Not good news for the NZRFU, SANZAR or anyone

[shasta]

We will continue to focus on the field , not the politics off the field.They will take care of them selfs.

Fair enough. But there is a lot riding on this decision besides the moolah. It was a high risk strategy from the start. If the All Blacks somehow manage to not win the RWC there will be a huge price to pay for Mr Henry and the NZRU board that backed him.

Every other nation contesting the RWC is getting on with their normal competitions and managing player fitness as best they can. So even if the AB's finally manage to bring home the bacon it will seem a hollow victory in some ways.

The player depth shown so far with the Blues and Saders still right up there in the S14 would suggest they didn't need to do this anyhow.

[Burgs]

Kiwi ratings fade away

Rupert Guinness
Friday, April 6, 2007

COMMENT

The fall of Super 14 television ratings this year is an issue that could reopen the diplomatic wounds between New Zealand and Australian rugby.

If it is proven that the audience slump in New Zealand is due to the absence of All Blacks from rounds one to seven, SANZAR must show it has the backbone to seek its own form of payback against the guilty party, the New Zealand Rugby Union.

SANZAR cannot just leave it to the Super 14 broadcasting rights holders, News Ltd, to pursue the legal action it has threatened ever since the NZRU declared it would spell its top All Blacks from the competition to put them through an intensive reconditioning block for this year's World Cup in France.

It should not matter that by taking its own action, SANZAR - the association of southern hemisphere rugby powers South Africa, New Zealand and Australia - would be punishing one of its own, and thus setting two partners against one. Nor that the perceived "evil-doer" in the eyes of NZRU - if the union is deemed guilty - could well end up being the Australian Rugby Union, as ARU head Gary Flowers is also the SANZAR chief executive.

For if the Super 14 product has been devalued by New Zealand's star talent being absent - for the aim of winning the World Cup and reaping all the profits that come with it - the Australian and South African rugby unions have every right to feel aggrieved.

News Ltd, who paid $US340-$350 million ($430m) for a five-year deal to broadcast the Super 14 and Tri-Nations series from 2006 to 2010, have not said if they would take legal action after AGB Nielsen Media Research figures showed New Zealand's Super 14 television audience had fallen by 42 per cent, and the revelation that the NZRU had offered $750,000 to each of its five Super 14 franchises as compensation for lost gate takings, plus $770,000 to be shared between them all.

But News Ltd has revealed its growing concern, with executive Greg Baxter last weekend telling New Zealand's Sunday Star-Times: "We argued that resting so many players would affect public interest in the competition, and it has."

Yesterday, neither SANZAR, the ARU or NZRU would comment on the impact that the absence of All Blacks may have had on television ratings.

"At this stage we're not prepared to comment," said NZRU chief executive Chris Moller, who will stand down from his position at the end of this year.

His reluctance to comment was shared by Flowers, even if the ARU and SANZAR boss recognises that in Australia, Fox Sports audiences have also fallen for Waratahs and Reds games - but believing that that is due to the two sides languishing in 13th and 14th places respectively.

If the All Black issue is shown to have damaged the Super 14 brand, it is hard to imagine SANZAR will forgive and forget, especially when it is driven by the ARU, who have never shied from testing diplomatic waters with the NZRU. Forgive and forget does not exist in rugby diplomacy, as anyone who recalls the ARU's manoeuvring to become sole hosts of the 2003 World Cup - when their initial co-hosts, the NZRU, were unable to meet stadium requirements - will know.

For those with a shorter memory, another example was the ARU's stance to back Japan as nominated hosts for the 2011 World Cup, rather than their perceived "brothers" New Zealand, even though the Kiwis still got up on votes to win.

Now it seems inevitable that if the Kiwis are deemed guilty over the Super 14 ratings, another battle will erupt in the tinderbox of ARU-NZRU relations.

[Skiza]

Although they've lost money and not as many ppl watched..blah blah blah blah.................i thought it was interesting to see that the NZ teams still did quite well and i was glad that many younger or "lesser" players were given some more game time and the chance to experience S14 rugby. This may mean that when the current crop of ab's are injured or move on, they then have more experienced players waiting in the wings, which could prove a positive thing in the long run.