'm sure the NZRU would happily give half the profits from a Lions tour every 12 years if revenue sharing was the norm in the other 11....

March 2016 stuff Tew wants wants review of global season for 2020 onwards. At present The Super Comp is broken in two, unified breaks will help manage player welfare, their battered bodies are asked to play more rugby than ever. NZ wants A unified global season otherwise ABs will negotiate for individual matches which would be bad for a short period of time The financial model is also unfair, NZ small stadia can't generate anywhere near comparable revenue to their NH counterparts, ABs get nothing from the Euro tour The AB drawcard status is not recognised. SA supports a push for a more equitable model. Its reported that a £3 million fee is being demanded, But the details of that are not clear. Ian Ritchie, the chief executive of the Rugby Football Union, has rejected the notion that Twickenham match revenues should be shared with southern hemisphere opponents, suggesting that they should "go build a stadium" if they want to improve their finances. The ABs are threatening to boycott England games at Twickernam if Ritchie does not comply. Ritchie doesn't consider that everything revolves around Paris and London in France and England. New Zealand doesn't have the same relationship with Auckland, its rugby is spread out, while it's an hours drive to the main UK centers, not so in NZ, even to Hamilton is much more than that. Dec 2016 Paul Cully SMH The central point is this despite Ritchie's bluster, the appetite among the rugby public in England for a schedule that does not involve the ABs is zero. It does not exist. Ritchie must answer to these English rugby fans. English fans and players measure themselves against the ABs and ‘other SH peers’. The other weakness of Ritchie's position is that it can be undermined by the Welsh, Irish, Scots and French. Please take note Roar commenters

I love that the RFU is still being blamed for the ills of world rugby long after the IRB took control of it. Ian Richie was merely making the point that funding for the game with Fiji was agreed with the Fijian board whose responsibility it was to divvy up their share of the takings. Richie also made the point that the ex gratia payments they made to Fiji were well in excess of the funding offered by those saintly southern hemisphere types. One final point; Italy weren't let in to the 6N prematurely. They had performed to a very high level for many years and deserved their place on form. Arguably, they were let in too late but it was certainly not the result of "clumsy integration". The Italian's misfortune was that their admission to the 6N coincided with the increasing professionalisation of the game in Argentina. This had the effect, almost at a stroke, of cutting off the supply of Italo-Argentines who had hitherto plied their trade under the Italian banner.

'No other team captures the imagination of the viewing rugby public in all regions of the world more than the AB’s and you don’t believe the NZRU should receive any level of recompense for this.' Irrelevant and I'm not South African. It's not NZ's right to go and pursue half of another union's home gate.

'No other team captures the imagination of the viewing rugby public in all regions of the world more than the AB’s and you don’t believe the NZRU should receive any level of recompense for this.' That's nonsense. If you played that card then no one will host the All Blacks. At least three of the 6 Nations unions are running at a loss.

'Seems to me that most decisions regarding rugby are made to benefit the NH ,mostly England it seems .' Yes, Wardad, but as the world knows the Kiwi idea of being treated unfairly is when the ABs say 'jump' and the other side give any answer other than 'how high'. There's a sense of entitlement in NZ rugby that is almost funny. They've made demands to be treated differently than any other country in the world (uniquely only the ABs to receive half of Twickenham's profit for the 'privilege' of playing those humble ABs). They seem to get every decision they don't like overturned or changed (view SBW's AB training run that's now, suddenly, a serious game), and expect to be treated everywhere else in the world like they're treated in NZ (demi-Gods that can do no wrong). The ELVs were delivering games with 65-47 scorelines, for example. If you think those sort of games are more exciting then, for example, the 15-15 draw in the NZ-BiLs test then you're probably watching the wrong game.

'A name calling corporate media hack (excuse my name calling). NZ is the only small population rugby nation in the top six. Mr Ritchie likes to ignore (like global neoconservatism) the reality of economic externalities and dismiss it with a f…o..' NZ has a similar population to Ireland and Scotland and a bigger one then Wales. I presume you're using the NZRU instruction manual on mathematics. Ritchie is an exceptionally successful and professional sports administrator. The reason he's a bogey man in NZ is that he committed the ultimate sin. The ABs said 'jump' and instead of giving the response the ABs are used to which is 'how high', he said 'No'. As far as I'm aware, he's called no-one 'any names'. Having been put under pressure for weeks by NZRU rugby officials with an overwhelming sense of entitlement he said, 'if you want to benefit from the revenues of having an 85,000 stadium for every test match - build a world class 85,000 stadium and stage all AB matches there.' If, for whatever reason you don't want to do that, don't demand that you benefit from the fruits of other countries taking the gamble of going into debt to build such a stadium.

This '12 times the TV revenue of the 6 nations' when the ABs are in town is nonsense. England's 6 Nations matches are shown on the BBC which doesn't have any paid advertising so that's the argument up in smoke before it begins. The November tests are shown on Sky as part of an entire package. It's subscription so the TV audiences are much smaller than the 6 Nations which is free to air. It doesn't make any difference in terms of TV revenue to the RFU whether they're playing the ABs, Australia or SA. Twickenham is always sold-out. There may be a marginal difference in seat prices and corporate rates but it's relative peanuts. What gets me about the ABs and their cheerleaders is on the one hand they throw their weight around claiming 'market forces demand' that we, the great ABs, get a unique deal different to every country, then when England say our view of 'market forces' is that your analysis doesn't work so 'no deal' they throw their toys out of the pram and start whining about 'English arrogance'.

Bakkies your a well seasoned established SA'n. The ABs earn their right to sponsorship, which they must pursue, just like they earn their right to high value economic externalities, which they must pursue. SA have the population and the stadia, Super final great game and Ellis Park was packed- all the best.

A name calling corporate media hack (excuse my name calling). NZ is the only small population rugby nation in the top six. Mr Ritchie likes to ignore (like global neoconservatism) the reality of economic externalities and dismiss it with a f...o.. Follow the money trail externalities have monetary value, see commenter below, the ABs are a huge for advertising, seat prices and generally a huge flow of money into large population rugby unions, and in return NZ gets next to zilch. Again, NZ's small population rugby makes millions for overseas rugby unions and NZ gets zilch. Perhaps NZRU should be made to borrow from those huge gate takings and also pay interest on what should be their rightful economic share - that's what's happening in world politics, the rich don't pay taxes so govts go cap in hand and borrow from the rich. NZRU must pursue their economic rights. In such circumstances visiting teams to NZ can be reciprocated and special deals for the Pacific and emerging nations. It is not a fair playing field, unlike the NZ govt treatment of the majority the NZRU must, for themselves, make it fair.

Bakkies, the financial complexities of managing a nation’s rugby resource is much more intricate than you are intimating. NZ punches above its weight because it vests considerable time in supporting grassroots organizations and offering kids with talent every opportunity to realize their dream. Unfortunately the ARU have not obtained such lofty thoughts and that’s why we are in the weeds. The All Blacks are the most recognized rugby brand in the world and there are many reasons for this, one is their win lose record. As reiterated before, when on tour in the NH, the cost of advertising during a NZ test match on T/V increases something like 12 fold over the normal 6 nation advertising $ estimate. No other team captures the imagination of the viewing rugby public in all regions of the world more than the AB’s and you don’t believe the NZRU should receive any level of recompense for this. Axing a team, don’t make me laugh, we never came close to beating the lowly Blues and what worries me, the divide continues to grow while we look over the fence and sit on our hands.

Seems to me that most decisions regarding rugby are made to benefit the NH ,mostly England it seems . Remember the ELVs and short arm penalties at the scrum ?