World cup what's going on?

[Dipper]

I see that NZ aren't involved in hosting the WC anymore-the reason given is of a clash with the NPC.Does it go deeper than this-did the NZ RFU feel that they were being squeezed out of the WC by the Aussies?

It all seems very odd, the WC only happens every 4 years & realsitically Austrlia/NZ are only going to get the chance to host about every 12 years so you'd have thought it was a great opportunity.

The trouble is that every WC bar one has involved games spread over more than one country (at least I think the 1995 WC only had games in SA-maybe there was the odd one in Zimbawe I'm not really sure) I can't help feeling it would be better for individual countires to host alone & really give the tournament their individual character.

I read that the NZ RFU reckoned they'd make more money from the NPC than from hosting 23 world cup games-something can't be right there surely.

 

[Player]

This is all very complicated, or all very obvious.

On the matter of money

Imagine this scenario England can host the football World Cup, but only if you accept the cancellation of the Premiership. Would that have much impact on the local game do you think?

The NZRFU needs the NPC, its revenue, and to have hundreds of rugby players competing each week.

Every professional rugby player in New Zealand is contracted to the NZRFU, from All Black to third division West Coast.

They pay most of each professional players salary, which is structured and tiered around the rep level of the player (NPC>Super12>All Black). In the lower divisions the players are usually semi-professional and only receive a small sum of money from their union.

However most of the smaller unions can only survive financially by the grace of their annual handout given to them by the NZRFU, proceeds generated from the All Black and hosting test matches.

Local unions are permitted, and expected to renumerate their best players from income generated from the NPC and the Super12, those unions that can not afford this obviously lose their Super 12 reps and All Blacks to those that can.

There is no free market for players instead there is a structured transfer system, with set development fees to be paid to the union losing the player.

For a no-frills rugby player in a run-of-the-mill first division NPC team, the money isn't great, just enough obviously to keep them in New Zealand and interested in aiming for a far richer Super12 contract.

Trust me, they will have done their sums, If the NZRFU says the NPC is worth $20 million dollars more than the WC, then I'm not surprised they are resisting making any rash decisions.

My only worry is if New Zealand can not afford to co-host the tournament, then it is hard to see how New Zealand could ever again hope to host the tournament by ourselves.

With friends like these

(1) The Australia Rugby Union as the main host have withdrawn their 'offer' to let New Zealand co-host the WC.

But the fact is the ARU doesn't have this god given ability.

(2) A limited liabilty company has been formed, in case of a serious Rugby League World Cup type loss, which has the necessary committees, and fishheads to "plan" and "organise" a WC.

The ARU is the host of the WC, not the entire WC organisation.

(3) Australia have also forgotten that the everything has to be sanctioned and rubber-stamped by the IRB.

The legal opinion given to the NZRFU is that only a full meeting of the IRB can remove New Zealand's WC responsibilities.

New Zealand had apparently accepted a compromise on restructuring the NPC to fit in with the WC, and conditionally signed a document committing to co-hosting the WC but this wasn't acceptable to the ARU.

Supposedly there are two main sticking points, (i) the NZRFU wants to keep their own advertising and signage, while the "IRB" wants clean stadiums and official advertising only.

I marginally support the WC organising committee on this one, surely all proceeds generated by the competition, including advertising, should go to the official WC organising body.

But the reality is the NZRFU does not believe they can afford to sustain the financial loss, or risk alienating their backers, that this demand would involve. The biggest stadium in New Zealand is Eden Park, and it can only hold 47,500 people, tiny by the main rugby stadium for most rugby countries so the loss of any source of income is that much more acute.

And (ii) corporate boxes, the "IRB" wants clean boxes, again if corporate entities are willing to pay 100,000s each year for these who is the IRB to tell them what they are allowed to do with them.

The fact is Wales didn't resolve their contractual disputes with the IRB until two weeks before the last WC.

The NZRFU blames two men for this whole S.N.A.F.U, Vernon Pugh, the same guy the NZRFU told to get stuffed when he announced an annual North v South game without bothering to consult the NZRFU. A mini-me of Sepp Blatter, he has intentionally kept all the interested parties seperated for the last two years preventing meaningful dialogue between all the parties.

New Zealand is surprisingly lukewarm to the WC, nobody understands why something this meaningless has to be sorted out yesterday, and the whole drama just shows up the sort of ****ers that run the ARU and the IRB.

And from the ARU John O'Neill and just a ***-for-tat for New Zealand stopping this mythical fourth Sydney-Melbourne-Parramatta-Perth-Gold Coast located side from entering the Super 12 side next year.

Somebody suggested a compromise for this team of superstars by letting them enter next years NPC.

Australia can get 80,000 when they play New Zealand in Sydney, lets see how they go when the contest is Spain up against Canada in Newcastle.

**** who cares, New Zealand were always going to have to win the final in Australia anyway.

 

[Player]

You can see what sort of people the NZRFU was dealing with when less than 16 minutes after the first page had been faxed to Australia of our conditional agreement both Pugh and O'Neill had announced Australia were hosting the WC by themselves.

So much for reading our agreement

So much for getting second opinions

So much for getting legal opinions

So much for informing the rest of IRB

So much for bothering to include anybody else in the decision-making process

Not that these two have their own personal agendas of course.

 

[Player]

What's that Mr O'Neill?

Did you just concede that the ARU will not have clean stadiums for the next WC.

Well I'm confused Mr O'Neill how come New Zealand had to have clean stadiums while Australia can keep their advertising.

You just signed a legal document committing the ARU to providing clean stadiums, an obligation you always intended to breach, while the NZRFU in a similar situation refused to agree to the exact same provision so you terminate the contract.

For your sake Mr O'Neill I hope the ARU lawyers are better than the their NZRFU counter parts because the NZRFU would seem to have a damn good case to sue in tort.

Hey Mr Pugh supposedly you are a lawyer, does this seem fair to you?

 

[Ms.Storm]

Oh Boy..

What a mess.......everyone better swallow their pride, and do something quick...this is a great opportunity to promote the code, particularly in the southern states and they might stuff up