NZ hardball jolts World Cup role

By JAMES GARDINER

New Zealand's rugby union yesterday refused to sign up to co-host next year's World Cup, labelling the demands of the International Rugby Board subsidiary RWC Ltd a money-hungry whim and impossible to comply with.

The Australian Rugby Union immediately called New Zealand's bluff, announcing it was prepared to host the tournament alone, but New Zealand officials said that decision was not Australia's to make. It rests with the IRB, which holds a full board meeting in Dublin next month.

Angry NZRFU bosses acknowledged their stance put at risk the possibility of any games - or any future World Cups - being held here because the IRB sets the rules and has the right to move the event.

Union chairman Murray McCaw said he could not and would not sign an agreement New Zealand could not deliver on.

The dispute is over whether corporate box holders, caterers and long-term ticket-holders to New Zealand grounds should keep those rights for any World Cup games.

RWC had demanded that every venue for every game be "100 per cent clean", meaning that virtually every ground in New Zealand would have to break existing contracts and risk legal action or attempt to buy out the rights, something the union believes would not be possible because of New Zealanders' passion for rugby.

The cup company set 10 conditions, three of which the NZRFU has refused to comply with.

Even the conditions it did agree to, relating to the National Provincial Championship, were regarded as unnecessary compromises.

At a press conference in Auckland last night, Mr McCaw and NZRFU chief executive David Rutherford rejected suggestions that New Zealand officials had failed to get their act together soon enough.

They had been aware since 1998 that there would be pressure to put all commercial arrangements at grounds up for tender - with the IRB reaping the rewards - but said they had an understanding on corporate boxes that would have made enough boxes available for auction to the highest bidder and meet the needs of IRB officials and guests.

RWC had reneged on that.

It presenting the NZRFU just a week ago with an agreement demanding 100 per cent availability and a further demand that it be signed and returned by yesterday.

Instead, after a week of heated negotiations, the NZRFU rewrote the agreement and added several clauses of its own suggesting a compromise on the commercial arrangements.

Mr McCaw said the message from IRB chairman Vernon Pugh was that NZ should sign the deal as it was and trust the international body not to hold New Zealand to it.

He and Mr Rutherford could scarcely conceal their contempt for the way they had been treated and laid the blame largely at the feet of Mr Pugh and his counterparts in Northern Hemisphere rugby.

They did not discount a suggestion that the overall aim appeared to be to hold World Cups permanently in the Northern Hemisphere.

"We have done everything in our power to meet Rugby World Cup's demands. This is not a money issue, it is about people having their legal and contracted rights taken away from them. Those people are ordinary New Zealanders who support rugby day in and day out."

For years and decades they had supported their local grounds, buying, building and furnishing corporate boxes.

"Imagine how they would feel if they are tossed out and they are sitting in bleacher seats [terraces] looking up at someone from London sitting in their box."

Mr McCaw said both New Zealand representatives on the IRB, Rob Fisher and Tim Gresson, agreed with the stance the union had taken, as did the chairmen of every provincial union in the country.

Commercial conditions the NZRFU would not agree to were:

* All corporate boxes and hospitality areas to be available 10 days before and two days after each match.

* Catering rights to each venue to be available for RWC Ltd

to put up for tender.

* All advertising and competing commercial activity to be removed from each venue and surroundings, with New Zealand to meet costs.

The NZRFU, which has ticket sales as its only source of revenue, had agreed to the other demands, including meeting all travel and accommodation costs of teams, VIP costs, hiring the grounds and paying a tournament fee to RWC.

This fee is understood to be between $6 million and $10 million.

Mr Rutherford said the most optimistic outcome for the union, assuming its counter-proposal was accepted, would be a $5 million profit, but it appeared more likely that the union would struggle to break even.

The Australian announcement was not unexpected, he said.

"They risk losing it too if they don't now negotiate."