• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Lions Tour 2025

Wallaby Man

Alfred Walker (16)
I disagree. Being a capped Wallaby or All Black is already the pinnacle of the selection ladder in terms of what it would do for salary negotiations. And if the game is being marketed as 'the best' of the Wallabies and All Blacks, it'll be the blokes who are already in that upper echelon of salary brackets anyway.

Inventing a team doesn't make it prestigious. If it goes ahead, the team is being selected as a marketing gimmick. The players know this and would play because it would likely come with a decent pay packet for the one-off game.
It’s a foreign concept these days as everything is black or white but 2 things can be right at the same time. A player can think playing for the Wallabies is the pinnacle (and I’d say 99.9% would), but you can also be someone with the added prestige of playing for the best of the best. The beauty of this proposed set up is that players don’t have to give up one or the other, they also wouldn’t be missing out on one or the other.

If you know some professional players, feel free to ask them and I could guarantee they would be putting their hand up for selection if given the opportunity.

Something new doesn’t make it a gimmick, after all everything must of started off as a gimmick then?
 

liquor box

John Thornett (49)
I wonder how the team would be picked?

Would it be an even split of players or picked on how good they are?

I would be happy with joint coaches and the NZ coach picks first and selects a Wallaby, Aus coach then picks a Kiwi and repeat until you have a team.
 

qwerty51

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think you'd need to do a quota to keep interest, say minimum 10 players from 1 of the countries in the 23.

Even if it's on merit, you'll lose Australian interest if there's only 4 or so in the whole 23.

I would be happy with joint coaches and the NZ coach picks first and selects a Wallaby, Aus coach then picks a Kiwi and repeat until you have a team.

I like that idea.
 

Dctarget

Michael Lynagh (62)
I think you'd need to do a quota to keep interest, say minimum 10 players from 1 of the countries in the 23.

Even if it's on merit, you'll lose Australian interest if there's only 4 or so in the whole 23.



I like that idea.
Even if they just picked Koroibete, Hooper & Kerevi, I'd be keen to see them absolutely wreck shit in a dominant team for once. Marika on the end of a functioning backline? Yes please.
 

zer0

Ken Catchpole (46)
I'd have thought you'd want to slant it in favour of whichever side of the Tasman the Lions are touring (I'm assuming it would also be repeated in NZ in place of the Barbarians match). Something like mandating at least nine Australians in the starting XV and five New Zealanders in the 23 (maybe two starting).

Also Michael Chieka to coach this carnival and be the play-by-play commentator.
 

stoff

Vay Wilson (31)
It’s a foreign concept these days as everything is black or white but 2 things can be right at the same time. A player can think playing for the Wallabies is the pinnacle (and I’d say 99.9% would), but you can also be someone with the added prestige of playing for the best of the best.
I think that’s the thing. It’s another level of distillation of talent. You aren’t a top level athlete without being ruthlessly competitive - it’s another chance to test yourself at an arguably higher level (albeit without the time together as a team to be as potent as possible).
 

Tomikin

Steve Williams (59)
Flip it around, do Irish, Scottish, English, Welsh think being selected for the Lions is a big deal ? ....
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
I said they’ll do it if the price is right… I mean, this is the same NZR who were planning a cross code match vs the Kangaroos to be played in Australia… And NZR CEO Mark Robinson has already said they agree in principle to this match but want to see the commercial arrangement.

do you disagree that NZR would decline if the commercial arrangement suits them?
No of course I don't disagree would decline a commercial arrangement that funnily enough seems driven by Rugby Australia, who aren't driven by money of course. I not saying Rugby Australia wrong, just love how they can do it but NZR are pariahs for talking to them. Um the crosscode match was attempted to be organised by the ex leaguie NZ one (can't remember his name, he organised the Brisbane 10s comp)

So you think only Rugby Australia should make commercial decisions, and noone else? Fair enough that's how you see it.
 

Tomikin

Steve Williams (59)
No of course I don't disagree would decline a commercial arrangement that funnily enough seems driven by Rugby Australia, who aren't driven by money of course. I not saying Rugby Australia wrong, just love how they can do it but NZR are pariahs for talking to them. Um the crosscode match was attempted to be organised by the ex leaguie NZ one (can't remember his name, he organised the Brisbane 10s comp)

So you think only Rugby Australia should make commercial decisions, and noone else? Fair enough that's how you see it.
I don't even know what you're trying to say here, are you trying to convince us that NZR are good blokes ? ... or are you just typing a lot to sound important?
 

Sword of Justice

Darby Loudon (17)
I think you'd need to do a quota to keep interest, say minimum 10 players from 1 of the countries in the 23.

Even if it's on merit, you'll lose Australian interest if there's only 4 or so in the whole 23.



I like that idea.
And now we get to the interesting part - selections.

Even though we haven't improved our record against them if it was picked today I actually think we'd be looking Slippe4 at Tupou, Hooper, Valetini, Kerevi, Koroibete starting and then I reckon you could argue Skelton to start also. Plus then I'd say we could share the bench without too much conjecture.
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
I don't even know what you're trying to say here, are you trying to convince us that NZR are good blokes ? ... or are you just typing a lot to sound important?
No if you read Adam's post he is saying NZR is only interested in coming on board for a commercial deal, and I saying both boards are exactly the same, so whats the problem?

I think it very much at early stages of board level, with Rennie being pretty lukewarm (and he probably won't still be coaching then) and I would assume NZ coach would be same.
And of course we haven't heard from Lions board on the idea. I really hope it's not being planned to replace a game against a super team, as that is in my experience been highlight of Lion's tours for many supporters.
 
Last edited:

Tomikin

Steve Williams (59)
No if you read Adam's post he is saying NZR is only interested in coming on board for a commercial deal, and I saying both boards are exactly the same, so whats the problem?

I think it very much at early stages of board level, with Rennie being pretty lukewarm (and he probably won't still be coaching then) and I would assume NZ coach would be same.
And of course we haven't heard from Lions board on the idea. I really hope it's not being planned to replace a game against a super team, as that is in my experience been highlight of Lion's tours for many supporters.
its to be a cash in for both NZR and Rugby Australia. And its to be instead of the Country Rep Team.. can't hurt either organisation really.
 

Adam84

Steve Williams (59)
No if you read Adam's post he is saying NZR is only interested in coming on board for a commercial deal, and I saying both boards are exactly the same, so whats the problem?
I said NZR would do it if the price is right and you started arguing with me? Seems you agree they would support the concept if the right money was on the table for NZR. Even Robison said as much.

Rugby Australia are the one proposing the idea, obviously they think it has merit. However given past actions, I don’t think Rugby Australia should give up a home match share revenue with NZR.
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
I said NZR would do it if the price is right and you started arguing with me? Seems you agree they would support the concept if the right money was on the table for NZR. Even Robison said as much.

Rugby Australia are the one proposing the idea, obviously they think it has merit. However given past actions, I don’t think Rugby Australia should give up a home match share revenue with NZR.
Ok but surely you don't think NZR should get involved for nothing? Of course if there was a Aus/NZ rugby team they would split the revenue,(otherwise why put players in a game, I wouldn't think Rugby Australia would) though you would expect Rugby Australia to make more ie they will get the payout from Vic Gov't for staging game in Melbourne I would guess. Same as reverse if it was in NZ, both would split profits from game but home union would get a kick from the city it held in?(usually a few mill?) How I thought it would work.
And no doubt Rugby Australia would pad out costs for staging the game, ie accomadation,traing facilities, personel required etc, as anyone would.

And funny thing is Hamish saying everything is rosey in the garden re Rugby Australia and NZR now;)
 
Last edited:

Ignoto

Peter Johnson (47)
Dan, remind me again why NZR deserves cash here? If Rugby Australia offers to pay whatever All Black stars get picked, their salary + extra, what is NZRU actually contributing in this situation?

The NZ market will already watch the lions tour in Australia, just like we did when they toured NZ. So, they don't have any promotion costs, they're not having to pay for facilities etc.

So what exactly are NZRU doing in this situation? It reminds me of the Banking Royal Commission and AMP "Fee for no service"......
 

Dan54

John Eales (66)
Dan, remind me again why NZR deserves cash here? If Rugby Australia offers to pay whatever All Black stars get picked, their salary + extra, what is NZRU actually contributing in this situation?

The NZ market will already watch the lions tour in Australia, just like we did when they toured NZ. So, they don't have any promotion costs, they're not having to pay for facilities etc.

So what exactly are NZRU doing in this situation? It reminds me of the Banking Royal Commission and AMP "Fee for no service"......
Because the players are contracted to NZR and are worth nothing to Australia if they aren't All Blacks otherwise it isn't a combined All Black-Wallaby team surely? Same as if game in NZ I would expect Aus to get cut. If you don't understand the concept that individual unions can't just get players that are contracted to other unions, I not sure I can explain to you my understanding of having players contracted is about. The only way it would work if both unions work together.
And perhaps you should ask Hamish why he said this -“All is good with the Kiwis now, we’re friends again and we’d be happy to give them a cut,” he said

Anyway, we will see apparently Rennie not that keen, but knew nothing about it, says Rugby Australia and NZR should be more worried about getting a combined domestic comp sorted than worrying about a mixed team.https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/11/04/wallabies-rennie-underwhelmed-by-talks-of-anzac-team/
Anyway no use worrying about splitting money etc of a game that is just a fantasy at moment.
 
Top