Nations Championship?
-
Different angle:
Nations Championship a hard sell for SANZAAR
Nations Championship a hard sell for SANZAAR
The SANZAAR unions may be in complete agreement on World Rugby's Nations Championship, but trickle-down economics may be a hard sell for their constituents.
-
@Stargazer How, this looks like a better deal for SANZAAR nations every way you look at it. Article seems to be written from a European pespective
-
-
@Stargazer it’s an interesting point to consider what’s going to happen to the next level down. But I would counter that the next level down, worldwide, has been wrecking international Tests for quite a while now.
So maybe this a step to address that imbalance (clubs not releasing players, for example).
The variety of the proposed comp, and the pathway for the Tier 2 & 3 countries to improve is just a benefit, it’s hard not to support it.
If I understand the structure right, doesn’t it mean that the lower Tier countries go from a handle for tests to a regular 11 tests a year? If so, that alone is going to improve teams massively.
As for the NPC and Super Rugby, maybe we need to merge those, bring back the tribalism and consolidate our resources?
-
@Kirwan Maybe I am missing something? I can't find anything in the article that I posted about Tier 2 & 3 countries.
I read about the (financial) effect the Nations Championship may have on SR and domestic competitions in the SANZAAR countries.I'd hate the idea of merging NPC and SR. NPC for me is purely domestic and still has the tribalism. SR doesn't have the same level of tribalism, but it's a higher level of club rugby against non-NZ opposition and I like it (although some modifications would be welcome).
-
@Kirwan No way the NZRU agrees to a one-match, winner-takes-all Bledisloe. Other than losing out on the money from an additional match, there's too much risk that the Wallabies win a one-off and take home the Cup.
A 2-match series, with the opener played in Aus increases the funds, but also gives the Aussies enough of a leg-up in the opening match such that there's a better chance of the 2nd match holding interest (but at the same time putting the odds of retaining the Bledisloe in the ABs' favour).
-
@Stargazer said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@Kirwan Maybe I am missing something? I can't find anything in the article that I posted about Tier 2 & 3 countries.
I read about the (financial) effect the Nations Championship may have on SR and domestic competitions in the SANZAAR countries.I'd hate the idea of merging NPC and SR. NPC for me is purely domestic and still has the tribalism. SR doesn't have the same level of tribalism, but it's a higher level of club rugby against non-NZ opposition and I like it (although some modifications would be welcome).
The nation championship includes promotion and relegation for the other tiers. It’s an integral part of the proposed league, so it’s important to consider that aspect when discussing if it’s worth implementing.
Tier 1 countries have been guilty of only worrying about things effect them in the past.
-
Take Scotland for ex. They're doing OK-ish ATM, but let's say they have a slump, and get relegated. So they are out of the 6N for two years, that's the end of the SRU. Tests against T2 countries are not going to replace the money brought in from the 6N and playing SH sides in the Nov tests. It would literally bankrupt thew SRU. So unless WR are going to guarantee revenue to them, they will not vote for it. And if one T2 country gets T1 levels of revenue, why not the rest. That is the problem that has to be overcome. I dunno if there is the money to do that?
-
@Machpants said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
Take Scotland for ex. They're doing OK-ish ATM, but let's say they have a slump, and get relegated. So they are out of the 6N for two years, that's the end of the SRU. Tests against T2 countries are not going to replace the money brought in from the 6N and playing SH sides in the Nov tests. It would literally bankrupt thew SRU. So unless WR are going to guarantee revenue to them, they will not vote for it. And if one T2 country gets T1 levels of revenue, why not the rest. That is the problem that has to be overcome. I dunno if there is the money to do that?
Haven't they ring fenced the 6N? So Scotland would still be in it, but be in Tier 2 of the Nations Championship?
-
@Kirwan said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@Machpants said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
Take Scotland for ex. They're doing OK-ish ATM, but let's say they have a slump, and get relegated. So they are out of the 6N for two years, that's the end of the SRU. Tests against T2 countries are not going to replace the money brought in from the 6N and playing SH sides in the Nov tests. It would literally bankrupt thew SRU. So unless WR are going to guarantee revenue to them, they will not vote for it. And if one T2 country gets T1 levels of revenue, why not the rest. That is the problem that has to be overcome. I dunno if there is the money to do that?
Haven't they ring fenced the 6N? So Scotland would still be in it, but be in Tier 2 of the Nations Championship?
That wouldn't be possible as Scotland would be in Tier 2 and wouldn't play the other six nations sides in their 11 matches. If Scotland did come last out of the Six Nations sides and lost the relegation match then perhaps they shouldn't be in the top tier. Stopping the expansion and growth of the game because Scotland/Italy are scared IMO are not big enough reasons to stop it.
Scotland could in Theory still play the Calcutta Cup outside the Nations Championship to raise funds.
The flip side is what do Fiji do with all of the money they are about to get in broadcasting if they are in Tier 1. Do all Tier 1 nations get the same cut of the money?
-
@chimoaus said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@Kirwan said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@Machpants said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
Take Scotland for ex. They're doing OK-ish ATM, but let's say they have a slump, and get relegated. So they are out of the 6N for two years, that's the end of the SRU. Tests against T2 countries are not going to replace the money brought in from the 6N and playing SH sides in the Nov tests. It would literally bankrupt thew SRU. So unless WR are going to guarantee revenue to them, they will not vote for it. And if one T2 country gets T1 levels of revenue, why not the rest. That is the problem that has to be overcome. I dunno if there is the money to do that?
Haven't they ring fenced the 6N? So Scotland would still be in it, but be in Tier 2 of the Nations Championship?
That wouldn't be possible as Scotland would be in Tier 2 and wouldn't play the other six nations sides in their 11 matches. If Scotland did come last out of the Six Nations sides and lost the relegation match then perhaps they shouldn't be in the top tier. Stopping the expansion and growth of the game because Scotland/Italy are scared IMO are not big enough reasons to stop it.
The flip side is what do Fiji do with all of the money they are about to get in broadcasting if they are in Tier 1. Do all Tier 1 nations get the same cut of the money?
Thanks. They also get a shot at staying up with the playoff game. If you come last, and can't beat the top team from Tier 2 then perhaps you should go down?
-
Another thing that my happen and feeds off what Sumo is saying is if there is this Nations Championship will All Blacks be rested every year from Super Rugby like they are this year? We have seen that the NZ sides without their All Blacks can struggle and do we have the depth at Super level to continue resting our top players.
-
-
@Stargazer said in World League Rugby / Nations Championship:
@chimoaus I somehow doubt that will happen, because in the Nations Championship they'll play fewer tests than they do now.
I highly doubt they will only play 11 or 12 tests, I would almost guarantee NZ Rugby will schedule at least 2 additional tests to make extra cash. Think a 2nd Bledisloe and a warm up game vs a Pacific Island team taking that total to 13/14.
-
@chimoaus Maybe that's true, but I expect the ABs rest days/breaks will be more like last year's than this year's. And I haven't read anything about maximum squad sizes for the proposed Nations Championship, yet. If not too limited, I expect ABs second or third stringers to play weaker teams such as Japan, Fiji and Italy.
-
I can see a second Bled, but we don't need other tests. The money coming in on this deal would make them pointless. So 12 or 13, of which we get, say Japan and Fiji in RC (rest players for those), same with Italy up north.
The main problem is any one of those tier 1 Nations can veto this, no point saying it's not right out whatever, that's a fact.
Noises from the north about the 6N sale not great... England and France want more, surprise surprise, and England even have a plan to centralise contacts and join another league!
Six Nations unions divided over revenue and Nations Championship plans
The Six Nations countries are in danger of falling out over splitting their income and whether or not to agree to be part of the Nations Championship
-
-
So, this is apparently kaput.
I'm not that surprised, or that bothered. But I was beginning to look forward to a Rugby Championship with Fiji in it (and Japan). Absolutely no word on the future of the RC yet.
-
The player welfare thing is bollox, pretty much what the SR international teams have to do. But they would need more by in from the clubs. But the relegation thing is correct, without HUGE cash parachutes for 2 years from WR those NH Unions would go broke. The chances of England ever being relegated are virtually nil, they've never bottomed out the 6N, but they're rather risk adverse up there!
