COMMENT:
These are troubled financial times for rugby and while there are all sorts of money-saving, radical restructuring plans being considered and new-age digital revenue streams being explored, it seems now is the perfect time to be thinking old school and bricks and mortar.
New Zealand Rugby has a balance sheet that has enormous intangible assets but next to nothing on the tangible side.
The national body "owns" a brand and however much they may feel the All Blacks are worth, how do they monetise it?
In theory, NZR has an almost infinite capacity to generate money as a result of building such a powerful brand but in practical terms they remain as uncertain now as they ever have about how to actually do that.
The problem with selling the All Blacks brand isn't just finding the mechanism by which to do that, it's dealing with the ethical consequences. NZR will say they own the All Blacks, but do they really? Are the All Blacks not owned by the people of New Zealand?
READ MORE:
• Rugby: All Blacks hero Beauden Barrett to make comeback in tiny hometown
• Gregor Paul: The All Black who stepped up post-Rugby World Cup (and the one that hasn't)
• Rugby: All Blacks star Beauden Barrett to play 'the full hog' in return to club rugby for Coastal
• Rugby: Ian Foster lifts lid on what went wrong for All Blacks at World Cup
Can a national team really be the property of anything other than the very people whom they represent and this essentially is what restricts the value of the brand as an intangible asset.
The All Blacks can't be sold as such. NZR is the custodian of the All Blacks – the body entrusted to leverage the value of the brand. NZR can flog space on the All Blacks jersey to a sponsor but that's not selling the brand – that's renting out use of it.
NZR can organise extra tests around the world and demand cash for bringing the All Blacks but that again is selling labour not the brand and if everything is on the table as part of the McKinsey Review into the state of the game, then surely it's time to ask if stadium ownership should form part of the national body's thinking?
Investing in stadia has always been rejected by NZR. They have never wanted their capital tied up in a home ground, virtually compelling them to play the All Blacks in just one domestic venue rather than allow them the freedom to play around the country.
Stadium ownership is burdensome not just in that respect, as it has left the national unions of England, Scotland and Wales struggling at various times and to various degrees with long-term debt.
The RFU has invested hundreds of millions in Twickenham and recently found itself in a financial jam due to an unforeseen redevelopment overspend.
Understandably, NZR could easily look around the world and feel a heavy sense of relief that their cash is not tied up in a stadium and perhaps even a righteous smugness that their future investment plan is focused on building a state of the art digital property rather than high-maintenance actual property.
But there is another argument in this and however unglamorous stadium ownership may be, it is possibly the only guaranteed future-proof investment available to NZR right now.
An NZR-owned streaming platform seems a smart move now, but who can say whether it has longevity as a long-term revenue stream.
Satellite TV stations probably thought they would retain their value forever when they emerged in the late 1990s and look at them now.
They are under siege from the wave of streaming companies who have sprung up, seemingly out of nowhere, in the past five years.
The only certainty about rugby is that it will always need somewhere to be played. There will always need to be a bit of land marked out for the game to take place and with some certainty we can predict that 100 years from now humans won't have lost their fascination with attending the big-event experience.
Proof of that lies in Rome where the remains of the Colosseum stand testament to the intrinsic human desire to gather together to consume live action and enthral in its theatre and unpredictability.
There's nothing like actually being there and this is why, of all the future revenue options available to NZR, stadium ownership feels like the safest and most certain to provide a return on investment for the longest.
Should the concept ever be entertained, the question would become in which stadium should NZR invest?
The answer is the debt-riddled Eden Park, which might be the least loved and most contentious stadium in the country, but is the spiritual home of the All Blacks and the only venue with the capacity and surrounding infrastructure to justify the strategy.
It would make more sense to pump money into building a new venue in Auckland, but the time-frame in which that could become a possibility is impossible to guess, other than to say it won't be within the next 10 years.
Decisions about capital expenditure which take weeks in most countries, can drag on for years in New Zealand and decades when it comes to Auckland and the vexed issue of a new stadium.
Australia has built three new stadiums in Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide in the last decade and is in the process of redeveloping two major venues in Sydney.
A new stadium on Auckland's waterfront was a serious possibility in 2005 after New Zealand won the World Cup hosting rights but political bickering all but killed it happening and it is such a divisive and emotional topic that it seems destined to stay forever in the too risky basket.
Every now and again various consortiums re-float the idea and say they can get it done but in the 15 years since the first idea was first mooted, the prospect of it ever being built remains virtually nil.
And so Eden Park, even with its forecast crippling maintenance costs, is still a good investment prospect for NZR, which can't dismiss the fact that the balance sheet needs a significant tangible asset on it.
The hidden benefit of investing in a stadium is that it will give NZR some semblance of credibility in their quest to persuade the Northern Hemisphere unions to rip up the current way in which revenue generated by test matches is distributed.
NZR, with some degree of arrogance and disrespect for the popularity of the Six Nations, believes that it deserves a greater share of ticket revenue when the All Blacks play in Europe.
The argument is founded on this notion that the All Blacks turn up in Europe and fill stadiums because everyone wants to see New Zealand play.
It's a fallacy. Twickenham is full every time England play because people want to watch England play.
A Six Nations match between Wales and Ireland sells out in minutes and stadiums in the UK are not sitting around empty until the All Blacks show up in November.
And secondly, given that the Home Unions have all invested in their own stadia at enormous expense, they find it laughable that NZR, without having spent a single dollar on their own venue, expect a bigger clip of the ticket.
Maybe if NZR had some skin in the game as it were, the Home Unions would feel more inclined to explore revenue sharing options and strangely, a stadium that has been pieced together over the years into a little bit of an unholy mishmash might just be the financial saviour of rugby in this country.
OPINION: World Rugby trials new referees, but high standards remain a pressing concern.