Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:51 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 191 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13664
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
Jensrsa wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Jensrsa wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
“Under the proposed competition, media rights would be combined, enabling greater consistency and overall value,” added the statement.

“Strong interest from media entities has indicated that the model would boost annual media revenue for international rugby and unions, for reinvestment in the game, by a substantial amount.”

The crux of the matter.

6N will approve, Sanzaar will approve. Deal done

So to remain as is they will have to bring in at least twice what the 6N brings in at the moment, simply to keep the 6N payment the same, and that is assuming no monies to Tier2 and Tier 3.

To pay for those you must be talking, and this is off the top of my head, at least three times, if not more, current 6N monies.

Is this realistic ?

Add the 6N monies, the EOYT monies, the SANZAAR monies and the midyear tour monies. Then add more money on top of that.

RFU reported an operating loss of £30m in 17/18, Wales and Scotland are struggling financially (I assume Ireland too), the SANZAAR nations are struggling financially.

They all need a boost in income




Oh dear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13664
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
FullbackAce wrote:
Two more positions revealed. Apparently Saffas and the French are for this proposal.

From what we've heard so far

For
_____
Kiwis
Saffas
Pumas
France
World Rugby

Against
______
Scots
Italy

Others still Unknown.

Something tells me 6N are evenly split, otherwise all talk of this would be over by now, the fact that it's still going on means they are also interested.



Ireland are against, so are England by all accounts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 1237
Hellraiser wrote:
FullbackAce wrote:
Two more positions revealed. Apparently Saffas and the French are for this proposal.

From what we've heard so far

For
_____
Kiwis
Saffas
Pumas
France
World Rugby

Against
______
Scots
Italy

Others still Unknown.

Something tells me 6N are evenly split, otherwise all talk of this would be over by now, the fact that it's still going on means they are also interested.



Ireland are against, so are England by all accounts.


If England are against then it won't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20031
guy smiley wrote:
naki wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Naki

So the RC will actually be no more?


In it's current format, yes. It would be SANZAAR + 2, and while no one would actually lament the loss of the existing comp very much any major overhaul like this is fraught with pitfalls both large and small.

For instance, what happens to the Bledisloe? Both RA and NZR would not be happy with just a single test each year.

And how would SA deal with missing out on an All Black test every second year? It's currently their only guaranteed sell-out fixture each year.

What happens if Tonga get promoted? They are currently forced to hold home tests against major nations in NZ because their facilities are not up to scratch.

It's a bold move


Yup. Pisstaking aside, I’ve no issue with changing the current structures but only if the replacement is a genuine attempt to include more games against lower ranked nations in a way that shares revenue fairly and promotes growth in the game. I don’t see this proposal doing that.

I like that Australian relegation idea though. Ooh yes.



You say that now, but as a kiwi you'll miss having fewer chances to hump them on the pitch. It's no fun when they are to weak to fight back and you know this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31084
Location: in transit
Actually, I’m something of a loner among my immediate circle of Kiwi friends in wanting Australia healthy. They all laugh at the state of things there but I feel we need a strong Oz up and about...

As we’re seeing now with the various financial woes / WR league fiasco, strong teams mean a strong market and NZ is better off with a healthy Oz there attracting their share of revenue.

The humpings are a bonus. I’m almost ...

no, I’m not sick of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15454
The RFU weren’t too happy about it when it was first floated. They weren’t notified that it was in the pipeline. PRL wanted in to the negotiations as their clubs although affiliated to the RFU play in their competition and receive funds from the RFU.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:16 am
Posts: 44
guy smiley wrote:
Actually, I’m something of a loner among my immediate circle of Kiwi friends in wanting Australia healthy. They all laugh at the state of things there but I feel we need a strong Oz up and about...


The Wallabies getting relegated to Tier 2 may just be a big enough kick up the ass for the ARU to finally get their shit together.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15454
guy smiley wrote:
Actually, I’m something of a loner among my immediate circle of Kiwi friends in wanting Australia healthy. They all laugh at the state of things there but I feel we need a strong Oz up and about...

As we’re seeing now with the various financial woes / WR league fiasco, strong teams mean a strong market and NZ is better off with a healthy Oz there attracting their share of revenue.

The humpings are a bonus. I’m almost ...

no, I’m not sick of it.


A strong Bledisloe promotes the game as we saw between 1998-2003 when the game was starting to get mainstream coverage even in places like Melbourne. The AFL press in Melbourne were angry at the AFL for giving up the comp bye weekend which the ARU used to schedule a test. Rugby got a lot of press that week with no AFL games on and the AFL press said it was a free kick to Rugby.

Then you have the Reds and Tahs booming with strong crowds and marketing then with a load of poor decisions in the front office crashing it back to the base of diehards they had when Rugby went pro.

Rugby has shown what it can do when it is run and promoted well in Australia.

The scary thing is despite the dwindling crowds they would still be reasonably secure financially had they had not ploughed so much money in to the Rebels private owners and the ARU wrote off a $30 million debt that was owed to them. Then you have the money wasted on lawyers due to cutting a side, reviews and rebranding. Cheika has had so much money thrown at him to try and boost the test team. They still blame outside forces like overseas clubs and other sports for their woes. They have always been there.

They need to look at the mirror themselves rather than ask other unions to give up their own revenue to save them.


Last edited by Brumby_in_Vic on Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31084
Location: in transit
Brumby_in_Vic wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Actually, I’m something of a loner among my immediate circle of Kiwi friends in wanting Australia healthy. They all laugh at the state of things there but I feel we need a strong Oz up and about...

As we’re seeing now with the various financial woes / WR league fiasco, strong teams mean a strong market and NZ is better off with a healthy Oz there attracting their share of revenue.

The humpings are a bonus. I’m almost ...

no, I’m not sick of it.


A strong Bledisloe promotes the game as we saw between 1998-2003 when the game was starting to get mainstream coverage even in places like Melbourne. Then you have the Reds and Tahs booming with strong crowds and marketing then with a load of poor decisions in the front office crashing it back to the base of diehards they had when Rugby went pro.

Rugby has shown what it can do when it is run and promoted well in Australia.

The scary thing is despite the dwindling crowds they would still be reasonably secure financially had they had no ploughed so much money in to the Rebels private owners and the ARU wrote off a $30 million debt that was owed to them. Then you have the money wasted on lawyers due to cutting a side, reviews and rebranding. Cheika has had so much money thrown at him to try and boost the test teams. They still blame outside forces like overseas clubs and other sports for their wise. They have always been there.

They need to look at the mirror themselves rather than ask other unions to give up their own revenue to save them.


Yes to all that...

I wonder if it's stretching things too far to suggest the leather elbow patch and tweed jacket crowd have stuffed the game nearly everywhere by rigorously pursuing the business lunch model of financial management instead of...

well, managing the finances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15454
The ARU’s mismanagement is now on the public record for good thanks to the Senate Inquiry including the minutes of the meeting that the ARU used to justify cutting a side. The report presented could have been written by a fifth grader. Throw in Pulver’s testimony that was so sloppy the Commitee and the audience laughed at him. The Inquiry didn’t have the time to really go in to the sweeping under the carpet and junkets.

The ARU have a joke of a bank teller as the Chairman. Like his previous gig at the NAB he has farked up Aussie Rugby good and proper. This is the bloke that had a chief of staff who has been arrested along with her associate after being accused of fifty counts of using company funds as their personal play thing. It took his successor who has resigned to give her the boot.

The worldwide searches for executives and coaches have stuffed Aussie Rugby. The searches stopped in Sydney and Brisbane carparks. The local coaches are too raw or left the tent like Andy Friend did. All the top quality candidates are foreign apart from White the others would think twice after how Deans was treated before applying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8617
Location: Tahstown
eldanielfire wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
DeDoc wrote:
Another consequence would be a lack of variety in the November internationals compared to the current scenario - right now in addition to RC countries visiting, you usually have a selection of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, US, Canada, Japan - plus occasionally Romania, Georgia etc. We'd only see 2 of those in any year in the current format:-(


It's locked into a schedule of finals in November, so that will always be in the NH. Good job on alienating half the globe there. It's also locking in the established teams... promotion / relegation means SFA when it comes to greater exposure for the Tier 2 teams and only adds novelty value instead of greater variety.



Lots of us have seen this. Half empty stadiums after the first year. Unions earning much less with their stadiums as a result. I mean say Scotland or Italy get relegated after the first season, you think Murryfield will sell-out with Scotland vs Canada as their biggest game in November in a sub-6 Nations game? Absolutely not.It stinks for the fans.

What does the world owe Scotland? A country that vehemently opposed professionalism and even a rugby world cup


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3648
grievous wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
DeDoc wrote:
Another consequence would be a lack of variety in the November internationals compared to the current scenario - right now in addition to RC countries visiting, you usually have a selection of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, US, Canada, Japan - plus occasionally Romania, Georgia etc. We'd only see 2 of those in any year in the current format:-(


It's locked into a schedule of finals in November, so that will always be in the NH. Good job on alienating half the globe there. It's also locking in the established teams... promotion / relegation means SFA when it comes to greater exposure for the Tier 2 teams and only adds novelty value instead of greater variety.



Lots of us have seen this. Half empty stadiums after the first year. Unions earning much less with their stadiums as a result. I mean say Scotland or Italy get relegated after the first season, you think Murryfield will sell-out with Scotland vs Canada as their biggest game in November in a sub-6 Nations game? Absolutely not.It stinks for the fans.

What does the world owe Scotland? A country that vehemently opposed professionalism and even a rugby world cup

So you're for the idea then. Good o. If Ireland tank in 10-20 years and get relegated I assume you won't have any issue with that.

The world owes nothing to Scotland, or any other tier one nation, promotion and relegation would be a clear expression of that. But that won't stop each and every one of them acting in their own best interests now and in the future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33864
dargotronV.1 wrote:
grievous wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
DeDoc wrote:
Another consequence would be a lack of variety in the November internationals compared to the current scenario - right now in addition to RC countries visiting, you usually have a selection of Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, US, Canada, Japan - plus occasionally Romania, Georgia etc. We'd only see 2 of those in any year in the current format:-(


It's locked into a schedule of finals in November, so that will always be in the NH. Good job on alienating half the globe there. It's also locking in the established teams... promotion / relegation means SFA when it comes to greater exposure for the Tier 2 teams and only adds novelty value instead of greater variety.



Lots of us have seen this. Half empty stadiums after the first year. Unions earning much less with their stadiums as a result. I mean say Scotland or Italy get relegated after the first season, you think Murryfield will sell-out with Scotland vs Canada as their biggest game in November in a sub-6 Nations game? Absolutely not.It stinks for the fans.

What does the world owe Scotland? A country that vehemently opposed professionalism and even a rugby world cup

So you're for the idea then. Good o. If Ireland tank in 10-20 years and get relegated I assume you won't have any issue with that.

The world owes nothing to Scotland, or any other tier one nation, promotion and relegation would be a clear expression of that. But that won't stop each and every one of them acting in their own best interests now and in the future.

Grievous is an Ozzie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49473
And one with no love for Ireland too!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8617
Location: Tahstown
CM11 wrote:
And one with no love for Ireland too!

Dry your tears princess I have no problem with Ireland


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3648
camroc1 wrote:
Grievous is an Ozzie.

Ah yes, my bad. Well same thing applies in any case, easy for any tier 1 nation to proclaim what's happening is fair but as soon as it impacts on them then they might have something to say about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49473
grievous wrote:
CM11 wrote:
And one with no love for Ireland too!

Dry your tears princess I have no problem with Ireland


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20031
O'Shea sells the fans out

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... ix-nations


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5453
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
Quote:
The Six Nations ..... completely retained and protected


Well that's bollocks. It becomes a small part of a larger competition. It has relegation. It can't have the grand slam bonus because it's part of the larger tournament.

"So, we finished third in the 6N, but we're in a good place for the remainder of the tournament with three home matches to come". "completely retained and protected"? Bollocks.Just bollocks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21678
Location: SOB>Todd
Grievous bringing the edge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 2227
Is it impossible for the unions to sell their own tv rights rather than the 6N package as a whole ? For example If Wales and Ireland made a deal with BBC, England with SKY, Scotland with ITV etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10809
FullbackAce wrote:
Is it impossible for the unions to sell their own tv rights rather than the 6N package as a whole ? For example If Wales and Ireland made a deal with BBC, England with SKY, Scotland with ITV etc.

Although extremely lucrative, that won't go down well whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20031
Wendigo7 wrote:
FullbackAce wrote:
Is it impossible for the unions to sell their own tv rights rather than the 6N package as a whole ? For example If Wales and Ireland made a deal with BBC, England with SKY, Scotland with ITV etc.

Although extremely lucrative, that won't go down well whatsoever.


Didn't England do that at one point in the late 90's?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31084
Location: in transit
eldanielfire wrote:
Wendigo7 wrote:
FullbackAce wrote:
Is it impossible for the unions to sell their own tv rights rather than the 6N package as a whole ? For example If Wales and Ireland made a deal with BBC, England with SKY, Scotland with ITV etc.

Although extremely lucrative, that won't go down well whatsoever.


Didn't England do that at one point in the late 90's?



Take it a step further...

why don't WR sell their own streaming packages?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 1237
Do you see any of the big 9 (six nations excluding Italy) and Rugby Championship teams facing relegation?

Also if the Boks were facing relegation I wonder if they'd stick to their transformation targets?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21187
Quote:
World Rugby's summit to discuss plans to introduce a global championship ended in a stalemate though a surprise $10b offer to back the bid has given the powerbrokers fresh hope.

The Dublin meeting was attended by leading unions along with Japan and Fiji as well as player representatives.

The $10b offer from global sports marketing company Infront gives World Rugby a counter to the huge offer from private equity firm CVC to invest in the Six Nations, a $968m move that could have stymied the global championship.

World Rugby's vision is to bring the two hemispheres together, combing the Six Nations and Rugby Championship, with the southern group to include Japan and Fiji. And now they look to have billions of dollars to try to force their hand.

In playing their trump card, World Rugby said the $10b investment over 12 years covered both media and marketing rights but did not include any sale of equity in the competition and therefore full control of the competition and its revenue redistribution model would be retained by the unions, the current major competitions and World Rugby.

Quote:
World Rugby outlined revisions to the original proposal presented to unions last September 2018. These included:

- Reducing the schedule by removing the semifinal stage, with player welfare continuing to be a central consideration.

- Players would play 11 matches (and a maximum of 12 matches if their team reaches the final), compared to an average of between 12 and 14 test matches presently.

- Commitment to work with International Rugby Players and the leading domestic club competitions to optimise the model.

- A commitment to invest in a similar tournament for women to accelerate the global competitiveness of their game.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/111297219/world-rugby-summit-ends-in-stalemate-but-surprise-10b-backer-gives-hope-to-global-league


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:53 pm
Posts: 1237
Jensrsa wrote:
Quote:
World Rugby's summit to discuss plans to introduce a global championship ended in a stalemate though a surprise $10b offer to back the bid has given the powerbrokers fresh hope.

The Dublin meeting was attended by leading unions along with Japan and Fiji as well as player representatives.

The $10b offer from global sports marketing company Infront gives World Rugby a counter to the huge offer from private equity firm CVC to invest in the Six Nations, a $968m move that could have stymied the global championship.

World Rugby's vision is to bring the two hemispheres together, combing the Six Nations and Rugby Championship, with the southern group to include Japan and Fiji. And now they look to have billions of dollars to try to force their hand.

In playing their trump card, World Rugby said the $10b investment over 12 years covered both media and marketing rights but did not include any sale of equity in the competition and therefore full control of the competition and its revenue redistribution model would be retained by the unions, the current major competitions and World Rugby.

Quote:
World Rugby outlined revisions to the original proposal presented to unions last September 2018. These included:

- Reducing the schedule by removing the semifinal stage, with player welfare continuing to be a central consideration.

- Players would play 11 matches (and a maximum of 12 matches if their team reaches the final), compared to an average of between 12 and 14 test matches presently.

- Commitment to work with International Rugby Players and the leading domestic club competitions to optimise the model.

- A commitment to invest in a similar tournament for women to accelerate the global competitiveness of their game.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/111297219/world-rugby-summit-ends-in-stalemate-but-surprise-10b-backer-gives-hope-to-global-league


How long before South Africa are in Division 2?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20031
I'll have to admit a few thoughts since my initial reaction

1) The £5-£10 billion being quoted is a tasty number. Could really help the Tier 2 countries develop to be competitive with tier 1 and tier 3 countries to grow the game.

2) The is PROVIDED, there is a good share and good amount dripped down to the tier 2 and 3 nations. Especially the Pacific Islands.

3) Format still needs revision. Somehow finals need to be shared between the NH and SH nations. Alternate when finals are?

4) The fact there is no part of it brought out is great. AND that makes it trump the CVC offer to the 6 Nations. Rugby is still controlled by Rugby.

5) I'm still concerned that this will affect the 6 Nations games being shown live on free TV. To me that is more important than any other consideration. I don't mind the rest of it being on pay TV.

6) The offer also includes a women's version to help develop their game. That is great news.

7) I read in a comment on the Telegraph that the money offered by the company is run by the nephew of Sepp Blatter and with previous dodgy dealings with soccer rights. What could possibly go wrong? :uhoh:

8) The extra money must not just be for player pay inflation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5453
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
If you're going to put £5b into rugby. You own rugby. You own 6N. Free to air??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20031
message #2527204 wrote:
If you're going to put £5b into rugby. You own rugby. You own 6N. Free to air??


5 Billion would be the global rights of every country's tests for 12 years. However the 6 Nations is still it's own entity. Also the company might see having free to air games is good promotion. The foreign rights of these games will still be on pay TV.

Also 12 billion may sound a lot but sports rights are still one of the only things that guarantees viewers long term, that doesn't suffer from the effect of streaming services and people will still watch on TV. It could be given away from the Olympics and Football Rugby actually ranks as one of the most global games and has been growing in global popularity. What's the competition after football and the Olympics? Cricket? Basketball? Volleyball? Rugby as a sport might be seen as having a wider reach then those and more affordable then any major Football league.

Stuff like the 6 Nations are among the most watched TV of the whole year in England. Given all of that and the very growing importance of sports rights in the media TV field, it is entirely possible 12 Billion will be seen as a bargain in the long term.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33864
If you believe those figures, more fool you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20031
camroc1 wrote:
If you believe those figures, more fool you.


I don't believe them any of them, though my 12 billion quote was me mixing up the years with the money.

As for the figures, I have already stated the dodgy background of the company offering it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21836
If the Scots and Welsh are against it we need to get behind it with gusto


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20031
EverReady wrote:
If the Scots and Welsh are against it we need to get behind it with gusto


But what if 'the Spivs' are for it as well?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21836
eldanielfire wrote:
EverReady wrote:
If the Scots and Welsh are against it we need to get behind it with gusto


But what if 'the Spivs' are for it as well?


Their behaviour is openly avaricious but the Scots and Welsh are just treacherous cünts


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 9671
EverReady wrote:
If the Scots and Welsh are against it we need to get behind it with gusto


WRU have been behind it from the start.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21836
Bowens wrote:
EverReady wrote:
If the Scots and Welsh are against it we need to get behind it with gusto


WRU have been behind it from the start.


Course they have the absolute cünts. They only hired Garland to wind us up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5437
I like it :thumbup: :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17287
Anyone else tried to do the maths on this mythical 5 billion?

5 billion divided by 12 years, divided by 12 competitors = approximately 35 million each, per year.

Yet the talk is of only 10 million per team per year. What's happening with the other 25 million per team?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15454
The Times has come saying that Septic Bladder’s nephew Phillippe is behind the company that is offering the billions of pounds and the IRB is delaying Six Nations relegation till 2026. After hearing that I would just say no. Unions won’t know where the money is from and delaying relegation is putting off something they don’t want.

France only want it due to their work with FIRA and receiving hosting rights votes from them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 191 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BokJock, brat, brokerGObroke, chaddy, crash 669, Cullen, DragsterDriver, duke, eweeg, fatcat, feckwanker, Google Adsense [Bot], Insane_Homer, irishrugbyua, Jay Cee Gee, lhass, Mick Mannock, Mr Mike, Nobleman, Oxbow, penguin, Raggs, sockwithaticket, tabascoboy, Taranaki Snapper, TheBouncer, Toulon's Not Toulouse, toweliechaos, Turbogoat, Willie Falloon, Zakar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group