Nations Championship?
-
I'm not against it if they can get the structure right. I made the disclaimer before and I'll make it again - this is from an Aussie perspective, and other nations may not see it this way...
The international game is spluttering a bit here. We have great moments (last year's series vs Ireland), but then we have years where we really struggle to draw crowds.
The Rugby Championship is a bit stale, and yes a part of that is due to our team, but the structure plays a role too.
And then we go to the NH where the games are broadly meaningless, played at 3am and only the hardcore even know they are happening.
If we could get some sort of underlying Global League competition, which sees a variety of games that actually have meaning, then it could be great. COULD be great. I'm certainly willing to give it a try.
The international nature of our game is what makes it great, with competitive sides all over the world. At it's best, this comp would play to that strength really well, and provide a compelling reason to watch games throughout the year.
-
Statement from NZ Rugby Chief Executive Steve Tew
New Zealand Rugby continues to advocate for an international rugby calendar that ensures the future growth of the game in New Zealand and around the world, including the Pacific. New Zealand (NZR) Chief Executive Steve Tew said no decisions have been made about the future format for international rugby, with the most recent proposals less than 24 hours old when it was made public.“World Rugby and the national unions including New Zealand Rugby have been working hard to increase the meaning and value of international Test matches. It is well documented that the game is under pressure to grow revenues so the game from the community level up can thrive. It is obvious that here in New Zealand we are under pressure to retain our top talent as the international player and coach market continues to be challenging. In addition we have a huge opportunity to grow the woman’s game in this country that will also require new resources. “We are all working hard to find a balance between a model that delivers what fans are demanding, the welfare of our players, while at the same time ensuring we are preserving the integrity of rugby and providing a pathway for the smaller and developing nations here in Oceania but all around the world to develop and participate. “It is fair to say that taking all of that into account, managing multiple stakeholders is complex. We cannot go into the detail of any of the proposals because there is a layer of commercial sensitivity to these discussions as we are trying to introduce new capital to our game."Having said all that there are some fundamentals that New Zealand Rugby has made very clear from the outset. Any new competition must have a pathway for new and developing countries to join including our pacific neighbours. That is not only fair and the right thing to do, but it also preserves the integrity of any competition. We can not add to the work load burden of our players with out making other adjustments and we are also mindful of the role of our other competitions Investec Super Rugby and Mitre 10 Cup. "World Rugby have been proactive and bought an idea to the table, we have been refining it over several months and a positive spin off has been some real commercial interest in backing it. "Having said that nothing has been decided, we have not agreed to anything at this stage and have always been working to the March World Rugby meetings as the next opportunity to discuss the details. “There’s no simple solution to this, but New Zealand Rugby remains committed to working through the proposals with the right people in the room.”http://www.allblacks.com/News/33774/statement-from-nz-rugby-chief-executive-steve-tew
-
@barbarian while i can sort of understand your position, Australia's biggest problem can't be fixed. Essentially, you are killed by competing with two football codes with broad coverage that run 9 games a weekend, every weekend, for 6 months of the year. And, for a huge amount of fans, they can expect a win on any given weekend.
There is no way Rugby can compete with that. You have 4 teams. At some point you have to play away, which means 4.30pm kicks off if they are in NZ (currently for Qld) or yes, the dreaded overnight games.
I can't see how this format will change that. You won't get any more home tests, you still have to play in NZ and Europe, the best is an extra test in the Asia timezone.
One test v NZ, that might not even be in Aus, is going to force Rugby Aus to change its entire marketing approach as well.
-
@barbarian but as noted in a few places it has huge potential to mess with the domestic or club level game. Where attendance is already an issue, not to mention the death of day time games to promote viewing. All for new ideas but to spike such push back from players associations doesn't speak well for WR consultation.
-
Exclusive: World League 'dead in the water' after leading players intervene over welfare issues
World Rugby’s plan for a new global league of Test matches is said to be “dead in the water” after leading international players took the unprecedented step of speaking out against the proposal.
-
@Nepia said in World League Rugby:
@rotated You seem to be the only one who is looking at this positively - what are your reasons?
Primarily because it is the best model I've seen presented and it's superior to the status quo.
Even if the ABs make the semi-finals and final they will play 1 test less than their current non-RWC year schedule. What's more, the brutal Argentina -> South Africa road trip will be either eliminated or happen bi-annually. Player welfare arguments fall on deaf ears to me - this is a net player welfare improvement at least from a NZ perspective.
It seemingly would decouple the revenue streams from TRC and Super Rugby and potentially lead to a rationalization of the domestic competitions over time.
I am absolutely open to other proposals, but IMO if you are going to criticize a model for leaving the PIs behind at this point you need to propose something that can incorporate them. They bring no revenue and no domestic infrastructure or growth potential - no model I have seen can overcome those obstacles.
-
World Rugby’s plan for a new global league of Test matches is said to be “dead in the water” after leading international players took the unprecedented step of speaking out against the proposal.
Reports of the latest version of World Rugby’s vision, which were published in the New Zealand Herald, sparked outrage on social media after it was revealed the Pacific Islands would be excluded from the 12-team league, with no prospect of promotion or relegation for 12 years.
There were also renewed fears over whether Lions tours would have to be scrapped and if rugby would be broadcast on domestic television as part of the deal.
But Six Nations sources last night said the proposal had been all but killed off by the shock intervention of three of the sport’s most senior figures in England captain Owen Farrell, New Zealand skipper Kieran Read, and reigning World Player of the Year Johnny Sexton.
All three are members of the International Rugby Players Council and after taking part in a conference call of 40 players they warned that welfare issues would render the World League unworkable.
New Zealand skipper Kieran Read
New Zealand skipper Kieran Read was also opposed to the idea CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES
Sexton, who is President of the International Rugby Players Association, said: “It now seems like a commercial deal on the future of the game is being negotiated at a rapid pace with little consideration given to the important points we raised with World Rugby in November.“The issue of player load has never been so topical, however needs to be properly understood. To suggest that players can play five incredibly high-level test matches in consecutive weeks in November [as would be the case under the latest proposals], is out of touch and shows little understanding of the physical strain this brings.”
Read warned of “fatigued players playing a reduced quality of rugby as part of a money-driven, weakened competition” and Farrell added the proposal “doesn’t seem to have considered [player welfare and release issues] properly and shows no sign of improving this already difficult situation.”
World Rugby insiders are thought to have been rocked by the reaction, having been caught by surprise by the release of the players’ statements. And it is thought the intervention by the players will prove decisive in the battle for rugby’s future.
One senior Six Nations source said: “This is dead in the water. We have always been very sceptical about this proposal as there are so many hurdles to overcome, not least the concerns about player welfare, the impact it would have on the World Cup and the disruptions to the domestic season.
“The fact that leading players have also spoken out now shows that it will be an impossible sell now.”
-
My query is what we have now no longer works. We seem to just flow through the seasons waiting for the world cup. The regularity that we play Aus/SA has gotten stale and it seems like an eternity since we had meaningful June tests.
It is a shame we cannot simply have a 12 team round robin with +2-2 relegation and have maybe 3 grades. No semis or finals.
The biggest reason this won't work is broadcasters want guaranteed eyeballs and if Japan, USA, Italy etc drop to 2nd division their income will drop and the broadcaster will have a harder time selling the games.
Also I don't think an extra 10 million is all that much a year. In 12 years time 10 million will not be worth what it is today.
Any ideas on what they should look at doing?
-
@mariner4life I'm not suggesting this will fix those problems. But it might fix one.
Because we have so few games on offer, we need to make every home Wallaby game count.
So that's why it's maddening when we have random friendly games against Scotland or Italy, or a bland RC game against Argentina when both countries are out of the running for the title.
Under this proposal, we still have those games but they now there are some stakes attached. There's a reason to watch, a reason to win.
Add to that a bit of extra $$$, and it could make a legitimate difference here.
-
@Paekakboyz said in World League Rugby:
@barbarian but as noted in a few places it has huge potential to mess with the domestic or club level game. Where attendance is already an issue, not to mention the death of day time games to promote viewing. All for new ideas but to spike such push back from players associations doesn't speak well for WR consultation.
How would it impact the domestic game?
-
@barbarian said in World League Rugby:
@mariner4life I'm not suggesting this will fix those problems. But it might fix one.
Because we have so few games on offer, we need to make every home Wallaby game count.
So that's why it's maddening when we have random friendly games against Scotland or Italy, or a bland RC game against Argentina when both countries are out of the running for the title.
Under this proposal, we still have those games but they now there are some stakes attached. There's a reason to watch, a reason to win.
Add to that a bit of extra $$$, and it could make a legitimate difference here.
they are not friendlies, they are tests. Also i find the way you said that pretty condescending considering for the past few years, those teams have absolutely been your peers (okay, maybe not Italy, they are fucking rubbish).
If you require some points system for the end of the year to get eyeballs, perhaps you have already lost? Is this just coming back to the biggest problem being the Wallabies are a bit rubbish?
-
Lesson here is WR don't appear to have listened and pushed ahead with a plan that has potential, but without player sign-off. You can't just switch consultation on and off with your key resource and expect things to go perfectly to plan. I think nearly everyone involved in rugby wants things to change - but clearly the current offering isn't going to progress.
-
@Paekakboyz Unless, as WR have stated, this was just a proposal mooted 24 hours ago, has been leaked as 'the plan' when it is just 'a possibility'. Now that might also be bollox and backtracking!
-
@barbarian borrowing from what I was hearing this morning on radio. If this deal is tied into a global broadcaster type deal (not confirmed, just conjecture on my part) say with Amazon or another web-based provider it'd drastically reduce $$ for anyone broadcasting at national level. Sky NZ are already battling lower subs after losing rights to the World Cup. If they were to lose all international rugby how much do they think they can charge for super rugby (or whatever might replace that), let alone our national comps.
I know NZR will be working hard to ensure any big jumps/changes in international $$ help support those lower levels. Also aware that's not a unique situation for NZ, but it's another factor in scheme of things. Which is a concern when listening to Nichols and the player comments that WR has started to really push fast with their plans.
