World League thread

awec

Former Former wrote: »

IIRC they beat most of the Five Nations teams in the years leading up to their inclusion. I don't think Georgia have ever beaten a tier 1 team, despite the fact that they would always be playing against second/third string teams. I don't think they're comparable tbh.

As for ditching the 6N; I would have absolutely no interest in a European rugby championship and I'd class myself as a rugby obsessive bordering on weird. If I wouldn't watch it, do you think the wider public would? And if no one watches it, where does the money come from?

And if there's no money coming in to the national team, what happens to Irish rugby?

Agree, no interest in a european championship.

One of the good things about the six nations is the lack of dirt tracker games. That's a big part of what makes it such a good competition. No interest in seeing Ireland send the B team to Georgia, Romania etc every year.

I would be more open to a European club league, something closer to Super Rugby. I think that's more likely to be successful, but it will also never happen.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

IIRC they beat most of the Five Nations teams in the years leading up to their inclusion. I don't think Georgia have ever beaten a tier 1 team, despite the fact that they would always be playing against second/third string teams. I don't think they're comparable tbh.

They beat us and then Scotland once. They did not beat most of the 5 Nations teams.

They also beat France but at the time France were playing in the FIRA Trophy. It wasn’t a full French team, they actually sent their army side for some of the games. The team they beat would be comparable to Georgia playing the Irish Clubs team.

Italy were included because England were playing around with TV rights. It was political.

AbusesToilets

Rather than this crazy World League idea, I'd rather see a European tournament, offset from the WC, where the 6Ns and the Rugby Europe countries play mini tournament. It gives more games against the developing sides, allows them to be better assessed against the 6Ns teams and still allows for something like the Lions, as the 6Ns teams could use it as an opportunity for player development.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Agree, no interest in a european championship.

One of the good things about the six nations is the lack of dirt tracker games. That's a big part of what makes it such a good competition. No interest in seeing Ireland send the B team to Georgia, Romania etc every year.

I would be more open to a European club league, something closer to Super Rugby. I think that's more likely to be successful, but it will also never happen.

Ireland wouldn’t be playing Georgia or Romania every year.

You just move the 6 Nations to become the top division of the Rugby Europe Championship and have a single playoff every year between the winner of the 2nd division and the loser of the top division.

awec

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Rather than this crazy World League idea, I'd rather see a European tournament, offset from the WC, where the 6Ns and the Rugby Europe countries play mini tournament. It gives more games against the developing sides, allows them to be better assessed against the 6Ns teams and still allows for something like the Lions, as the 6Ns teams could use it as an opportunity for player development.

There is no time to fit that into the calendar.

The only test windows are Feb/March, June and November.

Feb/March is 6N so you can rule that out.

The NH teams need the SH teams to visit in November cause they bring in so much money. So you can rule out November.

And in order for the SH teams to visit in November, the NH teams need to go south in June and return the favour. So you can rule that out too.

AbusesToilets

Rather than this crazy World League idea, I'd rather see a European tournament, offset from the WC, where the 6Ns and the Rugby Europe countries play mini tournament. It gives more games against the developing sides, allows them to be better assessed against the 6Ns teams and still allows for something like the Lions, as the 6Ns teams could use it as an opportunity for player development

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ireland wouldn’t be playing Georgia or Romania every year.

You just move the 6 Nations to become the top division of the Rugby Europe Championship and have a single playoff every year between the winner of the 2nd division and the loser of the top division.

So basically a Six Nations where Italy beat Georgia each year in a playoff?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

So basically a Six Nations where Italy beat Georgia each year in a playoff?

Or France. Or us. And they could be playing Romania. Ensure the revenue from that playoff is shared and you’ll find the gap starts to close.

This structure already exists for all rugby in Europe. Playoffs and all. It’s just the Six Nations aren’t in Europe supposedly.

thomond2006

You can't do a relegation/promotion playoff every year. A Six Nations team with a nasty schedule on odd/even years would be caught out. It would have to be done every two years.

Former Former

thomond2006 wrote: »

You can't do a relegation/promotion playoff every year. A Six Nations team with a nasty schedule on odd/even years would be caught out. It would have to be done every two years.

You can't do it at all.

This is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

irishbucsfan

thomond2006 wrote: »

You can't do a relegation/promotion playoff every year. A Six Nations team with a nasty schedule on odd/even years would be caught out. It would have to be done every two years.

No you absolutely could do it every year. We accept the schedule to determine the winner anyway, it’s just part of the competition.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Or France. Or us. And they could be playing Romania. Ensure the revenue from that playoff is shared and you’ll find the gap starts to close.

This structure already exists for all rugby in Europe. Playoffs and all. It’s just the Six Nations aren’t in Europe supposedly.

Will you?

Italy have been in the Six Nations for 19 years and are still miles off the other 5 teams.

Not sure the throwing money will make teams better argument really stacks up.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

You can't do it at all.

This is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

It’s not that they can’t. It’s that they won’t.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They beat us and then Scotland once. They did not beat most of the 5 Nations teams.

They also beat France but at the time France were playing in the FIRA Trophy. It wasn’t a full French team, they actually sent their army side for some of the games. The team they beat would be comparable to Georgia playing the Irish Clubs team.

Could the Irish Clubs field players of the calibre of Sadourny, Saint-Andre, Pelous, Tournaire?? Jaysus I must get out and watch some more AIL.

Even if France didn't really give a f**k and Ireland were rubbish and Scotland were rubbish, that was still three Five Nations teams beaten. Georgia have never beaten anyone of note, regardless of what XV they've faced or how disinterested the opposition.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Italy were included because England were playing around with TV rights. It was political.

Maybe, but if we've learned anything from the last 24 hours, it's that everything is political.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It’s not that they can’t. It’s that they won’t.

I'll rephrase.

You can't do it without bankrupting the existing Six Nations unions.

This is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

lawred2

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It’s not that they can’t. It’s that they won’t.

that's the same thing really

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

I'll rephrase.

You can't do it without bankrupting the existing Six Nations unions.

This is pie-in-the-sky stuff.

Well that’s just nonsense.

Bankrupting them!

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Will you?

Italy have been in the Six Nations for 19 years and are still miles off the other 5 teams.

Not sure the throwing money will make teams better argument really stacks up.

The Six Nations has never had shared revenue. So not a valid example.

However I never said throwing money at them would make them better. That’s a straw man.

However regularly playing a tier one team in a game that truly matters which is profitable for them would improve them. And it’d improve the quality of Rugby Europe as a product if there is more to play for every year.

Italy haven’t really improved because they were never given the platform. A lot of that is their own fault, their leadership was a disaster and they were plagued by infighting. But being guaranteed a place in lucrative competitions regardless of performance levels of their teams almost certainly contributed to that.

MJohnston

I'm curious - to those who are dismissing the idea of a relegation system in the Six Nations, what is your solution to this World League idea being a walled garden?

Do you prefer it be kept to the initial 12?

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well that’s just nonsense.

Bankrupting them!

Wales and Scotland are always on a knife-edge. IRFU is better off but still utterly dependent on the TV income from the Six Nations.

Bringing in the spectre of relegation slashes the value of TV rights. That slashes the main income stream of the unions. Maybe RFU and FFR will be OK, the smaller unions would really, really struggle. It wouldn't take much to tip them over the edge.

But hey, so long as Georgia get a shot at conceding 80-90 points per match.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

Wales and Scotland are always on a knife-edge. IRFU is better off but still utterly dependent on the TV income from the Six Nations.

Bringing in the spectre of relegation slashes the value of TV rights. That slashes the main income stream of the unions. Maybe RFU and FFR will be OK, the smaller unions would really, really struggle. It wouldn't take much to tip them over the edge.

But hey, so long as Georgia get a shot at conceding 80-90 points per match.

You’ve literally no idea the effect it would have on TV revenues. A VC firm like CVC could easily come in and take on the risk of a large relegation and look at the potential growth in revenue from expanding the market of rugby across Europe as an attractive opportunity. CVC are already knocking on their door.

But yeah. On the one hand, Georgia are going to lose every game by 80-90 points. On the other hand, they’re going to be good enough to beat one of the teams in a relegation playoff! As long as it suits!

You’re taking in certainties but they’re based on nothing here.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You’ve literally no idea the effect it would have on TV revenues. A VC firm like CVC could easily come in and take on the risk of a large relegation and look at the potential growth in revenue from expanding the market of rugby across Europe as an attractive opportunity. CVC are already knocking on their door.

But yeah. On the one hand, Georgia are going to lose every game by 80-90 points. On the other hand, they’re going to be good enough to beat one of the teams in a relegation playoff! As long as it suits!

You’re taking in certainties but they’re based on nothing here.

This is total pie in the sky, wishful thinking stuff.


CVC knocked on the door of the six nations. How much potential revenue growth do you see from the likes of Georgia, Romania, Spain etc?

AdamD

Could turn the 6n into a format similar to the u20s world cup.

2 groups of 4:
6 teams from current 6n
2 top teams from Rugby Europe Championship (Georgia + Russia)

Group A:
Ireland
Scotland
England
Russia

Group B:
Wales
France
Italy
Georgia

Play each team in your group once (3 games).
Winner from group A plays runner up from group B in semi finals
Winner from Group B plays runner up from group A in semi finals
Winners play in final. Losers play in 3rd place play off. 5 matches for all teams involved.

3rd place group A plays 4th group B.
3rd place group B plays 4th group A.
Winners play 5th place play off. Losers play in relegation play off. 5 matches for all teams. Team who comes in 8th place gets relegated and replaced by top team from Rugby Europe Championship of that year.

Of course you lose some of the history of the event but there aren't many crap matches added and you get 2 more teams playing T1 rugby.

connemara man

AdamD wrote: »

Could turn the 6n into a format similar to the u20s world cup.

2 groups of 4:
6 teams from current 6n
2 top teams from Rugby Europe Championship (Georgia + Russia)

Group A:
Ireland
Scotland
England
Russia

Group B:
Wales
France
Italy
Georgia

Play each team in your group once (3 games).
Winner from group A plays runner up from group B in semi finals
Winner from Group B plays runner up from group A in semi finals
Winners play in final. Losers play in 3rd place play off. 5 matches for all teams involved.

3rd place group A plays 4th group B.
3rd place group B plays 4th group A.
Winners play 5th place play off. Losers play in relegation play off. 5 matches for all teams. Team who comes in 8th place gets relegated and replaced by top team from Rugby Europe Championship of that year.

Of course you lose some of the history of the event but there aren't many crap matches added and you get 2 more teams playing T1 rugby.

Increase it to 10 teams add Spain and Russia
No semifinals final positions sorted by a 1st Vs 1st 2nd Vs 2nd etc...

Bottom 2 teams go into a relegation match every November or summer...

Former Former

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm curious - to those who are dismissing the idea of a relegation system in the Six Nations, what is your solution to this World League idea being a walled garden?

Do you prefer it be kept to the initial 12?

I think this whole discussion is about the difference between what people would like and what can feasibly happen.

The Six Nations is not an option for the likes of Georgia. It's just not and no amount of wishing will make it so. It's like saying we should all give up meat and air travel to save the environment; great in theory, absolutely never going to happen in reality.

On the other hand, starting a brand-new global tournament does provide the opportunity for teams like Fiji, Georgia, Samoa, Canada to have meaningful games and something concrete to aim for. It's a question of how best to do that.

Unfortunately, putting in place a system that could conceivably allow Italy, USA and Japan to be replaced by Georgia, Fiji and Samoa within three years wipes a huge amount off the potential market value of such a tournament, and this is why we saw the proposals that came out yesterday.

I hope that some system can be figured out, but it will require the established unions to say, OK, we are going to take a hit to help out the little guys, and they do not have a good track record on that.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

This is total pie in the sky, wishful thinking stuff.


CVC knocked on the door of the six nations. How much potential revenue growth do you see from the likes of Georgia, Romania, Spain etc?

Yes. It is pie in the sky wishful thinking stuff. That’s entirely the point. The entire thread is here as a result of pie in the sky wishful thinking from Pichot.

Revenue growth from Georgia or Romania would be very limited individually. Just as it has been in Italy. You’re looking from growth across the board by increasing the quality of the competition in general, and places like Germany/Spain would be the big markets you’d hope for growth from, hopefully without putting them on a pedestal.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I’ve yet to hear a single coherent reason that Italy should be allowed to lose every game every year with no relegation play off. Or a single rugby reason why Georgia losing every game wouldn’t be significantly worse for the competition than Italy losing every game.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes. It is pie in the sky wishful thinking stuff. That’s entirely the point. The entire thread is here as a result of pie in the sky wishful thinking from Pichot.

Revenue growth from Georgia or Romania would be very limited individually. Just as it has been in Italy. You’re looking from growth across the board by increasing the quality of the competition in general, and places like Germany/Spain would be the big markets you’d hope for growth from, hopefully without putting them on a pedestal.

Italy is the 8th largest economy in the world.

That's the difference. A small amount of highly concentrated interest is enough.

lawred2

AdamD wrote: »

Could turn the 6n into a format similar to the u20s world cup.

2 groups of 4:
6 teams from current 6n
2 top teams from Rugby Europe Championship (Georgia + Russia)

Group A:
Ireland
Scotland
England
Russia

Group B:
Wales
France
Italy
Georgia

Play each team in your group once (3 games).
Winner from group A plays runner up from group B in semi finals
Winner from Group B plays runner up from group A in semi finals
Winners play in final. Losers play in 3rd place play off. 5 matches for all teams involved.

3rd place group A plays 4th group B.
3rd place group B plays 4th group A.
Winners play 5th place play off. Losers play in relegation play off. 5 matches for all teams. Team who comes in 8th place gets relegated and replaced by top team from Rugby Europe Championship of that year.

Of course you lose some of the history of the event but there aren't many crap matches added and you get 2 more teams playing T1 rugby.

I would hate that if it meant there was a chance of not playing any of France, England, Wales, Scotland in any given year

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

Italy is the 8th largest economy in the world.

That's the difference. A small amount of highly concentrated interest is enough.

So by that logic we should kick them out and put Germany into the competition in their place?

That’s it a rugby reason. Which is what I asked for.

AbusesToilets

Spain and Germany are the countries we should be looking to bring along. They have larger potential for growth, have shown increased enthusiasm for the sport recently and are much friendlier travel destinations.

Getting a team from each into the Pro14 would be a good stepping stone to including them in an expanded 6Ns set up. With a structured development plan, it could allow for the market to grow in those countries to the point where they wouldn't be a drain on the fashion Georgia would be.

thebaz

Former Former wrote: »

I

On the other hand, starting a brand-new global tournament does provide the opportunity for teams like Fiji, Georgia, Samoa, Canada to have meaningful games and something concrete to aim for. It's a question of how best to do that.

Reallyy ???? I think nearly everyone agrees that the smaller nations will lose if the proposed ring fenced competition goes through - any way its all pie in the sky stuff, sometimes I think thats how a lot of modern professional rugby seams to move - I think a soceer style European Championchip every 4 years might be an idea , that would bring in Romania and Georgia and Russia once every 4 years. Again another pie in the sky idea , but I would like to see rugby grow globally.

thomond2006

https://www.pacificrugbywelfare.com/blog/prpw-rugby-world-cup-boycott

Well this is interesting...

thebaz

well this is more encouraging - some of the Super powers want tier 2 countrys included (according to Indo)
https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/all-blacks-and-australia-insist-that-pacific-island-nations-and-emerging-european-sides-must-be-included-in-world-league-37867835.html

MJohnston

thomond2006 wrote: »

https://www.pacificrugbywelfare.com/blog/prpw-rugby-world-cup-boycott

Well this is interesting...

Good on them, hopefully this stupid World League idea gets rethought entirely.

sydthebeat

the inclusion of the US in this is what stinks to high heavens...

ozzyo

If they are intent on going ahead with this then it should be the top 12 teams in the world rankings that qualify, regardless of of how much money a particular team would generate.

troyzer

ozzyo wrote: »

If they are intent on going ahead with this then it should be the top 12 teams in the world rankings that qualify, regardless of of how much money a particular team would generate.

Thus defeating the purpose of the world league which is:

Growing the game in the US could be huge for the sport

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

Growing the game in the US could be huge for the sport

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

In fairness in that case there is very little difference between the USA or Fiji.

Tigerandahalf

sydthebeat wrote: »

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

The USA could sell out a 50,000 ground for games against Ire, NZ and possibly England. It makes complete sense to include them.

When will the South Sea teams ever get a 50,000 crowd.

It wouldn't take long for the USA to get up to strength. They have plenty of speedsters and bulk from other codes and they could always 'borrow' a European player or two (AJ McGinty is a fine 10 for example) to fill key positions.

This is actually a great chance to expand the game there. I think their 7s side are doing very well at the moment too.

I wonder what base city the USA would use?
Chicago seems like a good option. You would need a permanent base there. It would be a great season ticket option - guaranteed to see the big teams and then they would go along to the other ones.

stephen_n

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I wonder what base city the USA would use?
Chicago seems like a good option. You would need a permanent base there. It would be a great season ticket option - guaranteed to see the big teams and then they would go along to the other ones.

If they want to grow the game in the states, I’d say they would move the games around the cities.

AbusesToilets

sydthebeat wrote: »

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

I'd rather they look to build on the American Rugby Cup, give it more promotion and visibility. We've all seen the clips of the Brazilian scrum monstering teams lately, there's talent and potential in these countries that should be nurtured. With the launch of Major League Rugby, there is finally a viable looking professional set up in North America. Talk of having US teams in the ProX or RC is a terrible idea.

Give these leagues time to build on their own, the long term dividends could be much better than trying to shoehorn them into the European or SANZAAR scene.

sydthebeat

stephen_n wrote: »

In fairness in that case there is very little difference between the USA or Fiji.

in that case yeah, but thats not my original point

theres a huge difference in prospect for both... the USA already have their own professional league.. and a clear path of a natural and organic progression

Fiji have no professional team, young players enticed abroad for economic reasons, test team offered crumbs for touring and then their best players pressurised into retiring early from international scene......

if World rugby wants these teams to survive (georgia, tonga, samoa, fiji etc) then they need to help them out.... which they arent doing.
All actions point to world rugby wanting them to go away.

troyzer

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

the game is growing fine as it is.....
having their national team get the sh!t kicked out of them for 8 or 9 games a year wouldnt be.

The USA could sell out a 50,000 ground for games against Ire, NZ and possibly England. It makes complete sense to include them.

When will the South Sea teams ever get a 50,000 crowd.

It wouldn't take long for the USA to get up to strength. They have plenty of speedsters and bulk from other codes and they could always 'borrow' a European player or two (AJ McGinty is a fine 10 for example) to fill key positions.

This is actually a great chance to expand the game there. I think their 7s side are doing very well at the moment too.

I wonder what base city the USA would use?
Chicago seems like a good option. You would need a permanent base there. It would be a great season ticket option - guaranteed to see the big teams and then they would go along to the other ones.

Colorado is the spiritual home of American rugby and it's the only place where there are purpose built rugby grounds.

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

in that case yeah, but thats not my original point

theres a huge difference in prospect for both... the USA already have their own professional league.. and a clear path of a natural and organic progression

Fiji have no professional team, young players enticed abroad for economic reasons, test team offered crumbs for touring and then their best players pressurised into retiring early from international scene......

if World rugby wants these teams to survive (georgia, tonga, samoa, fiji etc) then they need to help them out.... which they arent doing.
All actions point to world rugby wanting them to go away.

I’m not defending this (alleged) selection of teams. If they are going to pick 12 teams it shouldn’t be arbitrary or based on revenue. However in terms of probable results, I’d say there’s very little difference between what either will achieve.

I don’t think any rugby fans want what’s being suggested. It’s not going to help develop the game anywhere.

Jump_In_Jack

AdamD wrote: »

Could turn the 6n into a format similar to the u20s world cup.

2 groups of 4:
6 teams from current 6n
2 top teams from Rugby Europe Championship (Georgia + Russia)

Group A:
Ireland
Scotland
England
Russia

Group B:
Wales
France
Italy
Georgia

Play each team in your group once (3 games).
Winner from group A plays runner up from group B in semi finals
Winner from Group B plays runner up from group A in semi finals
Winners play in final. Losers play in 3rd place play off. 5 matches for all teams involved.

3rd place group A plays 4th group B.
3rd place group B plays 4th group A.
Winners play 5th place play off. Losers play in relegation play off. 5 matches for all teams. Team who comes in 8th place gets relegated and replaced by top team from Rugby Europe Championship of that year.

Of course you lose some of the history of the event but there aren't many crap matches added and you get 2 more teams playing T1 rugby.

If possible would be better if instead of knockout matches the top two teams from each pool played the top two teams from the opposite pool.
Then use the points system to rank the top 4 teams and do similarly to rank the bottom 4 teams and use the final placings to seed the following season.
Also have promotion and relegation for the bottom placed team to swap with the winner of the division below.

Downlinz

To be honest, I'd like the proposal if it had relegation and a pathway for tier 2 nations. Adding extra stakes to the summer and autumn windows seems like a great idea and I've no great love for multi-game tours or the Lions series if those happen to be casualties in all this.

troyzer

Downlinz wrote: »

To be honest, I'd like the proposal if it had relegation and a pathway for tier 2 nations. Adding extra stakes to the summer and autumn windows seems like a great idea and I've no great love for multi-game tours or the Lions series if those happen to be casualties in all this.

The Lions tours are big money and steeped in history. The Brits in particular will never allow it to die if they can help it

Jump_In_Jack

If they put Uruguay or Canada, USA, Argentina. South Africa together as one pool,
And Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji in another pool, and had top two teams from each pool play the top two teams of the other pool and do the same with the bottom two teams of each pool.

Then let the top 6 European teams play the top 6 from the non-European teams in the June and November matches.