England to start Women’s Six Nations campaign against Italy in York

It’s even worse when the NZRU relatively recently gave Rugby Australia a bigger cut of the Super Rugby broadcast.

I think Rugby Australia and to a lesser degree the NZRU realize that they need more money or will soon become feeder competitions for Japan and Europe.

Also, if the proposed rugby union version of the ANZAC test gave 5%-10% of the profit to the RSA/RSL, that would be a good way to show respect to the ANZACs.

The way I read it is that he thinks this is a team of ABs (well it is, true), but it should have very few making the new grade this year. I don’t think he’d have written it any different has it be the Blues that went their and did it, it would still be all about what he thinks as his AB contingent not being strong enough.

Small personal changes have made big difference in each of the games, Pellegrini being a prime example. The Crusaders surely shouldn’t have half the number for ABs theyve had in the past though.

The thing I’ve seen most people proud/appreciative/respectful about is that they are getting some sort of supporter base. They are getting the kudos of a team that is being watched and which you want to watch.

I don’t really think it’s got anything to do were they flew from. And they didn’t just beat them, they smashed them.

I’m not sure the populace realise what they did till this day, and would happily royal F it with their righteous all over again if they got their chance (they might).

Hamish Bidwell was one of the chief culprits. What a hypocrite.

But there is obviously still risk there, I’m just referring to repetitive hyperbole of the world falling apart when all the news was about NZR not going to have a sponsor and Sky no longer valuing rugby as a broadcast option.

I suspect the author has it completely wrong as it pertains to the pool as well, because I can’t see the contracts of players changing year to year like revenue does.

I’d imagine there is an agreed principle to a ‘forecast’ figure of revenue for a cyclical period, and this is what 37% or whatever of is used for player salaries. So it would not change whatever that figure is until the next cycle. Cash flow, as you said, would be the main factor, but as they aren’t paid all it once, they’d not be hindered in this manor I don’t believe. Of all the references I’ve seen of a the player pool agreement, not once have I seen any detail on how the amount is determined.

But yes, that would be a very reasoned look at the consequences, especially compared those I’ve seen in articles on this site. Even with turnonver north of $350 million a year, 20 is still a sizeable chunk. Like this RA’s broadcast deal, they might have smaller sponsorship for a short period to align with everything else, then look to develop the deal further heading into the Lions tour cycle? Perhaps trying to take a deal from low to high like that is unlikely to a long term investor, and NZR want to get a good shortterm deal now so they can capitalize on growth for the Lions (i’m assuming that series has consequences on more than just broadcast deals right).