February 11, 2025 • 11 mins
New Zealand Rugby feel they're well-placed financially - despite needing to take legal action against one of their major sponsors.
The national body's launched proceedings against petrochemical company INEOS for breaching a deal worth around $8 million a year.
NZR views INEOS' non-payment of the first instalment of 2025 as confirmation they've exited the six-year agreement early.
In response to further questions from Newstalk ZB - an NZR spokesperson says their financial position is strong - with cash reserves north of $170 million.
They says they've also already started the process of finding a replacement, and are confident there is global commercial interest in the All Blacks and their other teams.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sports Talk podcast with Duesi Wildergrave
from News Talk Z'B and.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
We're joined now by a New Zealand Herald at Rugby
Scribe but Gregor Paul Good evening.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Gregor, Hi, Darcy.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I trust you're well and are looking at the current
situation with Jim Radcliffell, should I say, Surgeim and the
All Blacks with some interest? The story out today around
an eight million dollar deal that's been renegged on and
there is no money being paid for services already exchanged,
(00:41):
already rendered. This is a Is this a scary situation
for the All Blacks?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
It's definitely not a good one. I don't know if
it's scary. It's commercially important. Two things are commercially important here. One,
the deal itself is reasonably significant for them. I think
it's slightly closer to ten million a year that they're
taking from Anios, which is not an insubstantial amount of
money for them, And as they lose it, which they have,
(01:08):
you know, that will need to be found somewhere else.
So that's going to be challenge number one for them.
But really the much bigger challenge here is protecting the
reputation and putting a message out to the world that says, look,
we can't have billionaires decide arbitrarily or unilaterally that they
don't want to carry on with an existing deal for
(01:28):
whatever reason spurious at best, and we need to protect
ourselves and we need to say that we won't be bullied,
we won't be pushed around, and if you renege on
a deal for no good reason, we're going to take
you to court and we're going to let the law
decide whether you have the right to do that or not.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
So in essence, this is posturing that they would like
some form of result, because as you've seen, close on
ten million dollars, that's quite the hole and dig their
way out of. But it's very much a scense of saying,
don't mess with us, and we're going to go through
the law. This is a stance.
Speaker 4 (01:59):
I think primarily certainly initially it's a message to not
only to any ofs but to any other future potential
commercial partners that this is where things will end up
if we do not abide by the contract, and if
we do not, you know, live.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
By the law.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
I mean, anyone knows once you once you go to court, proceedings.
You don't know what the outcomes are going to be.
In a case like that, they will argue any use
will argue that whatever that you know, they were let
down by the terms of the agreement. They'll say and
Zaid didn't fulfill them and said, I will say it did.
And a court will try and determine, you know, who's right,
who's wrong, and what the solution might be.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Now, that could take a long time.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
That could rack up, you know, significant legal fees for
the union with limited possibility of what they will get
in return or what a settlement might look like with
any US.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
So you're going to weigh up the risk and the reward.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
You know what that might look like, and how long
do you want this to carry on for, you know,
before you're willing to pull the pin. And you get
the impression that when you're a billionaire and you've got
sort of infinite depth to your pocket, you're probably going.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
To gamble that.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
You know, an organization like nz R isn't going to
want to have a prolonged expense of legal battle with
you because they can't afford to do that in the
way that you can.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
That's why I said, scary we know that there's not
a lot of cash on the ground for n z R.
Should they engage? I suppose they can walk if it
it's too expensive. But this could be long and pricey.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Yeah, it could be.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
And maybe what they're hoping is by filing the court action,
by going public with it, maybe that will bring any
usen Sir Jim to the table to say, look, okay,
what would it take for this to come out of
the courts?
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Can we make a settlement here? What would you agree to?
Speaker 4 (03:45):
You know, maybe they agree a full and final payment
that says, okay, you don't want to be a partner anymore.
How about you pay you know, eighteen months of the
contract and we'll let you out the other eighteen months.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
That's fifty you know, fifty percent of what.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
You ask And could we do a deal round about
that sort of price point and you know, leave it
in a state that doesn't take both organizations's time, effort,
money and cause them reputational damage.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Gregor Paul joining us, Gregor, how long does it take
to replace someone like Anios? They've got a three year deal,
they haven't paid up for service has already been rendered
by inz R. I'm talking about that in a minute,
But how do they cover this and how long does
it take to get a Jersey sponsor? Because what they've
(04:31):
got they actually make them. They've got Ltrad and they've
got Anyos. This is fairly rare territory.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Isn't it.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Well, both Ultrad and Inios were actually signed on six
year deals in twenty They began in twenty twenty two.
So look, it took the better part of two years
to secure both of those partners. That's the sort of
length of time it takes to run a global tender
for deals with the size that magnitude.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Roughly, that's how long it was.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
So my understanding is that even though if we look
at the front of Jersey sponsor, which is Ultra, even
though that's in play until twenty twenty seven, end of that,
they will begin the process now of putting that out
to tender, because that's how long it will take to
secure the next partner or or in you with, I'll
(05:21):
try it to if that's what it is that they're.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Going to do. So that's the sort of time frame
that you'd be looking at.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
So they'd be on that now. I'm presuming that they
know after they walked after any of said now we're
not doing this anymore, they would have put everything in motion.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Well, I think it depends on if you're talking about
formal or informal. My understanding would be that there would
be informal conversations going all the time with potential partners,
because that's what they should be doing. The commercial guys
sort of sounding out people, not just about Front of Jersey,
but this, that and the other. So they will have
a network of people that they will have been talking
to and look, yeah, I think from what I can gather,
(06:02):
any of us, we're signaling late last year that this
was a possibility that they that they were struggling with
the partnership for whatever reason. I don't know the answer
to that why, But I don't think that the letter
that arrived at the end of January this year to
formally announce that in reneging on the partnership came as
(06:23):
a massive surprise to New Zealand Rugby. So they've probably
had a couple of months head start aware that this
is where it would probably end up. Whether that's any
use to them or not a couple of months don't know,
but at least now they've got clarity that they're definitely
going to be without iniols, and they've got a bit
of clock ticking, which is never a bad thing when
you're trying to do a deal. You've actually got some
(06:44):
a real time frame now to move as quickly as
you can to get something else on the table.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
So will we see inos on the shorts and the
training gear this year? We have to wait to the
court case finishes. How does that operate?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Do you know? No, they won't my understanding again, they
won't appear.
Speaker 4 (07:02):
So the invoice was sent to as at the end
of last year for the second half of what you
we know twenty five. So when we're in second half
of twenty four, that invoice was due on the first
of January. That hasn't been paid. So you would now
say their account is in arrears with then say it are.
So there's two issues here. One they haven't paid for
(07:25):
services delivered that relate to twenty twenty four, and now
they've cut the deal arbitrarily, you know, actually cut that
three years ahead of its natural expiry date.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
So that's the second part of the legal challenge.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
So I guess if nothing else New Zealand Rugby would
expect that invoice that they filed late last year, they
would expect that to be paid minimum as part of
this action.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
And with the state of rugby and where the All
Blacks sit right now, how easy or difficult a sell
is Jersey sponsorsable short sponsorship for a length of time,
they likely to get similar money for this. Do you
know anything about the landscape around sponsorship money? But it's
(08:11):
hardly thick on the ground.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
Is it.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
Well, look, they're the All Blacks, and you know, despite
the fact that hasn't been a vintage four or five years,
there's one hundred and twenty plus or whatever it is
ears behind that as well, where you know, this is
a brand, a legacy, it's an amazing story. It's an
amazingly well known sports team that doesn't get wiped away
(08:34):
by four or five mediocre years.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
So there's still value there. The danger in this particular scenario, though,
is that the world nine knows the.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Ineos have suddenly pulled out of a relationship and that
New Zealand Rugby are reasonably desperate to find a replacement.
So the market will know that they don't have to
pay top dollars necessarily to get you know, exposure on
the all black shorts or training shirts, because it's now
a distressed asset that ENDSR is trying to give to
someone else, So the bargaining position.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Will be weak. But you know, I would imagine as
long as they.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
Gets something on the table, some kind of monetary recompense
with a new partner that will take them through for
some period of time until they're then able to bring
on a either renew with a partner or find another
one after that in conditions and in a market that
is more suitable to get the kind of pricing that
(09:29):
they want.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
So Jim Reckliff's not broke, is he. You know, he's
got Manchester United, he's starting his own America's Cup team,
So he's hardly crying poverty, is he.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Now, He's not broke, but I get the impression he's
a little bit broken.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
I mean, he's behaving in a way that I don't
think is healthy for sport. You know, sport needs money
and needs benefactors, and for whatever reasons, it tends to
be attracted to these big, egotistical billionaires who love vanity projects,
who love you know, the power the control that having
(10:06):
sponsorship or ownership gives them. When they then operate outside
the rule of law as they feel that they can,
it becomes a very dangerous place for sport to find itself,
damages reputations, lowers trust, it makes everybody vulnerable. And I
think he needs to accept that that he's a guy
that says he wants to put back he loves sports.
(10:29):
You know, he was happy enough to jump into bed
with the All Blacks because he said they were a
great brand and they aligned with the values of Ineos.
We probably needs to go back and remember that and
think about why he's behaving in the way that his
well I presume it to him, by the way, rather
than Inos. And he needs to answer why he thinks
it's okay to just pull the plug on the sponsorship.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Next stop Riard. I say that with tongue firmly in cheek,
but you nevern know, Gregor Paul, what is a pleasure?
Thanks very much for your time.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Thank you for more from Sports Talk.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Listen live to News Talks it'd be from seven pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Sports Talk podcast with Duesi Wildergrave
from News Talk Z'B and.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
We're joined now by a New Zealand Herald at Rugby
Scribe but Gregor Paul Good evening.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Gregor, Hi, Darcy.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I trust you're well and are looking at the current
situation with Jim Radcliffell, should I say, Surgeim and the
All Blacks with some interest? The story out today around
an eight million dollar deal that's been renegged on and
there is no money being paid for services already exchanged,
(00:41):
already rendered. This is a Is this a scary situation
for the All Blacks?
Speaker 4 (00:46):
It's definitely not a good one. I don't know if
it's scary. It's commercially important. Two things are commercially important here. One,
the deal itself is reasonably significant for them. I think
it's slightly closer to ten million a year that they're
taking from Anios, which is not an insubstantial amount of
money for them, And as they lose it, which they have,
(01:08):
you know, that will need to be found somewhere else.
So that's going to be challenge number one for them.
But really the much bigger challenge here is protecting the
reputation and putting a message out to the world that says, look,
we can't have billionaires decide arbitrarily or unilaterally that they
don't want to carry on with an existing deal for
(01:28):
whatever reason spurious at best, and we need to protect
ourselves and we need to say that we won't be bullied,
we won't be pushed around, and if you renege on
a deal for no good reason, we're going to take
you to court and we're going to let the law
decide whether you have the right to do that or not.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
So in essence, this is posturing that they would like
some form of result, because as you've seen, close on
ten million dollars, that's quite the hole and dig their
way out of. But it's very much a scense of saying,
don't mess with us, and we're going to go through
the law. This is a stance.
Speaker 4 (01:59):
I think primarily certainly initially it's a message to not
only to any ofs but to any other future potential
commercial partners that this is where things will end up
if we do not abide by the contract, and if
we do not, you know, live.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
By the law.
Speaker 4 (02:14):
I mean, anyone knows once you once you go to court, proceedings.
You don't know what the outcomes are going to be.
In a case like that, they will argue any use
will argue that whatever that you know, they were let
down by the terms of the agreement. They'll say and
Zaid didn't fulfill them and said, I will say it did.
And a court will try and determine, you know, who's right,
who's wrong, and what the solution might be.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Now, that could take a long time.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
That could rack up, you know, significant legal fees for
the union with limited possibility of what they will get
in return or what a settlement might look like with
any US.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
So you're going to weigh up the risk and the reward.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
You know what that might look like, and how long
do you want this to carry on for, you know,
before you're willing to pull the pin. And you get
the impression that when you're a billionaire and you've got
sort of infinite depth to your pocket, you're probably going.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
To gamble that.
Speaker 4 (03:03):
You know, an organization like nz R isn't going to
want to have a prolonged expense of legal battle with
you because they can't afford to do that in the
way that you can.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
That's why I said, scary we know that there's not
a lot of cash on the ground for n z R.
Should they engage? I suppose they can walk if it
it's too expensive. But this could be long and pricey.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Yeah, it could be.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
And maybe what they're hoping is by filing the court action,
by going public with it, maybe that will bring any
usen Sir Jim to the table to say, look, okay,
what would it take for this to come out of
the courts?
Speaker 3 (03:42):
Can we make a settlement here? What would you agree to?
Speaker 4 (03:45):
You know, maybe they agree a full and final payment
that says, okay, you don't want to be a partner anymore.
How about you pay you know, eighteen months of the
contract and we'll let you out the other eighteen months.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
That's fifty you know, fifty percent of what.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
You ask And could we do a deal round about
that sort of price point and you know, leave it
in a state that doesn't take both organizations's time, effort,
money and cause them reputational damage.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Gregor Paul joining us, Gregor, how long does it take
to replace someone like Anios? They've got a three year deal,
they haven't paid up for service has already been rendered
by inz R. I'm talking about that in a minute,
But how do they cover this and how long does
it take to get a Jersey sponsor? Because what they've
(04:31):
got they actually make them. They've got Ltrad and they've
got Anyos. This is fairly rare territory.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
Isn't it.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
Well, both Ultrad and Inios were actually signed on six
year deals in twenty They began in twenty twenty two.
So look, it took the better part of two years
to secure both of those partners. That's the sort of
length of time it takes to run a global tender
for deals with the size that magnitude.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Roughly, that's how long it was.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
So my understanding is that even though if we look
at the front of Jersey sponsor, which is Ultra, even
though that's in play until twenty twenty seven, end of that,
they will begin the process now of putting that out
to tender, because that's how long it will take to
secure the next partner or or in you with, I'll
(05:21):
try it to if that's what it is that they're.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Going to do. So that's the sort of time frame
that you'd be looking at.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
So they'd be on that now. I'm presuming that they
know after they walked after any of said now we're
not doing this anymore, they would have put everything in motion.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
Well, I think it depends on if you're talking about
formal or informal. My understanding would be that there would
be informal conversations going all the time with potential partners,
because that's what they should be doing. The commercial guys
sort of sounding out people, not just about Front of Jersey,
but this, that and the other. So they will have
a network of people that they will have been talking
to and look, yeah, I think from what I can gather,
(06:02):
any of us, we're signaling late last year that this
was a possibility that they that they were struggling with
the partnership for whatever reason. I don't know the answer
to that why, But I don't think that the letter
that arrived at the end of January this year to
formally announce that in reneging on the partnership came as
(06:23):
a massive surprise to New Zealand Rugby. So they've probably
had a couple of months head start aware that this
is where it would probably end up. Whether that's any
use to them or not a couple of months don't know,
but at least now they've got clarity that they're definitely
going to be without iniols, and they've got a bit
of clock ticking, which is never a bad thing when
you're trying to do a deal. You've actually got some
(06:44):
a real time frame now to move as quickly as
you can to get something else on the table.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
So will we see inos on the shorts and the
training gear this year? We have to wait to the
court case finishes. How does that operate?
Speaker 3 (06:56):
Do you know? No, they won't my understanding again, they
won't appear.
Speaker 4 (07:02):
So the invoice was sent to as at the end
of last year for the second half of what you
we know twenty five. So when we're in second half
of twenty four, that invoice was due on the first
of January. That hasn't been paid. So you would now
say their account is in arrears with then say it are.
So there's two issues here. One they haven't paid for
(07:25):
services delivered that relate to twenty twenty four, and now
they've cut the deal arbitrarily, you know, actually cut that
three years ahead of its natural expiry date.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
So that's the second part of the legal challenge.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
So I guess if nothing else New Zealand Rugby would
expect that invoice that they filed late last year, they
would expect that to be paid minimum as part of
this action.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
And with the state of rugby and where the All
Blacks sit right now, how easy or difficult a sell
is Jersey sponsorsable short sponsorship for a length of time,
they likely to get similar money for this. Do you
know anything about the landscape around sponsorship money? But it's
(08:11):
hardly thick on the ground.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
Is it.
Speaker 4 (08:14):
Well, look, they're the All Blacks, and you know, despite
the fact that hasn't been a vintage four or five years,
there's one hundred and twenty plus or whatever it is
ears behind that as well, where you know, this is
a brand, a legacy, it's an amazing story. It's an
amazingly well known sports team that doesn't get wiped away
(08:34):
by four or five mediocre years.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
So there's still value there. The danger in this particular scenario, though,
is that the world nine knows the.
Speaker 4 (08:44):
Ineos have suddenly pulled out of a relationship and that
New Zealand Rugby are reasonably desperate to find a replacement.
So the market will know that they don't have to
pay top dollars necessarily to get you know, exposure on
the all black shorts or training shirts, because it's now
a distressed asset that ENDSR is trying to give to
someone else, So the bargaining position.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Will be weak. But you know, I would imagine as
long as they.
Speaker 4 (09:08):
Gets something on the table, some kind of monetary recompense
with a new partner that will take them through for
some period of time until they're then able to bring
on a either renew with a partner or find another
one after that in conditions and in a market that
is more suitable to get the kind of pricing that
(09:29):
they want.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
So Jim Reckliff's not broke, is he. You know, he's
got Manchester United, he's starting his own America's Cup team,
So he's hardly crying poverty, is he.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Now, He's not broke, but I get the impression he's
a little bit broken.
Speaker 4 (09:45):
I mean, he's behaving in a way that I don't
think is healthy for sport. You know, sport needs money
and needs benefactors, and for whatever reasons, it tends to
be attracted to these big, egotistical billionaires who love vanity projects,
who love you know, the power the control that having
(10:06):
sponsorship or ownership gives them. When they then operate outside
the rule of law as they feel that they can,
it becomes a very dangerous place for sport to find itself,
damages reputations, lowers trust, it makes everybody vulnerable. And I
think he needs to accept that that he's a guy
that says he wants to put back he loves sports.
(10:29):
You know, he was happy enough to jump into bed
with the All Blacks because he said they were a
great brand and they aligned with the values of Ineos.
We probably needs to go back and remember that and
think about why he's behaving in the way that his
well I presume it to him, by the way, rather
than Inos. And he needs to answer why he thinks
it's okay to just pull the plug on the sponsorship.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
Next stop Riard. I say that with tongue firmly in cheek,
but you nevern know, Gregor Paul, what is a pleasure?
Thanks very much for your time.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
Thank you for more from Sports Talk.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Listen live to News Talks it'd be from seven pm weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
This is Gavin Newsom
I’m Gavin Newsom. And, it’s time to have a conversation. It’s time to have honest discussions with people that agree AND disagree with us. It's time to answer the hard questions and be open to criticism, and debate without demeaning or dehumanizing one other. I will be doing just that on my new podcast – inviting people on who I deeply disagree with to talk about the most pressing issues of the day and inviting listeners from around the country to join the conversation. THIS is Gavin Newsom.