Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:25 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Something's gotta give.
The IRB have a strangle hold over everything and if the rules aren't relaxed, then I reckon after 2019.....they won't be able to command the hosting fees they have achived up to now.
Sponsors should be included in the hosting rights...if need be, add to the hosting costs, but you have to let the host union make a profit.
The RFU have a target of 3,000,000 fans at the 2015 comp.....they have paid 80 million pounds for the rights to host it.......I reckon at 50 quid a ticket, they will be hard pressed to break even..........and believe me, any soccer grounds used will not be referred to by their "sponsors" names.....the Westpac Stadium here in Wellington has had the Westpac removed and it is now referred to as the Wellington regional Stadium....

Same already for the Olympics- the Ricoh will be renamed the City of Coventry stadium, despite never ever having had that monicker.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:13 pm  

Catalancs wrote: There's moor trouble at that theer mill. He's an idiot.......firstly, I think he knew the rules regarding sponsorship and revenue streams BEFORE NZRU applied to host the comp.....next up, market forces will dictate who can afford what player. Yes, the likes of Carter may go north to play for a wealthy English or French club, but International Level Competition such as this RWC are what most players aspire to.....not the Aviva Premiership. Most of the players who have been "poached" over the last 12 months would never have made this AB's squad...they were offered decent money and they left...so what? NZRU needs to sort its own house out before attempting to dictate to the RFU.....firstly, sort out the pricing for S15 tickets. 2006.....The Hurricanes averaged 23,300 a game over 6 home games with 2 local derbies.......6 seasons on and over 8 games with 4 local derbies they averaged 11,280.........that's why they are losing money.....that and the ridiculous $220 they tried to charge for an AB's replica.

Catalancs wrote: There's moor trouble at that theer mill. He's an idiot.......firstly, I think he knew the rules regarding sponsorship and revenue streams BEFORE NZRU applied to host the comp.....next up, market forces will dictate who can afford what player. Yes, the likes of Carter may go north to play for a wealthy English or French club, but International Level Competition such as this RWC are what most players aspire to.....not the Aviva Premiership. Most of the players who have been "poached" over the last 12 months would never have made this AB's squad...they were offered decent money and they left...so what? NZRU needs to sort its own house out before attempting to dictate to the RFU.....firstly, sort out the pricing for S15 tickets. 2006.....The Hurricanes averaged 23,300 a game over 6 home games with 2 local derbies.......6 seasons on and over 8 games with 4 local derbies they averaged 11,280.........that's why they are losing money.....that and the ridiculous $220 they tried to charge for an AB's replica.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:57 am  

I read in the paper this morning that England don't think Scotland will be able to cope with their attacking rugby. I learned 2 things:
1. England must be playing Scotland.
2. England play attacking rugby.
No really.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:17 am  

tigertot wrote:

I read in the paper this morning that England don't think Scotland will be able to cope with their attacking rugby. I learned 2 things:
1. England must be playing Scotland.
2. England play attacking rugby.
No really.

England put 67 points on a second string Romania side and everybody is now saying England are an attacking side. That result is put into context when you see Georgia then go and beat the Romanian first team and the fact that the last time England played Romania they won by 134 points

This is a terrible England team – their only attacking threats are on the wing but against a decent opposition they haven’t got the skills to get the ball to them in attacking positions

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:20 pm  

Dunbar wrote:

England put 67 points on a second string Romania side and everybody is now saying England are an attacking side. That result is put into context when you see Georgia then go and beat the Romanian first team and the fact that the last time England played Romania they won by 134 points

This is a terrible England team – their only attacking threats are on the wing but against a decent opposition they haven’t got the skills to get the ball to them in attacking positions

Will Thatcher stand up in parliament & say they should come home?

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:49 pm  

Awfully quiet on here considering we're in the middle of the pinnacle of the game Newcastle Falcons revising policy on signings. Concentrate on staying up first Taity. Rugby World Cup: Australia back New Zealand over cost of participation. 'We are unable to continue making these significant losses.'

Awfully quiet on here considering we're in the middle of the pinnacle of the game Newcastle Falcons revising policy on signings. Concentrate on staying up first Taity. Rugby World Cup: Australia back New Zealand over cost of participation. 'We are unable to continue making these significant losses.'

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:15 pm  

I heard on the radio the other evening that the RFU is establishing a full-time 12 man sevens team in preparation for the 2016? Olympic games. How much money must be in that sport?

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:21 pm  

tigertot wrote:

I heard on the radio the other evening that the RFU is establishing a full-time 12 man sevens team in preparation for the 2016? Olympic games. How much money must be in that sport?

Union in the olympics came up in conversation at the weekend. Presumably England, Scotland and Wales will make way for a GB team but what about Northern Ireland? In international rugby union they play under the flag of Ireland but the Olympic association in the north is tied to GB.
Also, will there be a qualification process similar to that in Olympic soccer? If so, Australasia, which has a good number of the world's best teams, will see a number of it's members fail to make the actual tournament, won't it?

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:49 pm  

I presume the RFU is England. Probably in their arrogance it has not occurred to them there are other territories in the country of GB.

Re: If you must discuss Union, do it here II : Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:58 pm  

Catalancs wrote: Awfully quiet on here considering we're in the middle of the pinnacle of the game I prefer the 6 nations/Tri-nations myself..... Catalancs wrote: Rugby World Cup: Australia back New Zealand over cost of participation. 'We are unable to continue making these significant losses.' Oh dear...it's the old us and them scenario again.......Whilst the AB's might consider themselves the draw card in world Rugby, I think they might find that with or without them, the IRB will do fine......we didn't miss South Africa that much. The ARU should keep quiet.....unless they want the B&I Lions to go to South Africa in 2013.....

Catalancs wrote: Awfully quiet on here considering we're in the middle of the pinnacle of the game I prefer the 6 nations/Tri-nations myself..... Catalancs wrote: Rugby World Cup: Australia back New Zealand over cost of participation. 'We are unable to continue making these significant losses.' Oh dear...it's the old us and them scenario again.......Whilst the AB's might consider themselves the draw card in world Rugby, I think they might find that with or without them, the IRB will do fine......we didn't miss South Africa that much. The ARU should keep quiet.....unless they want the B&I Lions to go to South Africa in 2013.....