RWC19 "Stuff"
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
New Zealand: Beauden Barrett; Sevu Reece, Jack Goodhue, Anton Lienert-Brown, George Bridge; Richie Mo'unga, Aaron Smith; Joe Moody, Codie Taylor, Nepo Laulala, Brodie Retallick, Sam Whitelock, Scott Barrett, Ardie Savea, Kieran Read (capt).
Replacements: Dane Coles, Ofa Tuungafasi, Angus Ta'avao, Patrick Tuipulotu, Sam Cane, TJ Perenara, Sonny Bill Williams, Jordie Barrett.
Scott Barrett starts in the back row for the first time...strange decision?
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
CMGC wrote:GM - Agree with the gist of your reply but the change I would advocate is that the top 10 play more of their games against the next 5 in the rankings. E.G. Eng sell out Twickers if it is SA/ Argentina or Fiji. I fact I would rather watch Fiji than the others. If we play the 10 - 15 ranked teams more and they improve they will become bigger draws. However the loss in revenue from playing say Samoa rather than Oz I suspect is minimal. It is a shame that the WR plan for a more even mix of fixtures over the top 15 teams is not embraced by those who want the closed shop for the top 10. I also realise that the home team keeps just about all of the game take. This is partly why Eng/ NZ isn't played as NZ want a share fo the cash. Fine but this model HAS to evolve to a standard % share to allow the nations who play most games away to benefit more. Perhaps a 50/50 split on the TV money ?
Twickenham may still provide the sell-outs against lower-ranked teams BUT same would very doubtfully happen elsewhere if past attendances at Cardiff, Edinburgh and Paris + in the SH are to be believed.
Sell-outs necessitate big attractions...….
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
Indeed. So rugby either accepts that the RFU/ SRU and some others just sit their with their hands under their legs or WR says the global game is more important and something has got to shift because otherwise the game won't grow. All it needs is for a greater % of the Test revenue money to be shared around and that will enhance the tier 2 nations. In time some tier one nations Will be overtaken but that will be their challenge. Perhaps WR should decide that the knock out stage nations get only a small % of the WR revenue and the pool teams get the lions share?
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
Possibility yes.
IF the massive RFU payment to PRL was reduced such investments to encourage the growth of the International game could happen. How would GRFC and SW react to that reduction in RFU support ?? GS/Colin ?? 
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
Strange how this topic comes up every 4 years....I look forward to the same conversations in 4 years time.
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
A prime reason so much money is spent on player salaries is the pressure on getting the best players and the "competition" that Sugar daddies / housing schemes have provided via pumping money into the pot. cut that back and the Pro clubs could afford to pay less and get by on a smaller handout. Anyway it sadly seems this may all get dwarfed by CVC money anyway !!!
All that will do is pump more into the inequality equation !!!!
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
King Prawn Bhuna wrote:Scott Barrett starts in the back row for the first time...strange decision?
Gives them 4 options in the line out
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
You've got to remember that 'RFU support' is just one way of describing the money that changes hands...another is a fair rental for the use of the clubs' players.
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
And "nuclear option" is RFU refusing to pay for those players and instead selecting from Championship and/or those Premiership players that defy their owner-club.
Could PRL clubs survive without the RFU support ?? Effectively the governing bodies' problems in England is the huge amount of money that goes to Premiership. IF that money was used at community level - not on player salaries/payments - just think how much more grass-roots rugby would be played and how the facilities could be massively improved.
Always amuses me how Premiership owners moan and moan about RFU but gladly take any/all the handouts that they can get !!