The IRB are SCUM.

[Wobbly]

On the subject of the All Blacks being "replaceable" in a World Cup,  I was interested to the reaction of some former All Black "greats" on the radio the other day. 

A couple made statements along the lines of a World Cup without the All Blacks wouldn't be a true World Cup.

Part of me agrees.  That would be like a Football World Cup without Brazil.

Part of me doesn't...  Because, if you take this logic to the natural conclusion, both the 1987 and 1991 World Cups were not true World Cups.  South Africa didn't participate in either.

Basically, we can't have our cake and eat it.  Sure, if NZ was to miss a World Cup it would be an absolute travesty.  But the World Cup would still be the World Cup.  We are not the World Cup.

[Teach]

Absolutely. This is not some petulant "we're gonna make you suffer" kind of reaction.

It's just a "sorry we can't afford it - hope you have a nice tournament"

Of course it will still be the world cup.

[megweya]

Did the SH not learn anything from Packer's forays into cricket?

Even the top 40-50 players opting out did not undermine the allure of nation v nation.

Whatever team wins in 2015 will not have a trophy/medals asterisked with " *NZ did not participate"

Megweya

[Geeves]

I think part of the discussion and logic has been missed in this discussion.

Principally the loss of revenue has been ticket sales for in-bound tests.  If the rest of the world is playing at the RWC and NZ is not there, who are they playing a test against?  And would anybody watch.  In this years schedule there was barely enough time for the Super 15 and then the shortened Tri-Nations.  

A huge part of the discussion has been about the appropriate level of compensation for lost revenue.  The fact that NZRU has not been allowed to get more revenue from sponorship to offset hosting costs should be the sticking point.  Every country has lost money from not having bums on seats at a home game.  The question then becomes how can the IRB ensure that the host nation covers its costs, makes a bit on the side for being a host (Aus ended up with a war chestful) and still provide the IRB enough money to ensure the development of the game internationally.  

The IRB uses the RWC as it cash flow to sponsor a hell of a lot of stuff.  The IRB should allow the host nation to gleen as much sponsorship as possible (within reason) and then take its cut from that. The determination of the true value of the principal sponsor needs not to be a fixed number but a minimum the company wants to invest.  This way then there is bidding for the top spot and gains as much as possible.  Do this for the second teir as well.

[gluck]

The point is that if the tournament makes a loss there is no money to spend.

[Barge]

Losing revenue continuing in a losing pattern vs trying to secure future profitability are different.

I'm not sure I think this was the wrong time to bring this up, that is if they're actually serious. (Although I think not)

Dunno about you but I'd want the IRB to have every chance to change their mind. It should be clear that losing NZ would be a big hit to the Cup (financially also). Not a complete descent into farce but some steps would be made in that direction. If the NZRU are actually serious they should follow it up soon after the Cup with proposals to the IRB. Possibly not even demand much for the next World Cup which surely already has a lot of the deals locked in, possibly for the one after.

If they're blowing off steam they should have saved it..

As to South Africa's early absences, I'd say one situation doesn't entirely match the other.
1. The World Cup had just started, losing an established team now would be worse than a glaring omission at the start.
2. I was roughly mid-teens when apartheid ended and the value of sporting boycotts as a means of political pressure was (and is) above my pay grade but the reasons for South Africa's absence were unrelated to being able to entice them to play and beyond the sport's ability to change.

I'd like it if the NZRU's demands were in the general interest of competing unions as much as their own, although they're certainly entitled to look after their own interests. Be great to see Fiji or Uruguay be able to have a sponsor at the cup and earn a few bucks. Everyone loves the underdogs, I bet sponsors would too..

My first thought at this news was whether the NZRU would survive what their public would do to them if they stopped the All Blacks from going to a World Cup. :p