Posts by Paul Rowe
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cooper must be in his last season, surely? (unless he wins the damn thing)
I think it's a problem with there being limited opportunities to coach the game at a professional level here in NZ. Cooper's only opportunities at his current level and above are other S14 franchises in NZ, the All Blacks, or coaching overseas. If he's not prepared to move, and Henry is coach until the end of 2011. The NZRU wants to keep its coaches in the game here, but they can't offer enough jobs for everyone. Which means Cooper will remain in charge at the Canes until he gets the boot.
(Frankly, I think our top coaches need to ply their trade in a more professional atmosphere overseas, rather than be mollycoddled here in NZ)
-
Wrong example Kyle, Hawkes Bay would qualify for the elite compe every year
-
And Australia doesn't have a domestic rugby competition like the Air NZ Cup. There's nothing between club rugby and Super rugby is there?
You're right. Thgey tried to install one then O'Neill got cold feet about the development cost ($5-8m or something, not a small amount of money). Which is why O'Neill wants an enlarges Suoer comp to make up for it. Another reason to say screw em...
The problem with some sort of 'top X teams from the domestic competition going on to some further competition' is that you instantly exclude a heap of your players, and at least half your country from any interest in it.
Further to Stuart's comment, you could introduce a second-tier comp a la the Champ's League/Europa League or Heineken Cup/Parker Pen Shield (or whatever it's called now).
As for contracting, it's probably a fair point, but contracts would probably reflect not qualifying for the International Provincial Comp.
I really think we are at the point where having the NZRU manage so much centrally is starting to hurt us, and that the Unions or Franchises or whatever run the "club" game in future need to be more professionally minded. Tasman contracting players in the NPC to help the Crusaders in the S14 hasn't helped them much, but if they could potentially compete in an IPS on their own terms things might be different.
-
to dispel those recurring mental images of your former partner and their new lover in the throes of sexual ecstasy.
Stop it, I just can't think of Alan Bollard in that way.
-
Leggie, I'm happily proved wrong on this....
It's not rational, but I don't like it when teams adopt an "official" nickname. I thought "Black Caps" was dreadful, but it seems to have been logical enough to stick.
-
WRT to the All Whites - we the fans gave them that nickname in 1981, only we can take it away. Whether they play in black or white is irrelevant, they represent NZ, that's all that matters. They will be the All Whites no matter what colour the strip.
IIRC All Whites started the trend of nick-naming our minor sports teams - there were no Black Sticks, Silver Ferns, Tall Blacks etc only the Kiwis and the All Blacks had nicknames. (but I could be wrong)
As for the future of the Super Comp I'd like to see it better aligned with the national competitions - Top 4 say from each NPC/Currie Cup/Whatever Aus does/Invite anyone else in - small groups, home and away ties, then finals series. In other words - The Heineken Cup.
Top 4? hmmmm
Can't really go past the current Top 4, in that order.
Bullsto beat Sharks, Canes to beat Reds, Chiefs to pip the Brumbies, Crusaders to beat Blues. (in an ideal world the Sharks will beat the Bulls and knock both teams out of the semis, with the Brumbies sneaking in after beating the Chiefs, Chiefs get a bonus point and make semis)
-
Dear Dr David
Do you have a cure for a broken heart?
(please do not publish my name as this is a sensitive subject)
-
Sounds like that Bollard is full of shit to me.
""They pay me in hundred dollar bills. When I get back to my hostel, I spread it out on the bed, and it's 250 notes. So I go straight down to the Marrapikurrinya pub, and shout the whole bar a beer."
Aussies only introduced the hundred dollar note in 1984. This story allegedly happened in 1974, if Bollard was 23 at the time.
You should call him on it. But don't mention my name. Actually, I'm probably out of the country for the next few years.
-
there's more, but it's a long article. No link to post, sorry
WINEBOX WINNERS AND LOSERS. By BRIAN GAYNOR.
28 August 1999. New Zealand Herald
Revenue Minister Sir William Birch made depressing comments after last week's High Court verdict that overturned key findings in the Winebox inquiry. He claimed that the $12 million spent on the inquiry had been a waste of taxpayers' money.
But Sir William's $12 million calculation is loose change compared with the spoils extracted from the Winebox companies by their major shareholders.
These profits are well documented because the big players in the inquiry - Bank of New Zealand, Brierley Investments, Capital Markets/Fay, Richwhite and European Pacific Investments - have all been listed on the stock exchange.
While individual shareholders have lost money in all these companies, individuals particularly Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite, have walked away with big profits.
A sizeable portion of these profits were leveraged from tax avoidance deals investigated in the Winebox inquiry.
The story begins on September 24, 1986, when European Pacific Investments (EPI) was incorporated in Luxembourg. Its directors were Mr Richwhite (chairman), Paul Collins, David Lloyd and Francis Hoogewerf of Luxembourg. Mr Lloyd was responsible for convincing the Cook Islands Government to establish a tax haven.
On December 4, 1986, EPI increased its capital from 100 to 25,000,000 shares and Brierley Investments (BIL) and Capital Markets were issued 12.5 million shares each at 200USc (390c) per share. Sir Michael and Mr Richwhite were the principal shareholders of Capital Markets.
A few days later the original shareholders sold seven million shares to BNZ for 885c per share, 500c above the original issue price. Later that month BIL and Capital Markets sold a further four million shares to the New Zealand public at $11.85 a share.
Investors were attracted by the prospect of "an international network combining trustee and banking services" and were told that "to date, activities have been based in the Cook Islands." In other words EPI was established as a tax avoidance company.
Within a month, BIL and Capital Markets had a realised profit of $67 million from the partial sale of their EPI investment. After these share sales BNZ, BIL and Capital Markets all owned 28 per cent of EPI and the public 16 per cent.
EPI was listed on the stock exchange on January 6, 1987, and quickly reached a record high of $40. The euphoria was short-lived as the New Zealand Government took steps to close tax loopholes.
These tax law changes had a negative impact on EPI's profitability and share price. In October 1989, Mr Lloyd acquired shareholdings of the BNZ, Capital Markets and public for US255c a share.
The offer was above the original price paid by founding shareholders but well below the price paid by BNZ and public shareholders.
The outcome of EPI's three-year listing was:
* EPI's minority shareholders lost $30 million.
* BNZ lost $32 million.
* Capital Markets made a profit of $36 million.
BNZ was also a big participant in the Winebox inquiry.
In February 1987, 103 million new BNZ shares were issued to the public at 175c each.
Two years later the bank had to be recapitalised - because of bad decisions similar to the EPI investment - and new shares were issued at 70c each. These were issued on the basis of seven new shares for every existing 10 shares.
The Government gave Capital Markets an entitlement to 428.6 million new shares and the company controlled by Sir Michael and Mr
Richwhite acquired a 30.4 per cent holding in BNZ at a cost of $300 million.
After a second recapitalisation of the bank in 1990, which involved Capital Markets but not the public shareholders, National Australia Bank made a successful takeover offer at 80c a share.
The outcome at BNZ was:
* BNZ's minority shareholders lost $91 million.
* Capital Markets made a profit of $41 million.
-
South Africa's win last year and their subsequent 3rd in the TriNations devalues the worth of going by who holds the RWC.
Same goes for the Poms in 03, and a couple of other teams from memory. Has anybody analysed the respective performances of the World Champs in the 12 or 24 months after the tournament? (I don't really have time!) I'm sure someone like Rugby Heaven has...