KEY POINTS:
Whatever the financial problems, I don't think privatising provincial rugby and Super 14 franchises is the way to go - and I'm a little uncomfortable about the All Blacks playing that Bledisloe Cup match in Hong Kong.
Steve Tew, CEO of the New Zealand Rugby Union, looked enormously
pleased with himself when making the Hong Kong announcement, but the fact is New Zealand rugby has very little to be proud of right now.
Provinces and the national body are feeling the pinch. That's why, of course, the Hong Kong match is important because the NZRU have to find alternative ways to make coin.
So I understand the pressures behind the decision but am not sure they have the execution right. For one thing, who's going to be at this match? What will the atmosphere be like? There will only be a few wealthy Kiwis who go for a rugby weekend and I guess some Aussies will go and the rest of the crowd will be expats and maybe some Brits from the Home Unions who will like the chance to attend some quality rugby.
They will largely be 'bystander' fans, not the enthusiasts you get at home matches. If I was going to a Bledisloe Cup 'away' test, I'd choose Brisbane or Melbourne, maybe, not Hong Kong, because you are not guaranteed the exciting experience that fans seek.
Would there be many more than 10,000 people there under those circumstances? I find it hard to believe there'd be many more than that. And, if you factor in that the Bledisloe Cup is now a four-game series where the winner has to win more games than the other team, a 2-2 result means the Bledisloe stays with the holder.
That means that the challenger has to win 3-1 and it also means that, if the holder wins the first two games, the next two are dead rubbers. Hardly the stuff of which dreams are made.
As far as provincial rugby is concerned, I saw that Bob "The Builder" Clarkson talking about the possibility that he and others would privatise Bay of Plenty and take it away from the ongoing financial difficulties that saw it lose a record $759,000 last year. Fair enough, something obviously needs to be done. There are other unions - like Otago (losing $1.5m), Northland ($350,000) and Canterbury ($400,000) - with similar problems.
But I wonder whether privatisation is the way to go. For a start, we don't really know what it means. Would Bob be taking on the whole structure of BOP rugby, from the under-5s up to the Senior A team or are we just talking about the top team? If the latter, what happens to the grassroots structure?
As for the Super 14, I understand the argument that looks at the advances made by the Northern Hemisphere where they have come to terms with the clubs owning the players and made arrangements so that they are available for international rugby. I still think the New Zealand system of central contracts - where the NZRU 'owns' the players rather than the provinces or franchises is the best way to go.
I mean, look at France when their clubs released their internationals for the World Cup - they paid millions to the clubs to free them. But everyone knew when the World Cup was and when players would be required. What comes first - international rugby or club rugby?
I don't think it's even a race. It's a question of priorities and we just have to make sure we get them right - and I am not at all sure that privatisation is the way to do that.