World Rugby Board elections
-
Then fuck them too. Probably pay back for the SWs and the SANZAAR missed opportunity to extend the RC competition and bring both Japan and Fiji into the tent - those two votes would probably make the SANZAR bloc as strong as the 6N.
Another missed opportunity.
-
@booboo So you reckon Asia and Japan voted for Beaumont?
NZR's statement:
NZR Chair, Brent Impey said: “We have a great respect for Bill Beaumont as an individual, and we look forward to continuing to work with him to grow the game globally and keep rugby sustainable across all borders. “We are of course disappointed for Agustin Pichot as he had our vote, and it is important to us that whoever won the election will heed the calls for change to the game. “Gus ran a strong campaign and gave his best effort in a highly principled manner and that is all that can be asked, so we are proud of him. “There is still a level of governance reform that is overdue, and it would be good to see the courage taken to make the decisions needed to ensure the continued sustainability and success of rugby globally – not just for a limited number of Unions and regions.” -
Sources close to Pichot believed the vote was as close as 24-23 in Beaumont’s favour when Japan and Rugby Africa were yet to declare their intentions, but both have backed the incumbent.
World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont vows to deliver change after re-election
Bill Beaumont has pledged to make rugby union ‘better, simpler, safer and more accessible’ after beating Agustín Pichot 28-23 to be re-elected as chairman
-
@Bovidae said in World Rugby Board elections:
@booboo So you reckon Asia and Japan voted for Beaumont?
NZR's statement:
NZR Chair, Brent Impey said: “We have a great respect for Bill Beaumont as an individual, and we look forward to continuing to work with him to grow the game globally and keep rugby sustainable across all borders. “We are of course disappointed for Agustin Pichot as he had our vote, and it is important to us that whoever won the election will heed the calls for change to the game. “Gus ran a strong campaign and gave his best effort in a highly principled manner and that is all that can be asked, so we are proud of him. **“There is still a level of governance reform that is overdue, and it would be good to see the courage taken to make the decisions needed to ensure the continued sustainability and success of rugby globally – not just for a limited number of Unions and regions.”**Think Asia voted Gus.
Chris Jones talking to Devlin just after 12 said:
- PIs (Fiji, Samoa and Oceania) split their votes 2-2
- Asia (Japan and Asia) split their votes 2-2
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Chris-B said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bovidae If Beaumont ended up with 28 votes, then maths tells us SA must have voted for Gus. And you'd imagine the Sanzar countries would have voted as a bloc.
So, Bill got two of the remaining 4.
I guess if you see England playing a test against Tonga....
I think Oceania voted Gus. Tonga don't have a vote.
Yeah - my England game against Tonga would be pay-off for the Oceania vote.
-
SA site seems to show who exactly voted for whom. Many regions did the spineless thing where the country voted one and the region voted the other to stay neutral. In the end, the 6n block being bigger than 4n won it for the old guard. Pichot actually got 1 more vote when the two blocks are omitted
https://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/who-voted-for-whom-in-battle-for-world-rugby-top-job-20200502
-
-
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
What is Norteamerica if it's not US and Canada and why did they split their votes?
Weird ay? The US and Canada are already there. So that leaves Mexico and the Caribbean for North America as I know it.
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
What is Norteamerica if it's not US and Canada and why did they split their votes?
Dennis Dwyer is the man in question. Dwyer, originally from Yorkshire, has lived and refereed and administered rugby in Bermuda for 40 years.
Rugby Americas North (RAN), the grouping of the USA and Canada (who have an extra vote each), Mexico and 17 other countries in and around the Caribbean.
-
Atleast the world nations championship is back on the cards with a draft already been proposed.
Report: Revolutionary 12 team World Nations Championship to be backed by WR
A revolutionary World Nations Championship, involving the top tier of 12 teams in a global competition, is now right back on the agenda
-
-
@mofitzy_ said in World Rugby Board elections:
Not quite sure where to start with this, so many tangents, however I'll give it a go.
@Catogrande
Rugby may be #1 in NZ but it's no longer the dominant force it was, and I can easily see it being just one of many sports codes as they have in Aus if things keep going the way they do. Fair dues to the European game but it is population and geography that are the key factors in it's financial dominance, things that can't be changed. >I'm not sure what this financial dominance you speak of is. Most of the NH unions are not that flush with cash and as previously alluded to, the club game in England (and also in France) is financially in queer street. Do you mean the drain of SH players to the North being the financial dominance? If so that is a club thing and nothing to do with the respective Unions who are busy trying to think of ways to encourage local talent. >
So either they realise they can look inwards except for once every 4 years or keep the status quo (and who knows, in 10 years or so the NH might even win another world cup) and slowly kill the game outside the 6N, or set up a system that means the sport doesn't die outside of the 6N.>
What makes you think the 6N are inward looking? Is it the reluctance to support the annual nations competition? If so I don't see that as being inward looking , in fact far from it. I see that as looking to make the game sustainable, taking into account player welfare, supporter fatigue, financial stability. To my mind there are two main issues with the proposal. Firstly growing the game and providing opportunity for the lower tier nations and I don't see anyone disagreeing with the idea that this would be a positive. Secondly chasing the money. Having the mind set that more rugby = more money without considering the more costs and player welfare. Tell me how that strategy is working out in the SH will you? You know, where rugby is apparently dying on its feet.
I'm not convinced the average punter in Twickenham cares too much if th ANZAC nations never play Ingerlund again as long as he can pretend walloping Italy means something.>
Well here I would probably take the view of virtually every English, Welsh, Scots, Irish and French fan I've ever spoken to, the TV people that pay huge sums of money to televise NHvSH games and the gin related opportunities such games give to the 57 Old Farts at Twickenham over your view. Honestly mate, you couldn't be further from the truth if you spent a day in a fast car driving in the opposite direction.
If the laws were formulated in Aus and NZ, then endless scrum resets and walls of offside players waiting to flop all over a breakdown wouldn't be the issue they are now.>
The laws are formulated by consensus. From a NH viewpoint we'd probably take the view that many of the law changes over recent years have been SH led but in all honesty that would have as much credence as your view. I agree that the current situation with scrum resets (and a few other issues) is awful but in so many cases we have seen a law brought in to combat one thing that simply causes another problem. The scrum problem is acknowledged within WR and I'm pretty sure they are looking at ways to correct this blight, hopefully without the law of unintended consequences applying.
We wouldn't let dodgy frog refs say "we have a deal" then go on to make one of the biggest ref errors in modern rugby,>
Whilst I acknowledge the error and also your pain, if you think this was a NH plot to de-stabilise NZ rugby, you'll be needing your tinfoil hat.
meanwhile Beaumont was no doubt cheering this decision. >
Yes no doubt there is a picture of him somewhere, holding a large gin, puffing on a Havana with a smug grin saying Vive La France.
At least Pichot would have been objective.
Yes, there is a picture of him dressed all in white, with a halo glowing above his head. It's right next to that picture of Beaumont.
-
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mofitzy_ said in World Rugby Board elections:
Not quite sure where to start with this, so many tangents, however I'll give it a go.
@Catogrande
Rugby may be #1 in NZ but it's no longer the dominant force it was, and I can easily see it being just one of many sports codes as they have in Aus if things keep going the way they do. Fair dues to the European game but it is population and geography that are the key factors in it's financial dominance, things that can't be changed. >I'm not sure what this financial dominance you speak of is. Most of the NH unions are not that flush with cash and as previously alluded to, the club game in England (and also in France) is financially in queer street. Do you mean the drain of SH players to the North being the financial dominance? If so that is a club thing and nothing to do with the respective Unions who are busy trying to think of ways to encourage local talent. >
Ireland and project players has nothing to do with clubs. Likewise convicted murderer Kean (a staunch advocate of Beaumont) allowing French clubs to operate in Fiji in breach of regulations, then France ends up with multiple French players despite no historical link to the country.
So either they realise they can look inwards except for once every 4 years or keep the status quo (and who knows, in 10 years or so the NH might even win another world cup) and slowly kill the game outside the 6N, or set up a system that means the sport doesn't die outside of the 6N.>
What makes you think the 6N are inward looking? Is it the reluctance to support the annual nations competition? If so I don't see that as being inward looking , in fact far from it. I see that as looking to make the game sustainable, taking into account player welfare, supporter fatigue, financial stability. To my mind there are two main issues with the proposal. Firstly growing the game and providing opportunity for the lower tier nations and I don't see anyone disagreeing with the idea that this would be a positive. Secondly chasing the money. Having the mind set that more rugby = more money without considering the more costs and player welfare. Tell me how that strategy is working out in the SH will you? You know, where rugby is apparently dying on its feet.
It's more complex than money but rugby will never compete in the Australian market (for example) if the best players aren't playing in the local competition.
I'm not convinced the average punter in Twickenham cares too much if th ANZAC nations never play Ingerlund again as long as he can pretend walloping Italy means something.>
Well here I would probably take the view of virtually every English, Welsh, Scots, Irish and French fan I've ever spoken to, the TV people that pay huge sums of money to televise NHvSH games and the gin related opportunities such games give to the 57 Old Farts at Twickenham over your view. Honestly mate, you couldn't be further from the truth if you spent a day in a fast car driving in the opposite direction.
I read the BBC comments for the announcement. That might not be the fairest representation but they speak for themselves.
If the laws were formulated in Aus and NZ, then endless scrum resets and walls of offside players waiting to flop all over a breakdown wouldn't be the issue they are now.>
The laws are formulated by consensus. From a NH viewpoint we'd probably take the view that many of the law changes over recent years have been SH led but in all honesty that would have as much credence as your view. I agree that the current situation with scrum resets (and a few other issues) is awful but in so many cases we have seen a law brought in to combat one thing that simply causes another problem. The scrum problem is acknowledged within WR and I'm pretty sure they are looking at ways to correct this blight, hopefully without the law of unintended consequences applying.
The laws are formulated by consensus just like the board is voted by consensus i.e. money talks.
We wouldn't let dodgy frog refs say "we have a deal" then go on to make one of the biggest ref errors in modern rugby,>
Whilst I acknowledge the error and also your pain, if you think this was a NH plot to de-stabilise NZ rugby, you'll be needing your tinfoil hat.
meanwhile Beaumont was no doubt cheering this decision. >
Yes no doubt there is a picture of him somewhere, holding a large gin, puffing on a Havana with a smug grin saying Vive La France.
At least Pichot would have been objective.
Yes, there is a picture of him dressed all in white, with a halo glowing above his head. It's right next to that picture of Beaumont.
This was a bit of a dig but the point I was making is that Pichot doesn't fall into the traditional hierarchy. Plenty of talk pre series that the Lions could be an irrelevance if they lose 3-0. As Hansen said an apology would have been nice. A fair chunk of casual and committed NZ supporters were seriously put off by that cowardly act leading to the farcical situation where there are no winners despite one team leading for a grand total of 5 minutes in the series after playing a man up for over 2/3 of the game.
-
@mofitzy_ said in World Rugby Board elections:
First off, apologies if my reply sounded a bit acerbic but I get a bit tired of the argument of SH good, NH bad and the accompanying stereotypes. However, always good to discuss things and exchange views.
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mofitzy_ said in World Rugby Board elections:
Not quite sure where to start with this, so many tangents, however I'll give it a go.
@Catogrande
Rugby may be #1 in NZ but it's no longer the dominant force it was, and I can easily see it being just one of many sports codes as they have in Aus if things keep going the way they do. Fair dues to the European game but it is population and geography that are the key factors in it's financial dominance, things that can't be changed. >I'm not sure what this financial dominance you speak of is. Most of the NH unions are not that flush with cash and as previously alluded to, the club game in England (and also in France) is financially in queer street. Do you mean the drain of SH players to the North being the financial dominance? If so that is a club thing and nothing to do with the respective Unions who are busy trying to think of ways to encourage local talent. >
Ireland and project players has nothing to do with clubs. Likewise convicted murderer Kean (a staunch advocate of Beaumont) allowing French clubs to operate in Fiji in breach of regulations, then France ends up with multiple French players despite no historical link to the country.
I agree that the Irish project player thing was a pretty poor strategy all round, as do most people on the Fern. It is also history now. This is not something that you can look at and pin on the NH or the 6N, it was Ireland alone and not their finest hour. It seems that they came to the same conclusion. The Fiji/French clubs issue is also a bloody scandal and it is also nothing to do with the NH or the 6N. That is some French clubs overstepping the mark (by a long way!) in collusion with a seemingly corrupt Fijian rugby administrator. No conspiracy. Is that a problem for the NH to sort out the French clubs or the SH to sort out the corruption? I don't know really but I do see that Kean is no longer representing Fiji at WR. BTW tarring Beaumont by association because Kean backed him is pretty harsh too mate.> >
So either they realise they can look inwards except for once every 4 years or keep the status quo (and who knows, in 10 years or so the NH might even win another world cup) and slowly kill the game outside the 6N, or set up a system that means the sport doesn't die outside of the 6N.>
What makes you think the 6N are inward looking? Is it the reluctance to support the annual nations competition? If so I don't see that as being inward looking , in fact far from it. I see that as looking to make the game sustainable, taking into account player welfare, supporter fatigue, financial stability. To my mind there are two main issues with the proposal. Firstly growing the game and providing opportunity for the lower tier nations and I don't see anyone disagreeing with the idea that this would be a positive. Secondly chasing the money. Having the mind set that more rugby = more money without considering the more costs and player welfare. Tell me how that strategy is working out in the SH will you? You know, where rugby is apparently dying on its feet.
It's more complex than money but rugby will never compete in the Australian market (for example) if the best players aren't playing in the local competition.
I'm wholly in agreement with this statement and don't see how an annual national tournament is going to help.
I'm not convinced the average punter in Twickenham cares too much if th ANZAC nations never play Ingerlund again as long as he can pretend walloping Italy means something.>
Well here I would probably take the view of virtually every English, Welsh, Scots, Irish and French fan I've ever spoken to, the TV people that pay huge sums of money to televise NHvSH games and the gin related opportunities such games give to the 57 Old Farts at Twickenham over your view. Honestly mate, you couldn't be further from the truth if you spent a day in a fast car driving in the opposite direction.
I read the BBC comments for the announcement. That might not be the fairest representation but they speak for themselves.
You should spend a bit of time reading the comments on any rugby related BBC HYS. it is an hilarious mish-mash of parochial or jingoistic views and downright trolling. It's like getting your political information from the Daily Mail.
If the laws were formulated in Aus and NZ, then endless scrum resets and walls of offside players waiting to flop all over a breakdown wouldn't be the issue they are now.>
The laws are formulated by consensus. From a NH viewpoint we'd probably take the view that many of the law changes over recent years have been SH led but in all honesty that would have as much credence as your view. I agree that the current situation with scrum resets (and a few other issues) is awful but in so many cases we have seen a law brought in to combat one thing that simply causes another problem. The scrum problem is acknowledged within WR and I'm pretty sure they are looking at ways to correct this blight, hopefully without the law of unintended consequences applying.
The laws are formulated by consensus just like the board is voted by consensus i.e. money talks.
Just how is money talking here? Are you suggesting that the make up of the WR council is slanted by bribery, either overt or covert via promises of matches or gate sharing? Haven't seen much evidence of either.
We wouldn't let dodgy frog refs say "we have a deal" then go on to make one of the biggest ref errors in modern rugby,>
Whilst I acknowledge the error and also your pain, if you think this was a NH plot to de-stabilise NZ rugby, you'll be needing your tinfoil hat.
meanwhile Beaumont was no doubt cheering this decision. >
Yes no doubt there is a picture of him somewhere, holding a large gin, puffing on a Havana with a smug grin saying Vive La France.
At least Pichot would have been objective.
Yes, there is a picture of him dressed all in white, with a halo glowing above his head. It's right next to that picture of Beaumont.
This was a bit of a dig but the point I was making is that Pichot doesn't fall into the traditional hierarchy. >
Understand both points. I may have been having a little dig myself.
Plenty of talk pre series that the Lions could be an irrelevance if they lose 3-0.>
As there is on every Lions tour these days
As Hansen said an apology would have been nice.>
To be honest I was quite surprised at Hansen saying that. Not in the traditional Kiwi "get on with it and just beat the bastards next time' manner. Nor is there any real precedence for an official apology. I've seen refs own up to a howler a few times and this would have a been a good candidate for such. not that it makes any difference. You lot know it was the wrong decision, we know it was the wrong decision. It happens. Move on.
A fair chunk of casual and committed NZ supporters were seriously put off by that cowardly act leading to the farcical situation where there are no winners despite one team leading for a grand total of 5 minutes in the series after playing a man up for over 2/3 of the game..
Because sport.
ASTROSLOT Official Link Pragmatic Play Terpercaya 2024