World League thread

swiwi_

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.

The 2 countries that voted against promotion/relegation were apparently Italy and Scotland. No surprises there TBH.

Heymans

troyzer wrote: »

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

From an Irish POV the IRFU shouldn't be too worried about losing the Lions tour. At least our history suggests we should be moving away from it. Bringing the Irish players in a glorified British team stinks if you are Irish born and bred.

That said I don't like the idea of diluting the World Cup. Concentrate on making the tier below the 6 nations better and introduce relegation is the way forward. Plus the English/French clubs won't be having it.

This is a stain on the IRFU if they go for it. Being from a smaller nation should entice feelings of loyalty to Samoa Fiji Tonga Georgia Belgium

bilston

I don't see the point of a world League.

If SANZAAR are struggling for money then bring Japan and one other country in (preferably Fiji). This would give bigger access to a potentially huge market in Japan, on the back of the World Cup, and while Fiji itself isn't going to bring riches, they would enhance the competition through their playing style, which could drive the value of existing TV rights and sponsorship deals up anyway.

The US could in theory bring more TV money in the short term, but long term Americans aren't going to be tuning to watch their national team get humiliated by a small country (in non rugby terms) like New Zealand.

A world league is overkill.

Cookiemunster

Heymans wrote: »

From an Irish POV the IRFU shouldn't be too worried about losing the Lions tour. At least our history suggests we should be moving away from it. Bringing the Irish players in a glorified British team stinks if you are Irish born and bred.

WTF? What circles to you move in if you think that? I don't know any Irish rugby fans who don't like the Lions and the players definitely want to be involved.

The Lost Sheep

Heymans wrote: »

From an Irish POV the IRFU shouldn't be too worried about losing the Lions tour. At least our history suggests we should be moving away from it. Bringing the Irish players in a glorified British team stinks if you are Irish born and bred.

That said I don't like the idea of diluting the World Cup. Concentrate on making the tier below the 6 nations better and introduce relegation is the way forward. Plus the English/French clubs won't be having it.

This is a stain on the IRFU if they go for it. Being from a smaller nation should entice feelings of loyalty to Samoa Fiji Tonga Georgia Belgium

That isnt true at all about the Lions. And your last sentence in Lions is complete nonsense

We shouldnt be diluting the world cup and should be working to help Georgia etc but just introducing relegation isnt the way forward.

Heymans

Cookiemunster wrote: »

WTF? What circles to you move in if you think that? I don't know any Irish rugby fans who don't like the Lions and the players definitely want to be involved.

I suppose it's the inner republican in me that says we should be separate from England in everything we do given our history together. Sure most Irish people love the Lions but an age old tradition that harks back to the time of Unionism isn't the way forward for Ireland.

Heymans

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

That isnt true at all about the Lions. And your last sentence in Lions is complete nonsense

We shouldnt be diluting the world cup and should be working to help Georgia etc but just introducing relegation isnt the way forward.

If relegation isn't the way forward then explain to me how to involve smaller rugby nations in world rugby? Indeed relegation might ruin one of the top tier Unions but it would prevent ring fencing and protecting the top tier

Podge_irl

Call it protectionism if you want, but I simply have no interest in a 6N with Georgia instead of Scotland for example.

troyzer

Heymans wrote: »

Cookiemunster wrote: »

WTF? What circles to you move in if you think that? I don't know any Irish rugby fans who don't like the Lions and the players definitely want to be involved.

I suppose it's the inner republican in me that says we should be separate from England in everything we do given our history together. Sure most Irish people love the Lions but an age old tradition that harks back to the time of Unionism isn't the way forward for Ireland.

This is for the inner republican in you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeLjBIUBUPk

You are mad as a bag of spiders.

thomond2006

Lions iz a conspuracy, da queen wants r land.

Squidgy Black

Any Irish players who play for the lions should be denoted as West Brits and banished from our lands.

troyzer

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Any Irish players who play for the lions should be denoted as West Brits and banished from our lands.

Tadhg Furlong = filthy West Brit.

Jump_In_Jack

Well the Lions is a waste of time nowadays, Ireland and England have the ability now to beat any team on their own, joining forces for the sake of it is pointless except for making money.

Now if they included Italy and France and played against a joint team from the rest of the world then that would be good.

Playing club teams mid-week etc is total waste of time.
it got too big, should have left it at a squad of 31 and just play the host nation twice.

The Lost Sheep

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Well the Lions is a waste of time nowadays, Ireland and England have the ability now to beat any team on their own, joining forces for the sake of it is pointless except for making money.

Now if they included Italy and France and played against a joint team from the rest of the world then that would be good.

Playing club teams mid-week etc is total waste of time.
it got too big, should have left it at a squad of 31 and just play the host nation twice.

Its not got too big. It isnt simply about making money. Now if it had been created in pro era then you could say it was but it wasnt and wouldnt have been anyway.
I dont think Ireland or anyone else having ability to win against SA etc on their own diminishes the Lions and we dont know if Ireland will be able to beat these countries regularly all
The whole structure of playing non international sides is the only link back to old style tours in the pro game and those games are needed to help players get used to playing with each other etc.

Dubinusa

The whole idea of a world league is stupid, imo!
6nations is was the premier sporting event in late winter/ early spring when I was a kid. It was 5nations then!
I always looked forward to the competition and the idea of substituting one of the home nations (5), for another team would take away from the tournament, imo.
To get small nations involved, like Georgia or Romania, add them to the event.
Make it the 8nations? Additional teams would be selected based on their rankings.
As far as Sanzar is concerned, they should add Japan and Fiji to the championship.
The U.S is not good enough to compete in the suggested format.
The game is attracting players and viewers and is in it's infancy.
Pinchot, is money grabbing imo. The yanks are the financial rainbow and that's the only reason they're included.
The U.S taking a 30 point beating from the boks would not attract too many, imo. It's nuts.
It devalues the rwc also.
Countries like Canada; Russia, Spain and Germany may develop over time. Excluding them is wrong. The Pacific Island nations being excluded is wrong too.
I don't know the answer to improve and export rugby, but cutting off nations that rugby is the top sport for a small chance of a financial windfall from the U.S is stupid.

Exclamation Marc

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Well the Lions is a waste of time nowadays, Ireland and England have the ability now to beat any team on their own, joining forces for the sake of it is pointless except for making money

You are aware that Ireland and England's abilities change over time yeah? And that in 2 years either could be crap. Bit of an weird comment for why the Lions shouldn't exist.

Heymans

I honestly think a world league comes from the lack of test rugby in the Southern Hemisphere, the current catching up and surpassing of the Southern Hemisphere teams by the northern hemisphere precisely for this reason and the financial difficulties the lack of interest in rugby in the Southern Hemisphere is causing. That and the fact that the All Blacks have too small a population to make the domestic game a big hit down there.

The All Blacks are in many ways at a competitive disadvantage for these reasons despite raping the Pacific islands of their best talent at an early age. Hence they see the likes of Ireland catching up with them and get desperate to tilt the tables back in their favour. They are twice World Cup winners recently and want to effect the changes when they are on top. But leaving out the Pacific Islands is their worst mistake in this crusade. To enrich oneself at the expense of another is a fools errand and I hope the northern hemisphere don't get on board and have nothing to do with it

The Lost Sheep

Heymans wrote: »

I honestly think a world league comes from the lack of test rugby in the Southern Hemisphere, the current catching up and surpassing of the Southern Hemisphere teams by the northern hemisphere precisely for this reason and the financial difficulties the lack of interest in rugby in the Southern Hemisphere is causing. That and the fact that the All Blacks have too small a population to make the domestic game a big hit down there.

The All Blacks are in many ways at a competitive disadvantage for these reasons despite raping the Pacific islands of their best talent at an early age. Hence they see the likes of Ireland catching up with them and get desperate to tilt the tables back in their favour. They are twice World Cup winners recently and want to effect the changes when they are on top. But leaving out the Pacific Islands is their worst mistake in this crusade. To enrich oneself at the expense of another is a fools errand and I hope the northern hemisphere don't get on board and have nothing to do with it

Is there really a lack of test rugby in SH?
And the All Blacks dont take from pacific islands all that much, many of the islanders whove played for all blacks recently at least moved when they were young kids/babys and how do you know a kid is talented rugby player that young??.

troyzer

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Heymans wrote: »

I honestly think a world league comes from the lack of test rugby in the Southern Hemisphere, the current catching up and surpassing of the Southern Hemisphere teams by the northern hemisphere precisely for this reason and the financial difficulties the lack of interest in rugby in the Southern Hemisphere is causing. That and the fact that the All Blacks have too small a population to make the domestic game a big hit down there.

The All Blacks are in many ways at a competitive disadvantage for these reasons despite raping the Pacific islands of their best talent at an early age. Hence they see the likes of Ireland catching up with them and get desperate to tilt the tables back in their favour. They are twice World Cup winners recently and want to effect the changes when they are on top. But leaving out the Pacific Islands is their worst mistake in this crusade. To enrich oneself at the expense of another is a fools errand and I hope the northern hemisphere don't get on board and have nothing to do with it

Is there really a lack of test rugby in SH?
And the All Blacks dont take from pacific islands all that much, many of the islanders whove played for all blacks recently at least moved when they were young kids/babys and how do you know a kid is talented rugby player that young??.

Most of the current All Blacks of islander descent came as kids or are second generation as you say. But schools Rugby in New Zealand has recently developed a nasty habit of offering scholarships to Samoan, Fijian and Tongan teenagers.

The French are absolutely the worst for this mind.

Clegg

The Sunday Times say that England's test players will vote on whether or not to back the PI if their World Cup boycott goes ahead. Manu Tuilagi is said to be considering boycotting in solidarity.

troyzer

USA at home just lost to Uruguay. If you're moving up to tier 1, you have to at least be winning week in, week out. Georgia batter everyone by comparison.

Burkie1203

Dubinusa wrote: »

Pinchot, is money grabbing imo. The yanks are the financial rainbow and that's the only reason they're included

Part of Pichot's plan here is for the Argie Union to make more cash. Recent figures show several unions are in the red including Argentina

Think the whole concept is terrible (with or without relegation) and hope the players take a stand against it.

Gosper comes across like a clown. His "market research" claim is just bizarre.

errlloyd

Clegg wrote: »

The Sunday Times say that England's test players will vote on whether or not to back the PI if their World Cup boycott goes ahead. Manu Tuilagi is said to be considering boycotting in solidarity.

Manu is in the PI union he's a voting member. That doesn't mean he will or won't do anything, but it would be awful hypocritical to vote for a strike and not join one.

Utah_Saint

I know this thread is primarily about international rugby, but does anyone else feel the future of club rugby is a Euro league? And I don't mean an extended pro14. The hope would be fewer games at a higher quality plus bigger crowds and revenue. Essentially it would be like the champions cup and challenge cup as Div1 and Div2. Would probably need a Div3 to include a large section of clubs.

Maybe it's wishful thinking. Players would be keen on the fewer games and possibility of larger wages (concentration of resources). I always liked how the NFL does it. Small number of games with increased interested and obviously huge amount of money behind it. The fewer club games would also provide more calender space for internationals with proper rest periods.

As much as I love rugby I feel the approach of more games and more competitions is counter intuitive. I feel it dilutes the product and increases rugby viewer fatigue.

troyzer

Utah_Saint wrote: »

I know this thread is primarily about international rugby, but does anyone else feel the future of club rugby is a Euro league? And I don't mean an extended pro14. The hope would be fewer games at a higher quality plus bigger crowds and revenue. Essentially it would be like the champions cup and challenge cup as Div1 and Div2. Would probably need a Div3 to include a large section of clubs.

Maybe it's wishful thinking. Players would be keen on the fewer games and possibility of larger wages (concentration of resources). I always liked how the NFL does it. Small number of games with increased interested and obviously huge amount of money behind it. The fewer club games would also provide more calender space for internationals with proper rest periods.

As much as I love rugby I feel the approach of more games and more competitions is counter intuitive. I feel it dilutes the product and increases rugby viewer fatigue.

I think you're missing the primary driver behind more games: getting more money.

The NFL TV rights are worth more than $5bn a year. That's how they can afford less games.

That and a litigious and very active player union which has been viciously fighting any attempt at season expansion and has been successful in pushing for reduced contact hours.

The NFL isn't and will never be a good model for comparison.

Utah_Saint

troyzer wrote: »

I think you're missing the primary driver behind more games: getting more money.

The NFL TV rights are worth more than $5bn a year. That's how they can afford less games.

That and a litigious and very active player union which has been viciously fighting any attempt at season expansion and has been successful in pushing for reduced contact hours.

The NFL isn't and will never be a good model for comparison.

I think more games has diluted the quality of the pro14. Other than die hard fans who would really want to watch Ulster vs Dragons today. Or treviso vs zebra. But plenty of casual fans would watch leinster v racing. Condense the quality instead of more dross. Make more club games like tier 1 internationals like 6n

Jump_In_Jack

How many players in the six nations have PI heritage?
Bundee Aki
Manu Tuilagi
Billy Vunipola
Mako Vunipola
Joe Cokanasiga
Ben Te’o
Uini Atonio
Sébastien Vahaamahina
Sean Maitland
Taulupe Faletau

sydthebeat

Technically vahaamaahina is French, as he's from new Caledonia which is a French colony.

Jump_In_Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

Technically vahaamaahina is French, as he's from new Caledonia which is a French colony.

In the Pacific Ocean

sydthebeat

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

In the Pacific Ocean

In the context of this conversation he's French and not a Pacific islander.

He's very much the odd one out on your list.

And uni Antonio is a born kiwi.

Jump_In_Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

In the context of this conversation he's French and not a Pacific islander.

He's very much the odd one out on your list.

And uni Antonio is a born kiwi.

The context of the conversation is anyone that might feel like they should boycott the World Cup in support of the pacific island teams. Atonio and Vahaamahina have ties to Pacific Islands, however I have no idea whether they would be interested in a boycott or not.

New Caledonia takes part in the Oceania International rugby competitions. Citizens can also play for France. Either way, Vahaamahina was born on a Pacific Island, presumably he has family from that region and not impossible that he would sympathize with other PI’s.

I only added him because he was technically born on a PI.

Uini Atonio’s parents are Samoan. No idea how he views this boycott idea though.
Same as Bundee.

troyzer

New Caledonia is politically part of France.

It's France. The French are a bit weird with their islands, they're not like colonies.

Is Aki of islander descent? I thought he was Māori? I mean, I know they're all ultimately islanders as well but still.

Jump_In_Jack

troyzer wrote: »

New Caledonia is politically part of France.

It's France. The French are a bit weird with their islands, they're not like colonies.

Is Aki of islander descent? I thought he was Māori? I mean, I know they're all ultimately islanders as well but still.

Either his parents are from Samoa (which I think is the case) or his grandparents are from Samoa, as he said before he declared for Ireland that he had the option of declaring for Samoa.

This Irish Times article says both his parents hail from Samoa.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/bundee-aki-i-have-enjoyed-irish-culture-and-stuff-but-it-is-wrong-for-me-to-say-i-am-irish-1.2758538%3fmode=amp

Utah_Saint

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/47435119

The quote below from the article almost implies that the whole problem is the 6Nations teams and everything would be grand if we just accepted the proposal. Certainly nothing to do with SH teams requiring more money.

"...World Rugby insists it is in support of a promotion and relegation system in the league, but the Six Nations remains opposed to the concept.

This has contributed to the impasse, with sources fearing the Six Nations' stance could prove to be a roadblock for the development of emerging nations..."

Tigerandahalf

The SH unions have no problem supporting relegation as the big 3 or 4 know they won't be getting relegated with the USA and Japan involved.

It wouldn't be great for the competition if the USA got relegated as their broadcaster would be potentially putting up a lot of money.

sydthebeat

Just leave the six Nations out of the league, but include it's results.

If it means five other six Nations teams having to play one more test game per year, so be it.

Jump_In_Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just leave the six Nations out of the league, but include it's results.

If it means five other six Nations teams having to play one more test game per year, so be it.

Can't make sense of this post, maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what was the suggestion here?

troyzer

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just leave the six Nations out of the league, but include it's results.

If it means five other six Nations teams having to play one more test game per year, so be it.

Can't make sense of this post, maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what was the suggestion here?

I have no idea. Maybe he means that the Six Nations isn't included in the broadcast deal but that the June/November Tests go ahead as planned in the world league

ArmaniJeanss

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Can't make sense of this post, maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what was the suggestion here?

Italy finish last in world league and get relegated. XXXXXXX replaces them in World League. Italy continue in 6 Nations.

Therefore the following year Ireland, England etc have to play one extra game in the World League against XXXXXXX in order to fulfil their fixtures.
Their regular game against Italy will count for the 6N but not for the World League.

That's the poster's suggestion by the way, not mine.

Perifect

There were those who said that once you open the lid on professionalism, you can't close it again. Money will always be king.

sydthebeat

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Italy finish last in world league and get relegated. XXXXXXX replaces them in World League. Italy continue in 6 Nations.

Therefore the following year Ireland, England etc have to play one extra game in the World League against XXXXXXX in order to fulfil their fixtures.
Their regular game against Italy will count for the 6N but not for the World League.

That's the poster's suggestion by the way, not mine.

yeah exactly this..... it was a flippant comment really...
but essentially i was trying to make the point that the six nations is a very well established, respected and funded competition... and world rugby seem to want to damage it while offering nothing in return

Dubinusa

World rugby wants to use the 6nations and the potential television fees from the U.S to prop up the S.H sides.
6nations should tell then to go piss in their hats.
The U.S is not a competitive side and thus, their inclusion speaks volumes about Pichot and world rugby.

Just make the southern hemisphere figure out the financial shortfall and proceed from there.
It's not the 6nations problem!
How about adding S.A to the 6nations and maybe Gerogia.
S.A is in our time zone?
Oz., N.Z and Japan can play in a Oceania competition. Alongside Fiji, Samoa etc.
Argentina could the play in a Americas leage?
Canada, U.s and Uraguay along with Brazil and Argentina.
Makes more sense to me!

Blut2

Argentina, Australia, NZ, Japan, the US and a combined Pacific Islanders team would be a decent "Pacific 6Nations" competition. A combined Pacific Islands team would be a bit more commercially viable, and would be pretty decent rugby talent wise - they'd probably be able to challenge for 2nd place finish in the league every year. They'd also make the league a lot more viable in terms of reducing travel and the number of games.

Then absorb South Africa into the 6N and we're pretty sorted. Apart from Georgia/Romania, but thats a problem for a decade away.

Jump_In_Jack

Blut2 wrote: »

Argentina, Australia, NZ, Japan, the US and a combined Pacific Islanders team would be a decent "Pacific 6Nations" competition. A combined Pacific Islands team would be a bit more commercially viable, and would be pretty decent rugby talent wise - they'd probably be able to challenge for 2nd place finish in the league every year. They'd also make the league a lot more viable in terms of reducing travel and the number of games.

Then absorb South Africa into the 6N and we're pretty sorted. Apart from Georgia/Romania, but thats a problem for a decade away.

Who do you propose to eject from the 6nations to make way for SA?

Blut2

Nobody. I'd wager the current 6N unions would dislike the extra game in the schedule, but with the massive funding injection that would come from SA being added they'd suffer it. Including SA in the 6N is a far smaller, much more financially profitable, pill to swallow than the larger proposed changes to the international schedule for the 6N unions.

Particularly if the Pro14 goes down to 18 games a year, as is being discussed for next season. Less club games draining the players, and SA being drawn more and more into the European system organizationally:

The South African contingent in the Guinness PRO14 could be set to increase with Super Rugby big-hitters keen to join the cross-border competition. The Bulls, Sharks and Stormers have all emerged as potential additions to the PRO14 party.

The prospect is that two of these high-profile sides could join up for the 2020-21 season, creating an expanded PRO16.
Almost counter-intuitively, increasing to 16 sides would enable that problem [of too many games] to be addressed.

You would be able to have one league, with teams playing each other home or away, giving 15 fixtures.

Add in three return derbies and you would have a regular season total of 18 games.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/pro14-poised-become-pro16-super-15906502

bilston

I wonder what sort of money we are talking about here? Who is the broadcaster pushing this? I noticed Stuart Barnes in his column on sky sports was quite supportive of it. I wonder if there is a clue there.

I think it will happen in some form or another. Do it without play offs at the end of the season, or maybe just have the top 2 playing off. That way you are at most playing one extra international a season. Also have a promotion/relegation play off. That way there is a bit more security for the team that finishes bottom. Have significant parachute payments in place for a 3 year period after a team is relegated. Realistically if one of the big guns gets relegated they are likely to get promoted straight away, and if they don't get promoted in 3 years then they have only themselves to blame.

I'm not saying it is necessary at all by the way, but if there is some sort of compromise, it might look something like above.

Again I'd be interested to know what sort of money Sky (or whoever it is) are offering? What is the combined worth of the Six Nations and Rugby Championship TV deal at the moment? If it is significantly more then it will be hard to ignore. People can moralise about how it's just about money, but the reality is the game is professional and money is pretty important.

Edit - according to a Daily telegraph article from 2015 the 6Ns rights are worth £50m a year in the UK.

Jump_In_Jack

Blut2 wrote: »

Nobody. I'd wager the current 6N unions would dislike the extra game in the schedule, but with the massive funding injection that would come from SA being added they'd suffer it. Including SA in the 6N is a far smaller, much more financially profitable, pill to swallow than the larger proposed changes to the international schedule for the 6N unions.

Particularly if the Pro14 goes down to 18 games a year, as is being discussed for next season. Less club games draining the players, and SA being drawn more and more into the European system organizationally:



https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/pro14-poised-become-pro16-super-15906502

If you turn it into 7 nations it would extend the tournament by 2 weeks if it stays as a round robin format.
Probably need another rest week too on top of that.
If going to 7 teams it would make sense to go to 8 and add in Georgia or Romania too.

Blut2

A 3 game shorter Pro14 schedule as planned will allow for a 2 week expansion of the international window, with a week to spare too - for a rest week if required. That covers Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy. England and France would be a harder sell, but they're both desperate for cash. South Africa bring oodles of that.

Georgia or Romania would mean an extra game again on top of SA, which would make it a much harder sell to the players. And they're both awful rugby wise, and wouldn't bring in any substantial revenue. They're very, very different (worse) added-value propositions.

troyzer

Blut2 wrote: »

A 3 game shorter Pro14 schedule as planned will allow for a 2 week expansion of the international window, with a week to spare too - for a rest week if required. That covers Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy. England and France would be a harder sell, but they're both desperate for cash. South Africa bring oodles of that.

Georgia or Romania would mean an extra game again on top of SA, which would make it a much harder sell to the players. And they're both awful rugby wise, and wouldn't bring in any substantial revenue. They're very, very different (worse) added-value propositions.

England and France aren't desperate for cash, their clubs are. Which is why they simply won't allow for a shorter club season.

They'd throw Europe under the bus before compromising on their domestic competitions.

Leinstertomas

https://twitter.com/WorldRugby/status/1103310725815115776
Revised plan announced. Still not liking the whole idea tbh