World Rugby Board elections
-
@rotated said in World Rugby Board elections:
@nzzp said in World Rugby Board elections:
At the RWC, by the way, we were the only Tier 1 nation that didn't select their best players and make exceptions for good players playing overseas. So in one world we were a weakened side, up against England, SA, Aus, Wales and Ireland who selected the best available players. I woulnd't change it, as it'd wreck rugby here, but it's something to contemplate
Who would have you picked from overseas?
Luatua, Piutau are the obvious ones, that woudl fill holes in the squad. I posted on this a while ago, but honestly struggling to remember more of my comprehensive and well reasearched list (pulled from the depths of my skull).
Others will add I'm sure, but possibly Charlie Faumauina, and maybe even a visit from Jerome Kaino.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107911952/61-exall-blacks-still-playing-around-the-worldEdit: and Vito
-
I'm not too fussed about Beaumont over Pichot.
I don't really like or agree with any of the Nations League proposed formats I have seen. As I think Hydro said, the only attractive part is the (potential) money. But it was pie in the sky stuff, what SANZAAR was pushing for. The original Nations League plan (using only July and November windows) may have been feasible before Pichot expanded on that scope. I didn't particularly like that one either anyway. But at least it was politically achievable rather than political capital wasted on a walking dead project.
I don't have a full answer. Maybe, if the aim is to re-distribute some wealth from NH to SH and T1 to T2. Then ....
Maybe, the easy answer is if the IRB just backs out of any oversight or control of the fixturing of July and November windows. Lets the nations negotiate with each other on who they visit under what terms.6 NH tier 1 nations (plus Japan) will be wanting to host 4 T1 SH nations on each of the 3 weekends, they all can't. 3 spare events each weekend. Let the negotiating begin (on an appearance fee/revenue share). 3 comparatively NH rich nations will be wanting to pick over the next best 3 T2 nations to host, so Fiji etc can negotiate an appearance fee , doesn't have to be huge but a better profit than hosting in Suva, Apia, Nukualofa etc
So, there is already natural bargaining power in the direction they want.
Doesn't have to be the mythical 50/50 unicorn split.
-
Pacific rugby's message to Sanzaar
Why our Pacific rugby brothers and sisters broke with New Zealand and Sanzaar in World Rugby's showdown vote. Jim Kayes reports
-
@Rapido said in World Rugby Board elections:
I'm not too fussed about Beaumont over Pichot.
I don't really like or agree with any of the Nations League proposed formats I have seen. As I think Hydro said, the only attractive part is the (potential) money. But it was pie in the sky stuff, what SANZAAR was pushing for. The original Nations League plan (using only July and November windows) may have been feasible before Pichot expanded on that scope. I didn't particularly like that one either anyway. But at least it was politically achievable rather than political capital wasted on a walking dead project.
I don't have a full answer. Maybe, if the aim is to re-distribute some wealth from NH to SH and T1 to T2. Then ....
Maybe, the easy answer is if the IRB just backs out of any oversight or control of the fixturing of July and November windows. Lets the nations negotiate with each other on who they visit under what terms.6 NH tier 1 nations (plus Japan) will be wanting to host 4 T1 SH nations on each of the 3 weekends, they all can't. 3 spare events each weekend. Let the negotiating begin (on an appearance fee/revenue share). 3 comparatively NH rich nations will be wanting to pick over the next best 3 T2 nations to host, so Fiji etc can negotiate an appearance fee , doesn't have to be huge but a better profit than hosting in Suva, Apia, Nukualofa etc
So, there is already natural bargaining power in the direction they want.
Doesn't have to be the mythical 50/50 unicorn split.
I think that the main issue was not the format, the Nations Cup idea was an attempt to throw a cat among the pigeons and stir up the current state of the world game.
The problem was that Beaumont never really put any weight behind change and made zero effort to curtail the inevitable protectionism from certain NH unions. The format could have been changed/diluted/adjusted among all parties but there was no real desire to change anything from the NH and WR just sat back.I think Beaumont may have realised that WR is not far from the edge of a split and goodwill and tradition is the only thing stopping the SH from walking away with a new plan. Not sure if he has the answers though.
-
@Crucial said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Rapido said in World Rugby Board elections:
I'm not too fussed about Beaumont over Pichot.
I don't really like or agree with any of the Nations League proposed formats I have seen. As I think Hydro said, the only attractive part is the (potential) money. But it was pie in the sky stuff, what SANZAAR was pushing for. The original Nations League plan (using only July and November windows) may have been feasible before Pichot expanded on that scope. I didn't particularly like that one either anyway. But at least it was politically achievable rather than political capital wasted on a walking dead project.
I don't have a full answer. Maybe, if the aim is to re-distribute some wealth from NH to SH and T1 to T2. Then ....
Maybe, the easy answer is if the IRB just backs out of any oversight or control of the fixturing of July and November windows. Lets the nations negotiate with each other on who they visit under what terms.6 NH tier 1 nations (plus Japan) will be wanting to host 4 T1 SH nations on each of the 3 weekends, they all can't. 3 spare events each weekend. Let the negotiating begin (on an appearance fee/revenue share). 3 comparatively NH rich nations will be wanting to pick over the next best 3 T2 nations to host, so Fiji etc can negotiate an appearance fee , doesn't have to be huge but a better profit than hosting in Suva, Apia, Nukualofa etc
So, there is already natural bargaining power in the direction they want.
Doesn't have to be the mythical 50/50 unicorn split.
I think that the main issue was not the format, the Nations Cup idea was an attempt to throw a cat among the pigeons and stir up the current state of the world game.
The problem was that Beaumont never really put any weight behind change and made zero effort to curtail the inevitable protectionism from certain NH unions. The format could have been changed/diluted/adjusted among all parties but there was no real desire to change anything from the NH and WR just sat back.I think Beaumont may have realised that WR is not far from the edge of a split and goodwill and tradition is the only thing stopping the SH from walking away with a new plan. Not sure if he has the answers though.
I don't agree.
The original Nations cup format, I can't even remember what it was, used only the Nov and June windows - and involved lots of T1 v T2 fixtures. It was sold as "reinvigorate the July and November windows". It wasn't great, IIRC, but ...
Then, it got warped into just 12 teams (6 Nations plus SANZAAR + 2), with the T2 carrot of promotion/relegation. Basically a diversion of the original purpose by SANZAAR to get the 6 Nations TV money put into a common pot, with the added 'carrot' of potential relegation for Italy and Scotland.
The 6 Nations are right to reject that.
Pichot was naive to push it.
SANZAAR were naive to waste political capital on it.
Doesn't matter what Beaumont did or didn't do. The 6 Nations would reject it, if the voting structure was different, the 6 Nations would probably just go 'rebel' anyway.
-
SANZAAR have the following options:
- Focus on revenue sharing November and June windows.
- Status quo, but reduce central contracting costs, the South Africa and Aussie Giteau rule examples
- The cricket central contracting model. Just contract top 30 centrally, and let the rest settle at market rates paid by the franchises.
- Open new revenue generation tournament/expansion:
- SANZAAR might expand anyway to include Japan, at risk of compromising the geographic integrity of the tournament. Only time will tell if people care about a 'rest of world minus 6 nations' championship, as opposed to a best of the SH championship.
- I'd suggest NZ and Australia look at creating a new Pan-Pacific Championship. (NZ, Aus, Jap, USA, Can, Fij, Sam, Tga). 2 pools of 4 plus a final, played once every 4 years in the November window. To fit this in. As they would not tour 6N unions one November - NZ and Aus would need to sacrafice 3 home June tests v NH opponents once every 4 years if they still want NH teams to visit in the other 2 years. Would creating a tournament with shared ownership of Japanese TV money (plus in future potential good USA and Candian money) and hosting 1 or 2 Pan-Pac home matches in November - be worth sacraficing June home matches v 6N unions? Who and what would they do in this free June bloc? A scramble for Georgia to tour for free? Invite a 6N union but have to revenue share? North Island v South Island 3 match series? State of Origin? Arrange a once every 4 years tours with South Africa including midweek provincial matches.
-
@Crucial said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Rapido said in World Rugby Board elections:
I'm not too fussed about Beaumont over Pichot.
I don't really like or agree with any of the Nations League proposed formats I have seen. As I think Hydro said, the only attractive part is the (potential) money. But it was pie in the sky stuff, what SANZAAR was pushing for. The original Nations League plan (using only July and November windows) may have been feasible before Pichot expanded on that scope. I didn't particularly like that one either anyway. But at least it was politically achievable rather than political capital wasted on a walking dead project.
I don't have a full answer. Maybe, if the aim is to re-distribute some wealth from NH to SH and T1 to T2. Then ....
Maybe, the easy answer is if the IRB just backs out of any oversight or control of the fixturing of July and November windows. Lets the nations negotiate with each other on who they visit under what terms.6 NH tier 1 nations (plus Japan) will be wanting to host 4 T1 SH nations on each of the 3 weekends, they all can't. 3 spare events each weekend. Let the negotiating begin (on an appearance fee/revenue share). 3 comparatively NH rich nations will be wanting to pick over the next best 3 T2 nations to host, so Fiji etc can negotiate an appearance fee , doesn't have to be huge but a better profit than hosting in Suva, Apia, Nukualofa etc
So, there is already natural bargaining power in the direction they want.
Doesn't have to be the mythical 50/50 unicorn split.
I think that the main issue was not the format, the Nations Cup idea was an attempt to throw a cat among the pigeons and stir up the current state of the world game.
The problem was that Beaumont never really put any weight behind change and made zero effort to curtail the inevitable protectionism from certain NH unions. The format could have been changed/diluted/adjusted among all parties but there was no real desire to change anything from the NH and WR just sat back.I think Beaumont may have realised that WR is not far from the edge of a split and goodwill and tradition is the only thing stopping the SH from walking away with a new plan. Not sure if he has the answers though.
the Nations League is pie in teh sky stuff anyway. the 6N won't change, nor do i think it should. A great sporting competition that doubles as a commercial success is rare these days, and should be supported, even if we are massively jealous.
I can't really see a viable solution given the geographical problems.
-
@mariner4life Yup and travel costs are not going to get any smaller for quite some time I reckon
-
For that reason I think the idea should be to develop a SANZAAR competition that could become similar to the Nations Cup - SANZAAR could have made a 12 team competition in two levels with promotion relegation.
The markets for future exploitation are Japan, the US, and maybe Korea and China in the future, plus trying to shore up Canada.
Rugby Championship (1 game home or away rotating every year)
Sanzaar 4 plus Japan and Fiji
Nations Cup (same as RC)
Samoa, Tonga, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Korea? (Or Georgia?)
Relegation/promotion game between winner of Nations Cup and lowest performing team in RC.
To get countries to join, we could use Maori and All Black XV tours.
Certainly by adding Japan to the RC we could have had a big grab to Asia and we could shore up our voting for future WR.
-
@gt12 said in World Rugby Board elections:
For that reason I think the idea should be to develop a SANZAAR competition that could become similar to the Nations Cup - SANZAAR could have made a 12 team competition in two levels with promotion relegation.
The markets for future exploitation are Japan, the US, and maybe Korea and China in the future, plus trying to shore up Canada.
Rugby Championship (1 game home or away rotating every year)
Sanzaar 4 plus Japan and Fiji
Nations Cup (same as RC)
Samoa, Tonga, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Korea? (Or Georgia?)
Relegation/promotion game between winner of Nations Cup and lowest performing team in RC.
To get countries to join, we could use Maori and All Black XV tours.
Certainly by adding Japan to the RC we could have had a big grab to Asia and we could shore up our voting for future WR.
to what end?
Is rugby really a growth sport? Are there really untapped markets out there just waiting to open up commercially, if we only gave them exposure?
I don't want Japan in the RC because they aren't very good at rugby. Argentina haven't really added much in terms of sporting competition, Japan are worse than they are. Look at Italy in the 6N, they couldn't win a loaded chook raffle, and are effectively the bye.
I'm coming to the realisation that rugby might be at its peak. Some former top nations have already fallen away. There is no amount of exposure that is going to get a minnow to the top table. The fringe top table can't even keep up.
Most of these other countries already have their favourite sport, and you aren't going to change that.
-
I think that rugby in Japan (and USA) is the ticket to the SH getting control of World rugby and our players getting paid (and still turning out for us).
I don’t dispute that rugby itself may fall in numbers overtime, but on a basic level, SANZAAR could control world rugby if there were two more teams in the shed (Japan, Fiji) and if the SANZAAR competition involved the other players there would be a significant voting bloc behind SH led ideas.
I also think that companies like Amazon have ooooodles of cash to throw around and Rugby could be a good extra moat for them to add in - many of these aren’t profitable but are designed to get users on their platform. It would be a great way to extend prime in a bunch of countries (SA, NZ, Argentina) and I think we’ll see them do it with different sports over time. Whether rugby is big enough or not to get that cash, I don’t know. But, I’d be looking for it...
-
@gt12 said in World Rugby Board elections:
SH getting control of World rugby and our players getting paid (and still turning out for us).
i think this is a pipe dream.
-
Already seeing some potential changes after the election?
Exclusive: Plan for rugby's global calendar sees Six Nations run into May
Peter Jackson exclusively reports on how the club and international calendar could be about to shift its axis
-
-
@Rapido said in World Rugby Board elections:
Already seeing some potential changes after the election?
Exclusive: Plan for rugby's global calendar sees Six Nations run into May
Peter Jackson exclusively reports on how the club and international calendar could be about to shift its axis
I'd be surprised if that happened. Having said that, the scheduling of the 6N is a major hindrance to a global calendar because the SH would either be playing no rugby then or it's own Rugby Championship type format.
-
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
@gt12 said in World Rugby Board elections:
SH getting control of World rugby and our players getting paid (and still turning out for us).
i think this is a pipe dream.
You’re my wife, aren’t you?
-
@Machpants said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Rapido Well considering Bill has said the 6N is not going to move 'cos it's been played then 'since he was a nipper' (good old school reasoning there) I think that article is mostly rubbish and/or scenario testing
Although it can be put down to old school reasoning, it is a fair point. It's far and away the most successful / watched annual competition in rugby. Generally February is the shittyest, coldest month up here - it wouldn't be the same without the 6N and both would lose some serious appeal without each other.
-
USA rugby has filed for bankruptcy so even though there should be plenty of sponsorship dollars available in the good ole USA (e.g. AIG) it won't be easy to crack that market.
The other big problem is that European clubs won't be keen to release any of the PI players. They usually give the middle finger in a RWC year, and without their best players Fiji, Tonga and Samoa won't be as competitive.
-
@Bovidae said in World Rugby Board elections:
USA rugby has filed for bankruptcy so even though there should be plenty of sponsorship dollars available in the good ole USA (e.g. AIG) it won't be easy to crack that market.
The other big problem is that European clubs won't be keen to release any of the PI players. They usually give the middle finger in a RWC year, and without their best players Fiji, Tonga and Samoa won't be as competitive.
I think this is reply to my Pan-Pac idea?
USA bankruptcy laws, a body will be back in charge of USA rugby. They were over ambitious. Lost money on the marketing company they set up. There is already (some) money there, but mostly it is a play on future.
Re: PI rugby availability. Quite likely realistic post-covid pro set up will be the Trans- Ta$man plus PI turnament.
7 NZ teams, 4 Australian, 1 PI.
not enough to suply 3 PI national teams, but better than current.
NZ and Aus will have it in their interests to not restrict PI players playing for NZ teams, if they want this other proposed competition to work.The whole point of proposing a A Pan-Pac tournament, is that it could make money, not that it would be better rugby than the TRC. It could make it financially possible for PI nations to pay better appearance money, and rugby-wise it would be a competition more PI Euro-based players would want to take part in (For some, not even a RWC is enough though ...)
But, tbh, if the PI teams were relatively weak and Japan and USA got more wins, it may make the tournament more finacially valuable and speed up the value growth of the tournament. But, will make it less interesting to NZ and Australian viewers.
I'm still pro SANZAAR at international level.
I want the TRC to continue. Also, I would like a small SANZAAR club compeition.
I'm anti Super Rugby, and anti being tied to the fortunes of South Africas politics.Pan-Pac, once every 4 years, diversify. Create a tournament you have shared ownership of.
