World League thread

errlloyd

sydthebeat wrote: »

so ...im very confused....

how can they expect all nations to play each other once, meaning at least 11 international games each... plus the "area leagues" in which the 6 nations and rugby championship would have 5 games each..... meaning 16 international tests per year.

The 5 tests are included in the 11.

So Ireland's schedule for a World League in an even year)

Feb - March - Play the 6 nations as normal.

June - Play 1 away test against each "Oceania" team (Australia, NZ, Japan)

November - Play 1 home test against each "Africa Americas" team (SA, USA, ARG).

(in an Odd year go away to the Americas Africa and home to the Oceanics).

Final weekend Nov, First weekend December - Play semi finals and finals.




The main change for the SH teams is the Rugby Championship becomes a 6 teams single round robin over 5 weekends with Japan USA.

sydthebeat

errlloyd wrote: »

The 5 tests are included in the 11.

So Ireland's schedule for a World League in an even year)

Feb - March - Play the 6 nations as normal.

June - Play 1 away test against each "Oceania" team (Australia, NZ, Japan)

November - Play 1 home test against each "Africa Americas" team (SA, USA, ARG).

(in an Odd year go away to the Americas Africa and home to the Oceanics).

Final weekend Nov, First weekend December - Play semi finals and finals.




The main change for the SH teams is the Rugby Championship becomes a 6 teams single round robin over 5 weekends with Japan USA.

thats makes a bit more sense, thanks

so in essence the number of games to be played by 8 of the 12 teams is 11 tests, 2 more teams play 12 and the last 2 play 13 tests.... so not actually too dissimilar to the current number. (wales played 12 tests last year)

I do agree with sexton that a 5 game crusade in november is a bit much.

thebaz

can see some merit - financially - but the team coming last must get relegated or at the very least have a playoff - be dreadful to see rugby in Fiji/Georgia etc dwindle - we need more international teams to make rugby more Global - read today that Georgia hope to get a franchise in the Pro 14 - they desrve that at the very least.

would it not make more sense to have it every second year or even every 4 years , sometimes less is more , and rugby seams to be suffering from over-saturation (Greed)

awec

errlloyd wrote: »

The 5 tests are included in the 11.

So Ireland's schedule for a World League in an even year)

Feb - March - Play the 6 nations as normal.

June - Play 1 away test against each "Oceania" team (Australia, NZ, Japan)

November - Play 1 home test against each "Africa Americas" team (SA, USA, ARG).

(in an Odd year go away to the Americas Africa and home to the Oceanics).

Final weekend Nov, First weekend December - Play semi finals and finals.




The main change for the SH teams is the Rugby Championship becomes a 6 teams single round robin over 5 weekends with Japan USA.

This is not what is proposed.

The 3 summer games and 3 Autumn games are randomly decided. In June NH teams will always be away, and in Autumn they'll always be home, but they could be going anywhere in June. Ireland could be away to Argentina, South Africa and Japan in one summer. They aren't grouped into geographic units.

errlloyd

sydthebeat wrote: »

thats makes a bit more sense, thanks

so in essence the number of games to be played by 8 of the 12 teams is 10 tests, 2 more teams play 11 and the last 2 play 12 tests.... so not actually too dissimilar to the current number. (wales played 12 tests last year)

I do agree with sexton that a 5 game crusade in november is a bit much.

Nah everyone has 11 at least. (There are 12 teams you have to play the other 11 of them once). Whether other teams have more is dependent on whether we have like a "plate" and "bowl" final too.

troyzer

thebaz wrote: »

can see some merit - financially - but the team coming last must get relegated or at the very least have a playoff - be dreadful to see rugby in Fiji/Georgia etc dwindle - we need more international teams to make rugby more Global - read today that Georgia hope to get a franchise in the Pro 14 - they desrve that at the very least.

Relegation would have to be at the Six Nations/Rugby Championship level. There is absolutely no way it could ever work.

Can you imagine Scotland getting relegated to the championship? It's utterly unworkable and it would be impossible to make any financial plans.

sydthebeat

errlloyd wrote: »

Nah everyone has 11 at least. (There are 12 teams you have to play the other 11 of them once). Whether other teams have more is dependent on whether we have like a "plate" and "bowl" final too.

ill edit to resolve my crap miscalculations

awec

They will never allow relegation because the unions know if they have one bad season and end up relegated it will destroy them financially.

troyzer

awec wrote: »

They will never allow relegation because the unions know if they have one bad season and end up relegated it will destroy them financially.

Yeah, I don't know how anybody can look at Premiership rugby and say "That's a great idea, relegation has such a positive effect on player welfare and game quality".

errlloyd

awec wrote: »

This is not what is proposed.

The 3 summer games and 3 Autumn games are randomly decided. In June NH teams will always be away, and in Autumn they'll always be home, but they could be going anywhere in June. Ireland could be away to Argentina, South Africa and Japan in one summer. They aren't grouped into geographic units.

The "Oceania" and "Africa America" groups make so much sense from a travel perspective. I would hope they would just do that.

MJohnston

Would this not essentially kill off the Rugby World Cup? Not in terms of scheduling as it seems like they're just taking the year off when that's on, but it just seems like it would completely destroy any specialness that the RWC might have. NH-SH games would just become a rote regularity, rather than something infrequent and unique.

The lockout of the lower tier teams (apart from the rich ones) is a disgrace, and would probably backfire big time in the long run, but Pichot and those lot don't seem to be particularly forward thinking. The blazing irony of Pichot having said this in the past:

"We want to be a global organisation, not an Anglo-Saxon old organisation"

thebaz

troyzer wrote: »

Relegation would have to be at the Six Nations/Rugby Championship level. There is absolutely no way it could ever work.

Can you imagine Scotland getting relegated to the championship? It's utterly unworkable and it would be impossible to make any financial plans.

So the likes of Georgia and Fiji should be shut out , and let rugby fade in these countrys without giving them some goal/hope - Sport is about winning and losing , if losing has no consequences , it will eventually becoming boring - whats wrong with at least a playoff for the team coming last ??

And have a division 2 league underneath for emerging nations

lawred2

thebaz wrote: »

So the likes of Georgia and Fiji should be shut out , and let rugby fade in these countrys without giving them some goal/hope - Sport is about winning and losing , if losing has no consequences , it will eventually becoming boring - whats wrong with at least a playoff for the team coming last ??

And have a division 2 league underneath for emerging nations

I don't think the 5/6 nations has ever been boring because of the absence of relegation..

troyzer

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't think the 5/6 nations has ever been boring because of the absence of relegation..

It's not about being boring. It's about financial ruin.

The key to growing the game is to play more games against Tier 2 nations to the point where they're good enough to join these competitions on their own merit and add value. But it can't come at the expense of a tier 1 country. There aren't really that many of them as it is.

crisco10

Maybe posted already but World Rugby have kicked back..

https://www.world.rugby/news/401100

World Rugby recognises and values the importance of player considerations and input into the annual international competition discussions. However, the manner the International Rugby Players (IRP) organisation has expressed these is surprising given regular engagement throughout this ongoing process. World Rugby’s commitment to player welfare matters is unwavering and we will continue to engage and give full consideration to the welfare of players within the ongoing discussions.

It is inappropriate to comment on specifics whilst wider stakeholder consultation, including with IRP, is ongoing. However, it is important to note that some assumptions made in the statement regarding the proposed competition structure are inaccurate and that important matters such as playing load and emerging nation opportunities are at the heart of constructive dialogue on the overall concept.

Consumer research confirms a structured annual competition would make fans and new audiences more likely to watch, attend and engage with international rugby, exposing the sport to new fans worldwide. There is also no doubt that a structured annual international competition would deliver significantly greater long-term global media revenue for reinvestment in the global game. This project has at its heart long-term growth and stability, not short-term wins, and that includes greater opportunity for players.

As instructed by our Executive Committee and the Unions, we remain committed to a process of constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, including the IRP, to deliver a model that ensures the best-possible competition and commercial outcomes for all and a truly exciting and meaningful annual international competition structure that is great for players, clubs, fans and unions.

sydthebeat

crisco10 wrote: »

Maybe posted already but World Rugby have kicked back..

https://www.world.rugby/news/401100

world rugby are making the age old mistake of reacting to a problem instead of getting ahead of it.

instead of saying

"assumptions made in the statement regarding the proposed competition structure are inaccurate and that important matters such as playing load and emerging nation opportunities are at the heart of constructive dialogue on the overall concept"

just come out straight with what the concept is....... and what dialogue has to happen to make it work.

irishbucsfan

If only there were structured annual competitions in international rugby!

Squidgy Black

sydthebeat wrote: »

world rugby are making the age old mistake of reacting to a problem instead of getting ahead of it.

instead of saying just come out straight with what the concept is....... and what dialogue has to happen to make it work.

It's almost like they're a boards poster during the international windows, they just react instantly and don't bother to clarify what they're talking about.

awec

They'll solve the playing load problem by putting the onus on clubs to play less games.

I am not totally against this, the problem is I don't see how it can work without radical change, and I doubt there is much appetite for radical change. What I fear will happen is we'll simply see test players barely play for their club. The situation today is pretty terrible, this is just going to make it worse.

troyzer

awec wrote: »

They'll solve the playing load problem by putting the onus on clubs to play less games.

I am not totally against this, the problem is I don't see how it can work without radical change, and I doubt there is much appetite for radical change. What I fear will happen is we'll simply see test players barely play for their club. The situation today is pretty terrible, this is just going to make it worse.

It's not going to work in France or England.

This proposal is just dead before it even gets started. I have no idea why they're wasting energy on it.

swiwi_

There’s something about seeing the word “league” that doesn’t sit right with me. Might be enough to get me marching in the streets.

troyzer

swiwi_ wrote: »

There’s something about seeing the word “league” that doesn’t sit right with me. Might be enough to get me marching in the streets.

They couldn't use the word championship again.

lawred2

troyzer wrote: »

They couldn't use the word championship again.

How about the Rugby World Cup?

oh no hang on... think that's taken

Exclamation Marc

As said already, with English and French teams pushing for extended seasons, this will be a non-runner.

Amazing how a suggestion to cut the Six Nations down to six weeks was shot down but apparently inordinately elongating the international calendar is a runner?

It's too awkward and will threaten the Heineken Cup with injuries and player fatigue and seriously threaten to reduce the Pro14 to an 'A' league. I'd be shocked if this comes to fruition.

awec

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

As said already, with English and French teams pushing for extended seasons, this will be a non-runner.

Amazing how a suggestion to cut the Six Nations down to six weeks was shot down but apparently inordinately elongating the international calendar is a runner?

It's too awkward and will threaten the Heineken Cup with injuries and player fatigue and seriously threaten to reduce the Pro14 to an 'A' league. I'd be shocked if this comes to fruition.

The Pro14 is already an A league.

This would make it even worse and pretty much kill the league stone dead in terms of interest. The French and English will oppose this, but the Pro14 stands to lose a lot out of this given we have much less room for any further dilution of the product. If England players play 1 or 2 less games over a season for their club then it's not great, but in the pro14 you are talking about players who already barely play for their clubs playing even less.

Former Former

crisco10 wrote: »

Maybe posted already but World Rugby have kicked back..

https://www.world.rugby/news/401100

Have they kicked back, or have they pretty much confirmed that the reports are correct? Looks like the latter to me.

thomond2006

Yeah, that's more or less confirmation that this is a go.

tototoe

awec wrote: »

The Pro14 is already an A league.

This would make it even worse and pretty much kill the league stone dead in terms of interest.

The pro14 needs to be looked at anyway tbh. Interest is low enough as it stands. The fannying about with TV rights didn't help imo but it's not a strong league in any shape or form in its current guise.

Tigerandahalf

I wonder what is going to happen with the club game. The Premiership and Top14 won't be happy but I presume they can't just break away and refuse to release players. They are bound by World Rugby rules and release windows.

I wonder should the leagues just include non international players and then have a Champions Cup competition that includes the international players.
I really can't see a resolution to the club game unless a European league comes about (replaces the CC).

Exclamation Marc

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I wonder what is going to happen with the club game. The Premiership and Top14 won't be happy but I presume they can't just break away and refuse to release players. They are bound by World Rugby rules and release windows.

I wonder should the leagues just include non international players and then have a Champions Cup competition that includes the international players.
I really can't see a resolution to the club game unless a European league comes about (replaces the CC).

They will just ensure players retire before they sign them to mega money deals. Whilst you likely can't explicitly build that in, there are ways you can structure a contract to ensure that it applies in effect anyway.

The World Cup will crumble because it will simply be a glorified World League with additional fodder teams given that any decent non-World League player will retire and sign to an English or French club.

Tigerandahalf

You do have the Currie Cup in SA and the Mitre 10 Cup in NZ as secondary competitions to the main Super Rugby competition. So that is one area too look at.

The Pro14, Top 14 and the Premiership could go back to fta tv, let wages become realistic and let home grown players have a chance to develop.
It is probable that the pro14 wouldn't survive and you would have to go back to national leagues again.

Who win will win out? The union national teams or the privately backed clubs? That is the biggest dilemna at the moment.

Cookiemunster

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

You do have the Currie Cup in SA and the Mitre 10 Cup in NZ as secondary competitions to the main Super Rugby competition. So that is one area too look at.

The Pro14, Top 14 and the Premiership could go back to fta tv, let wages become realistic and let home grown players have a chance to develop.
It is probable that the pro14 wouldn't survive and you would have to go back to national leagues again.

Who win will win out? The union national teams or the privately backed clubs? That is the biggest dilemna at the moment.

And that would be a compete and utter disaster for the national teams of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy, so isn't going to happen.

Dave_The_Sheep

So, what are the odds that the 6N unions actually go along with this? Seeing as how they seem to have the most to lose.

Cookiemunster

https://twitter.com/brettgosper/status/1101129411414425600

Being based in Dublin, are they taking notes from the Irish Governments kite flying exercises? With the statement from WR earlier and this tweet from Gosper, I think they've been taken aback by the near universal backlash.

Former Former

Actually, it turns out we all love this idea:

https://twitter.com/brettgosper/status/1101131865073815552

awec

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

You do have the Currie Cup in SA and the Mitre 10 Cup in NZ as secondary competitions to the main Super Rugby competition. So that is one area too look at.

The Pro14, Top 14 and the Premiership could go back to fta tv, let wages become realistic and let home grown players have a chance to develop.
It is probable that the pro14 wouldn't survive and you would have to go back to national leagues again.

Who win will win out? The union national teams or the privately backed clubs? That is the biggest dilemna at the moment.

Super Rugby is a minimum of 16 games for every team. The Champions Cup is just 6.

The Champions Cup is completely unsuitable, in it's current format, to be the main competition for NH teams.

Utah_Saint

Former Former wrote: »

Actually, it turns out we all love this idea:

https://twitter.com/brettgosper/status/1101131865073815552

Gosper Stats.....

joseywhales

The issue is always the same, ring fencing. I don't mind diluting the 6n having leagues of 8 maybe with promotion demotion. I would happily watch a 2nd tier eight competition. This is meritocratic and gives any competition integrity. And to sideline the most naturally entertaining rugby nation's for whom rugby is Central to their culture is like ripping the heart out of rugby. You can trash all current competitions and restructure but they have to take the opportunity to create an open route from bottom to top.

who_me

Apologies for being late to this disaster..

The proposal has been under consideration for several months now and has seemingly won universal support from the 12 nations who will be involved.

Yeah, no ****. Once we're on the right side of the door, it's ok to shut it.

Elitist ring fencing. Screwing the smaller nations. Making Rugby Tedious Again. (Same nations playing year after year after year after year...). Money rules.

Blech.

Anyone forming a petition just to make it clear this isn't the "fans' choice" ?

stephen_n

who_me wrote: »

Apologies for being late to this disaster..



Yeah, no ****. Once we're on the right side of the door, it's ok to shut it.

Elitist ring fencing. Screwing the smaller nations. Making Rugby Tedious Again. (Same nations playing year after year after year after year...). Money rules.

Blech.

Anyone forming a petition just to make it clear this isn't the "fans' choice" ?

Off you go

Tigerandahalf

The idea of promotion/relegation in the 6N is completely unworkable. Wait til Ireland get relegated and you are playing Romania, Spain and Germany. No tv broadcaster would touch it.
Imagine Sky paying millions and then England getting relegated.

The South Sea teams have been going nowhere for years. They don't have the population base to make progress.

I presume this will also have an impact on the voting numbers countries get at world rugby board level.

Neil3030

Absolutely needs to be relegation/promotion between this super league and a league comprised of the Tier 2 nations, or else this thing is utter protectionist BS.

lawred2

Neil3030 wrote: »

Absolutely needs to be relegation/promotion between this super league and a league comprised of the Tier 2 nations, or else this thing is utter protectionist BS.

Can't happen. Not when the six nations forms a consituent part of the competition.

recyclebin

This World League is totally unnecessary.

Could they not expand the Rugby Championship to 6 teams (2 from USA, Japan, Fiji and Tonga)

Then the top two from the 6 Nations and the top 2 from Rugby Championship go straight through to semi finals and final in November.

Also have relegation/promotion playoffs for both the six nations and the rugby championship.

This would mean three extra big games and give the smaller teams something to fight for.

Neil3030

lawred2 wrote: »

Can't happen. Not when the six nations forms a consituent part of the competition.

Absolutely can happen. But absolutely won't.

I'd actually really like the idea if it had such a mechanism.

Blut2

Good BBC article on this here:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/47408903

The cliffnotes is the author believes the idea is dead in the water because it wouldn't add enough financial incentives for the 6Nations teams for them to risk the additional games, the added catastrophic risk of relegation, and the destruction of the Lions. Which seems reasonable.

The Southern Hemisphere teams are the ones in serious financial problems who'd benefit most from the idea. Adding Japan & the US to an expanded Rugby Championship won't help with the quality of rugby, but might help with the finances a bit at least. I can see that happening in lieu of the grander World League scheme.

Tigerandahalf

Interesting quote from that bbc article

'World Rugby know that the Six Nations are exploring an idea that would see them pool their own TV revenues for the first time for their championship and autumn internationals. They've even got a name for the concept - Project Light. They're on the lookout for 'partners'. If that deal comes to pass then a World League is dead in the water and the financial problems of Australia and Argentina, in particular, carry on.'

So are the 6N teams looking to pay tv for all 6N/Autumn games to be sold as a whole.
In fairness the autumn internationals were a disaster this year for tv as games regularly overlapped.

You could certainly see Sky being interested in the UK/Ire rights.

troyzer

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Interesting quote from that bbc article

'World Rugby know that the Six Nations are exploring an idea that would see them pool their own TV revenues for the first time for their championship and autumn internationals. They've even got a name for the concept - Project Light. They're on the lookout for 'partners'. If that deal comes to pass then a World League is dead in the water and the financial problems of Australia and Argentina, in particular, carry on.'

So are the 6N teams looking to pay tv for all 6N/Autumn games to be sold as a whole.
In fairness the autumn internationals were a disaster this year for tv as games regularly overlapped.

You could certainly see Sky being interested in the UK/Ire rights.

It makes absolutely no sense that all test matches hosted in Europe aren't organised under the Six Nations commercial umbrella. This is a no-brainer.

thebaz

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't think the 5/6 nations has ever been boring because of the absence of relegation..

Watching Italy lose every game becomes boring , I actually think it would help them if they played a competive playoff with Georgia , they would probably win , but at least they would win a competive game - continusually losing games with no consequences is not competive, and will eveventually become a turnoff for everyone

troyzer

thebaz wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't think the 5/6 nations has ever been boring because of the absence of relegation..

Watching Italy lose every game becomes boring , I actually think it would help them if they played a competive playoff with Georgia , they would probably win , but at least they would win a competive game - continusually losing games with no consequences is not competive, and will eveventually become a turnoff for everyone

You're still missing the point. France for example are paying a fortune to play in the Stade de Fraince and I think it's widely accepted they should get their own stadium.

What happens if they build their stadium, have a bad year, get relegated and their income collapses? Then they can't pay for the stadium and suddenly are in a financial crisis.

Equally, what if Ireland have a bad year and suddenly there's no cash to honour central contracts which are then voided and our stars **** off to France?

There is a reason why relegation can't be allowed, it's utterly toxic and it has an awful effect on the premiership where players are flogged and tactical creativity is shunned in favour of a desperate win now mentality.

And let's say Georgia with it's small, poor population replaces France. The total income of the entire tournament would then drop considerably after losing one of its most lucrative members.

I want Georgia to play more tier 1 opponents and play their way into the Six Nations. But relegation is madness.