World Rugby Board elections
-
Here's why RA is backing Pichot...
Argentina is pulling out of the race to host the 2027 World Cup in order to help Rugby Australia get back on its feet by landing the sport’s crown jewel, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.
-
-
havent they had this conversation before and got poo-poo'd?
-
Yup it says that in the article, NZ and Oz sponsored it recently, and it was out voted by NH unions. True article also said it is just a look at, not ap promise of change.
As to Fafita, I'm sure there will be a stand down period, of a year or two, if it's the same as there old proposal.
-
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
You'd almost have to say it should be both ways, but then again even if it was legal I couldn't see the ABs picking someone who is already played for an Island team - would not be a could publicity look! I don;t know if 'would' be catastrophic, but could be. Point is players already hold off, so will it make them hold off longer or more often? Dunno.
-
Ugh nothing like a bit of corruption and nepotism to really help stink the place up
-
@Machpants said in World Rugby chairman election:
Ugh nothing like a bit of corruption and nepotism to really help stink the place up
is there any role Cliff Curtis can't play?
-
@mariner4life that genuinely made me laugh out loud. Top work
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
See I've argued against this before. Its really tough
but how do you weigh a fringe AB possibility who COULD play for an island nation in his prime, against an ex-AB, bringing 2-10 years of AB experience (bigger games, professional setup, yada yada), coming back to an Island nation for 2-5 years?Then I fall back on "why shouldn't a bloke born in Samoa, lived in NZ for 25yrs and played all his code there, be able to contribute back to his country of birth by relocating, playingbrugby, paying taxes, and being a part of the rugby fraternity?
What are we really afraid of?
-
-
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
See I've argued against this before. Its really tough
but how do you weigh a fringe AB possibility who COULD play for an island nation in his prime, against an ex-AB, bringing 2-10 years of AB experience (bigger games, professional setup, yada yada), coming back to an Island nation for 2-5 years?How many times has the All Blacks gotten the balance wrong? No system is infallible.
Then I fall back on "why shouldn't a bloke born in Samoa, lived in NZ for 25yrs and played all his code there, be able to contribute back to his country of birth by relocating, playingbrugby, paying taxes, and being a part of the rugby fraternity?
Why is playing the only way for this player to contribute?
What are we really afraid of?
The litany of policies with good intentions that do the opposite?
I've given some thought to the fortunes of Scotland and I can't help but feel what's bad for them will be bad for PI rugby as well in a generation due to the difference of mass migration timing. It's a very difficult issue fraught with danger and I'd strongly advise caution.
It's not like WR have a track record of bright ideas...
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
Then I fall back on "why shouldn't a bloke born in Samoa, lived in NZ for 25yrs and played all his code there, be able to contribute back to his country of birth by relocating, playingbrugby, paying taxes, and being a part of the rugby fraternity?
Why is playing the only way for this player to contribute?
Of course it isn't, but why should world rugby have the ability restrict the ability of a man who has made his home in his home country, is a resident, who just wants to ply his profession and contribute?
We are all about personal liberties at the moment, why not in this case?
-
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
Then I fall back on "why shouldn't a bloke born in Samoa, lived in NZ for 25yrs and played all his code there, be able to contribute back to his country of birth by relocating, playingbrugby, paying taxes, and being a part of the rugby fraternity?
Why is playing the only way for this player to contribute?
Of course it isn't, but why should world rugby have the ability restrict the ability of a man who has made his home in his home country, is a resident, who just wants to ply his profession and contribute?
We are all about personal liberties at the moment, why not in this case?
Liberty to pursue a livelihood doesn't mean it should be available to you at the highest level because you want a scenery change.
Let's look at it a different way: What happens when certain professionals with a few years left in them, not quite making their original RWC squads, go "home" and bolster Fiji or Samoa and Home Nations get kicked out of the RWC?
Personally I'd find it hilarious, but the backlash would be brutal.
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
Then I fall back on "why shouldn't a bloke born in Samoa, lived in NZ for 25yrs and played all his code there, be able to contribute back to his country of birth by relocating, playingbrugby, paying taxes, and being a part of the rugby fraternity?
Why is playing the only way for this player to contribute?
Of course it isn't, but why should world rugby have the ability restrict the ability of a man who has made his home in his home country, is a resident, who just wants to ply his profession and contribute?
We are all about personal liberties at the moment, why not in this case?
Liberty to pursue a livelihood doesn't mean it should be available to you at the highest level because you want a scenery change.
Let's look at it a different way: What happens when certain professionals with a few years left in them, not quite making their original RWC squads, go "home" and bolster Fiji or Samoa and Home Nations get kicked out of the RWC?
I'm totally fine with that!!! Why on earth wouldn't you be???
The proviso, as always, is that you meet the eligibility criteria, which I've previously advocated should be residency and a stand-down period. If someone genuinely moves to a country and makes it their home, I have zero issue with them leading their parliament, their top 10 companies, or playing for their national rugby team.
-
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
Then I fall back on "why shouldn't a bloke born in Samoa, lived in NZ for 25yrs and played all his code there, be able to contribute back to his country of birth by relocating, playingbrugby, paying taxes, and being a part of the rugby fraternity?
Why is playing the only way for this player to contribute?
Of course it isn't, but why should world rugby have the ability restrict the ability of a man who has made his home in his home country, is a resident, who just wants to ply his profession and contribute?
We are all about personal liberties at the moment, why not in this case?
Liberty to pursue a livelihood doesn't mean it should be available to you at the highest level because you want a scenery change.
Let's look at it a different way: What happens when certain professionals with a few years left in them, not quite making their original RWC squads, go "home" and bolster Fiji or Samoa and Home Nations get kicked out of the RWC?
I'm totally fine with that!!! Why on earth wouldn't you be???
As I said in my edit which you probably missed while you were responding, I'd find it hilarious but the fallout would be huge.
The proviso, as always, is that you meet the eligibility criteria, which I've previously advocated should be residency and a stand-down period. If someone genuinely moves to a country and makes it their home, I have zero issue with them leading their parliament, their top 10 companies, or playing for their national rugby team.
I'd be happy with that, but any reasonable stand down period would make it unlikely anyway. The issue is the mix of the tier one to tier two swap combined with the grandparent rule.
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
@voodoo said in World Rugby chairman election:
@antipodean said in World Rugby chairman election:
I'd say Argentina helping Australia by withdrawing its bid is an outcome rather than intent. It was reported months ago that Australia was considered to have the strongest bid. The question will be will South Africa as current champions also bid considering Australia gets to host the Lions in 2025 (presuming no new virus....)
Not self-nominating for stuck record on this point either; but the unintended consequence of permitting players to put off playing for tier two nations in the hope of making a tier one team would be catastrophic.
Then I fall back on "why shouldn't a bloke born in Samoa, lived in NZ for 25yrs and played all his code there, be able to contribute back to his country of birth by relocating, playingbrugby, paying taxes, and being a part of the rugby fraternity?
Why is playing the only way for this player to contribute?
Of course it isn't, but why should world rugby have the ability restrict the ability of a man who has made his home in his home country, is a resident, who just wants to ply his profession and contribute?
We are all about personal liberties at the moment, why not in this case?
Liberty to pursue a livelihood doesn't mean it should be available to you at the highest level because you want a scenery change.
Let's look at it a different way: What happens when certain professionals with a few years left in them, not quite making their original RWC squads, go "home" and bolster Fiji or Samoa and Home Nations get kicked out of the RWC?
I'm totally fine with that!!! Why on earth wouldn't you be???
As I said in my edit which you probably missed while you were responding, I'd find it hilarious but the fallout would be huge.
The proviso, as always, is that you meet the eligibility criteria, which I've previously advocated should be residency and a stand-down period. If someone genuinely moves to a country and makes it their home, I have zero issue with them leading their parliament, their top 10 companies, or playing for their national rugby team.
I'd be happy with that, but any reasonable stand down period would make it unlikely anyway. The issue is the mix of the tier one to tier two swap combined with the grandparent rule.
Yeah missed the edit, sorry . But I typically just see a bunch of arguments from people saying it wouldn't work for the PI nations. Then a bunch more saying it would be bad for the home nations. And I just cant reconcile it.
I see the PI nations in particular losing a stack of guys to other nations through migration, scholarships, whatever, and I see no reason not to level the playing field, within reason/rules.
