More crap from the "Putting Rugby first" report from the UK... the clubs up there are so insecure they commission half arsed reports and dont interview most of the relevant people from down this end of the world...
A few missed facts...
- The 30 mil is a loss ONLY for the host union who receive only money from ticket sales and have to cover all the costs of the tournament and guarantee 80 odd mill to the IRB
- The 30 mil is already underwritten by the NZ Govt
- The NZRU has over 100 mil in its reserves.
- The NZ Dollar has dive bombed.... the NZRU will now be raking in the cash from its FX hedging again
- The IRB will still make hundreds of millions from its payment from the NZRU and the sponsorship and TV rights deals from the tournament.
Seriously, anybody who pays any respect to this report needs their head read,.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24469352-23217,00.html
2011 Cup 'will be a financial disaster'
By Jon Geddes
October 09, 2008
A POWERFUL rugby lobby group has sent an explosive letter to IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset warning that the 2011 World Cup, scheduled to be held in New Zealand, could prove a disaster for the game globally.
The IRB's decision to award the tournament to New Zealand ahead of Japan was a highly contentious one, with projections the NZRU is set to lose a staggering $28 million.
That would be a stunning turnaround compared with last year's World Cup in France which generated a surplus of more than $280 million. The IRB said that money had been reinvested in the game worldwide.
A report entitled Putting Rugby First has called for a revamp of the game and raised a number of their criticisms with IRB boss Lapasset.
The document was commissioned by a group of "concerned rugby supporters" and put together by a leading management consultancy company and a law firm in Britain.
Now co-author Quentin Smith, chairman of English club Sale, has sent a blunt message to Lapasset about the upcoming World Cup and the hosting selection process.
"New Zealand, a 'traditional territory', is already scheduling a loss of $30 million (NZ)," Smith wrote.
"Might the scheduled losses for New Zealand in 2011 be considered a 'disaster for that region'? It certainly could be for the game.
"If the event is not a commercial success, raising increased revenue to support developing needs, Olympic ambition and inflation, there's a serious risk of rugby going backwards.
"Publicly reported tension between the IRB and the host nation on, for example, venues, is very worrying. Where would responsibility lie?"
The original Putting Rugby First document argued the 2011 World Cup should not have been given to New Zealand in the first place.
"Looked at unsentimentally, it is a small country of limited commercial potential - the rugby market in New Zealand is saturated,' the report said.
"The decision is even more surprising when one of the alternative bidders, Japan, offered a much larger economy, (was) of far greater appeal to sponsors as well as (arguably) superior stadia and infrastructure."
The report also pointed out that a RWC in Japan "would have provided a springboard to the fast-growing Asian economies".
And they say the 2015 Cup should be hosted by a developing nation to establish rugby as a truly global sport.
"Does the IRB have a view on the desirability of taking the RWC to a new territory as a means of building the game's global footprint or not? If yes, what concrete steps are in place to bring this about?" Smith asked.
The IRB dismissed the original Putting Rugby First document as deeply flawed.
But in calling for an overhaul of the game's structure, Putting Rugby First described the IRB as "unrepresentative and undemocratic".
"The IRB has known the scale of the challenges and the need for action for several years, yet has not acted decisively," Smith said.
"While the IRB is doing much good work, there is uncertainty about its vision and a lack of transparency in the way it works."
A few missed facts...
- The 30 mil is a loss ONLY for the host union who receive only money from ticket sales and have to cover all the costs of the tournament and guarantee 80 odd mill to the IRB
- The 30 mil is already underwritten by the NZ Govt
- The NZRU has over 100 mil in its reserves.
- The NZ Dollar has dive bombed.... the NZRU will now be raking in the cash from its FX hedging again
- The IRB will still make hundreds of millions from its payment from the NZRU and the sponsorship and TV rights deals from the tournament.
Seriously, anybody who pays any respect to this report needs their head read,.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24469352-23217,00.html
2011 Cup 'will be a financial disaster'
By Jon Geddes
October 09, 2008
A POWERFUL rugby lobby group has sent an explosive letter to IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset warning that the 2011 World Cup, scheduled to be held in New Zealand, could prove a disaster for the game globally.
The IRB's decision to award the tournament to New Zealand ahead of Japan was a highly contentious one, with projections the NZRU is set to lose a staggering $28 million.
That would be a stunning turnaround compared with last year's World Cup in France which generated a surplus of more than $280 million. The IRB said that money had been reinvested in the game worldwide.
A report entitled Putting Rugby First has called for a revamp of the game and raised a number of their criticisms with IRB boss Lapasset.
The document was commissioned by a group of "concerned rugby supporters" and put together by a leading management consultancy company and a law firm in Britain.
Now co-author Quentin Smith, chairman of English club Sale, has sent a blunt message to Lapasset about the upcoming World Cup and the hosting selection process.
"New Zealand, a 'traditional territory', is already scheduling a loss of $30 million (NZ)," Smith wrote.
"Might the scheduled losses for New Zealand in 2011 be considered a 'disaster for that region'? It certainly could be for the game.
"If the event is not a commercial success, raising increased revenue to support developing needs, Olympic ambition and inflation, there's a serious risk of rugby going backwards.
"Publicly reported tension between the IRB and the host nation on, for example, venues, is very worrying. Where would responsibility lie?"
The original Putting Rugby First document argued the 2011 World Cup should not have been given to New Zealand in the first place.
"Looked at unsentimentally, it is a small country of limited commercial potential - the rugby market in New Zealand is saturated,' the report said.
"The decision is even more surprising when one of the alternative bidders, Japan, offered a much larger economy, (was) of far greater appeal to sponsors as well as (arguably) superior stadia and infrastructure."
The report also pointed out that a RWC in Japan "would have provided a springboard to the fast-growing Asian economies".
And they say the 2015 Cup should be hosted by a developing nation to establish rugby as a truly global sport.
"Does the IRB have a view on the desirability of taking the RWC to a new territory as a means of building the game's global footprint or not? If yes, what concrete steps are in place to bring this about?" Smith asked.
The IRB dismissed the original Putting Rugby First document as deeply flawed.
But in calling for an overhaul of the game's structure, Putting Rugby First described the IRB as "unrepresentative and undemocratic".
"The IRB has known the scale of the challenges and the need for action for several years, yet has not acted decisively," Smith said.
"While the IRB is doing much good work, there is uncertainty about its vision and a lack of transparency in the way it works."
