Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term calend

User avatar
Posts: 2069
Joined: Tue, 15 Apr 2014, 18:36
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby iul » Thu, 11 Oct 2018, 16:01

sk 88 wrote:It's just a naked power grab by the same old T1 cartel unions.

It grabs more time from the club game and grabs more games from the T2 unions just to feather their own nests. Its the most depressingly predictable development I can think of for years. Includes no one new, actively excludes people and fundamentally undermines the RWC the ONLY proper tournament we have.

In this proposal (6N & RC count in both) you have Aus, RSA, NZ and Arg playing a minimum of 14 tests a year, PLUS two weeks for play offs (played where and when exactly?), before we consider the incredibly slim chance that the pointless 3rd Bledisloe game will be ditched. It cannot work (literally cannot work, no dates available) if Italy are relegated and any non-European is promoted and would only work if a European team was also promoted to the 6N, which is not what is being proposed.

Its a genuinely awful and regressive idea.

Agree. Let's assume Romania gets promoted to the first division. When are we supposed to play the 5 games against the european T1s? Are they really suggesting that's going to happen? It's all bullshit. It's more likely we'll have 6N + TRC + the PIs and maaaybe Japan fighting it out for the other 2 SH spots.

Posts: 4225
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 12 Oct 2018, 10:23

The more I hear about this the less I like it. The only way it makes any sort of sense is to have some teams from the regionals competitions take part, not just the 6N, RC and two T2's. For instance, for a 12 team league you could break it down like this:

6 Nations - 4 Teams , Rugby Championship - 3 Teams, Rugby Europe - 1, Americas RC - 1, Pacific NC - 1, Asian RC - 1, Africa Gold Cup - 1

Division 1
Group 1 - New Zealand, Wales, Japan
Group 2 - Australia, Ireland, USA
Group 3 - South Africa, England, Georgia
Group 4- Fiji, Scotland, Namibia

A Second division league would look like this:

Division 2
Group 1 - Argentina, Spain, Kenya
Group 2 - Samoa, Italy, Russia
Group 3 - France, Tonga, Canada
Group 4- Uruguay, Romania, Hong Kong

You could even add a third division.

Division 3
Group 1 - Brazil, Germany, Zimbabwe
Group 2 - Uganda, Belgium, Paraguay
Group 3 - Columbia, Korea, Netherlands
Group 4- Chile, Portugal, Cook Islands

So how to make this work? 2 rounds per group would be played, round one in the traditional July southern hemisphere period, round 2 in November in the north. Who plays who the first year would be based on results of the all the international regional championships the year before, but after that it would be merit based. For example, if Argentina, Samoa, France and Uruguay all win their groups they get promoted to Division 1, whilst Division 1 losers Japan, USA, Georgia and Namibia would all be relegated to Division 2. At the end of each league season draws will be done to determine the groups for the following year. There would obviously be no league in a world cup year, but league results would carry over to the following year.

User avatar
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu, 28 Apr 2016, 14:02
Location: Las Canteras, Uruguay
National Flag:
UruguayUruguay

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby NaBUru38 » Sat, 13 Oct 2018, 14:28

How about doing a 16-team tournament?

Group World 1: New Zealand, Argentina, Samoa, Japan.
Group World 2: Australia, South Africa, Fiji, United States.

Group Europe 1: France, Ireland, Scotland, Romania.
Group Europe 2: England, Wales, Italy, Georgia.

World 1 teams play Europe 1 teams, and World 2 teams play Europe 2 teams.

Posts: 4
Joined: Wed, 03 Oct 2018, 20:45
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby dans » Sat, 13 Oct 2018, 23:26

Read with interest this thread and the various, passionate, well detailed and sometime 'wacky' solutions some people suggested here.
By default the current high performance rugby played by the big boys, is in need of way to many resources (materials and human) compared to almost any other sport with global claim.

None of the best English clubs make any profits, the threat of regulation for player healthcare it’s looming over, player unions are talking about strikes...South Africa, Australia and Argentina were regressing before the RC season this year...meaning lots of WR money will need to be thrown in to compensate and avoid the risk of these countries going any lower...

What it means for Tier 2&3? ... Well, it means that it will take several decades for a tier 2-3 country, unless the respective nation is inclined to have at least one, of the 2 resources in abundance …and able to substitute one for another...The gap is too big now, for years were neglected.

The realistic outcome of the NEW way, it will always favour top nations.

The pretext of developing the sport to a worldwide audience is ridiculous. The audiences are going down year on year in all 6N countries and sponsors are no longer willing to pay huge contracts because they cannot see the ROI...They can easier get customer engagement better elsewhere.
As 6N is Ltd and a greedy company, they'll look to any other ways of making money for their unions...even making a deal with World Rugby (!!) - The human face of the sport in the world….Suddenly they are best friends, happy to accommodate one each other, make plans.

Yes, I am a bit mean, I know...WR do share some funds here and there, to be seen altruistic and inclusive, but I’m convinced it's all as a mean to fill the emptying coffers of big players.
Now they decided to become suddenly creative, they became interested in markets like USA (for everything you want: market, money, people - although lots of sports are fighting hard there), Brazil (to prove that they can do more than just football!), Japan (awash with capital and nothing to do with it), China (through Hong Kong....both money and people), even Russia to a point! (Russians do have a macho image to sustain, but government/oligarchs money could just as easily flow in and out).

Minimum interest ifor Georgia & Romania - too poor…they will make no money, just consume resources..although they played the game for a while now. They'll always be on the outside.
Spain & Germany it’s a maybe (but football is way to strong to be dislodged) and level of rugby played is low, expense would be too high...unless the locals chip in!

So, do we really think the globalisation of rugby would be something real for the little nations? ... I’ll let you comment on it…..just realised i've been going on too long!

User avatar
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby 4N » Sun, 14 Oct 2018, 01:00

dans wrote:Read with interest this thread and the various, passionate, well detailed and sometime 'wacky' solutions some people suggested here.
By default the current high performance rugby played by the big boys, is in need of way to many resources (materials and human) compared to almost any other sport with global claim.

None of the best English clubs make any profits, the threat of regulation for player healthcare it’s looming over, player unions are talking about strikes...South Africa, Australia and Argentina were regressing before the RC season this year...meaning lots of WR money will need to be thrown in to compensate and avoid the risk of these countries going any lower...

What it means for Tier 2&3? ... Well, it means that it will take several decades for a tier 2-3 country, unless the respective nation is inclined to have at least one, of the 2 resources in abundance …and able to substitute one for another...The gap is too big now, for years were neglected.

The realistic outcome of the NEW way, it will always favour top nations.

The pretext of developing the sport to a worldwide audience is ridiculous. The audiences are going down year on year in all 6N countries and sponsors are no longer willing to pay huge contracts because they cannot see the ROI...They can easier get customer engagement better elsewhere.
As 6N is Ltd and a greedy company, they'll look to any other ways of making money for their unions...even making a deal with World Rugby (!!) - The human face of the sport in the world….Suddenly they are best friends, happy to accommodate one each other, make plans.

Yes, I am a bit mean, I know...WR do share some funds here and there, to be seen altruistic and inclusive, but I’m convinced it's all as a mean to fill the emptying coffers of big players.
Now they decided to become suddenly creative, they became interested in markets like USA (for everything you want: market, money, people - although lots of sports are fighting hard there), Brazil (to prove that they can do more than just football!), Japan (awash with capital and nothing to do with it), China (through Hong Kong....both money and people), even Russia to a point! (Russians do have a macho image to sustain, but government/oligarchs money could just as easily flow in and out).

Minimum interest ifor Georgia & Romania - too poor…they will make no money, just consume resources..although they played the game for a while now. They'll always be on the outside.
Spain & Germany it’s a maybe (but football is way to strong to be dislodged) and level of rugby played is low, expense would be too high...unless the locals chip in!

So, do we really think the globalisation of rugby would be something real for the little nations? ... I’ll let you comment on it…..just realised i've been going on too long!


Interesting post. Who (if anyone) do you think could interest the 6N in the near future?

Posts: 282
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby Blurandski » Sun, 14 Oct 2018, 01:55

dans wrote:Read with interest this thread and the various, passionate, well detailed and sometime 'wacky' solutions some people suggested here.
By default the current high performance rugby played by the big boys, is in need of way to many resources (materials and human) compared to almost any other sport with global claim.


In terms of amateur playing, my record is just a ball and 18 odd cones materials wise. For high performance rugby the resources are basically identical to all big time sports (rugby, football, cricket, american football, basketball), in that you need 35 odd players (okay basketball is about half this), a gym, and a stadium.

dans wrote:None of the best English clubs make any profits, the threat of regulation for player healthcare it’s looming over, player unions are talking about strikes...South Africa, Australia and Argentina were regressing before the RC season this year...meaning lots of WR money will need to be thrown in to compensate and avoid the risk of these countries going any lower...


The fact that clubs aren't making money is irrelevant, few sports clubs do, and that's not because sports as a whole can never be profitable, but rather because of how teams want to compete heavily, which creates increasing wage bills. Should all 13 clubs decide to lop 1/3rd of the salary cap tomorrow then 11 of them would be profitable by a decent amount. Talk is cheap as well, if players want to play fewer games then they'll accept lower money contracts that contain lower max minute stipulations, to my knowledge no player has taken such a deal, despite them occasionally being offered. WR invests minimal amounts in T1 countries, instead leaving it to SANZAAR and the 6N to redistribute within themselves to create a level of equality. As of 2015 about than 5% of WR's outgoing funding (so subtract WR's running costs) went to T1s (£2m/yr of £38m). While there is the chance of WR spending more on T1s in the future, T2s hold enough power to block it should one T1 break ranks.

dans wrote:What it means for Tier 2&3? ... Well, it means that it will take several decades for a tier 2-3 country, unless the respective nation is inclined to have at least one, of the 2 resources in abundance …and able to substitute one for another...The gap is too big now, for years were neglected.

The realistic outcome of the NEW way, it will always favour top nations.

The pretext of developing the sport to a worldwide audience is ridiculous. The audiences are going down year on year in all 6N countries and sponsors are no longer willing to pay huge contracts because they cannot see the ROI...They can easier get customer engagement better elsewhere.
As 6N is Ltd and a greedy company, they'll look to any other ways of making money for their unions...even making a deal with World Rugby (!!) - The human face of the sport in the world….Suddenly they are best friends, happy to accommodate one each other, make plans.


I see no evidence of audiences going down year on year in any 6N nation, let alone all. I'd love to see some citations. The Gallagher Prem's naming deal has been pinned at £10m/yr, a massive rise on what Aviva was paying. The Heineken cup sponsorship has lost value because it's lost a massive amount of cultural relevance since nobody was marketing it. As for the 6N sponsorship, yeah that was bad, but the thing with naming sponsorships is that nobody really knows how to value them, and by accepting a reduced money offer last year (which largely occurred due to the Football Prem opening up new shirt sponsorships) they devalued it massively by pinning it to a lower price point.

How outrageous, a company doing what is best for the company! 6N Ltd and WR have a long history of working together, and if I were in WR I'd be telling them that if they want to grow their pot, expansion is the only way, because they've near maxed out the British Isles.

dans wrote:Yes, I am a bit mean, I know...WR do share some funds here and there, to be seen altruistic and inclusive, but I’m convinced it's all as a mean to fill the emptying coffers of big players.
Now they decided to become suddenly creative, they became interested in markets like USA (for everything you want: market, money, people - although lots of sports are fighting hard there), Brazil (to prove that they can do more than just football!), Japan (awash with capital and nothing to do with it), China (through Hong Kong....both money and people), even Russia to a point! (Russians do have a macho image to sustain, but government/oligarchs money could just as easily flow in and out). Minimum interest ifor Georgia & Romania - too poor…they will make no money, just consume resources..although they played the game for a while now. They'll always be on the outside. Spain & Germany it’s a maybe (but football is way to strong to be dislodged) and level of rugby played is low, expense would be too high...unless the locals chip in!


Annoying WR had a detailed page on how they spent their money which has recently been taken down, but from a 2015 PDF I downloaded it broke down as follows: Development investment: £8.2m annually, £1.9m for the regional associations, with a combined £2.5m going to High Performance 1&2 nations (of which there are 20). Then there's £7.3m for High Performance programmes, with only £1.5m of that going to T1s, and a whopping £4.6m of it per year to 10 best T2s. Then there's £17m odd spent on the various tournaments like the Americas Rugby Championship and Americas Rugby Challenge.

Is there anything wrong with WR growing the sport if it means that the T1s will also gain? You seem to imply that you'd rather the whole game be poorer if the T1s are as well.

Posts: 4
Joined: Wed, 03 Oct 2018, 20:45
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby dans » Sun, 14 Oct 2018, 11:40

4N wrote: Interesting post. Who (if anyone) do you think could interest the 6N in the near future?


Well if you have a great company (and it's no longer making the returns you need) and would like to make that company richer to return more to your shareholders, what would you do?
You can grow organically...but it's slow and hard...or you buy, tie down and suck other resources from outside. But how to do it without being seen as the bad boy?...

The tournament’s annual prize pot (6N) is distributed as far as I know via a percentage system 75% equally split +25% performance related.
When the pot is £100 million...it works a guaranteed somewhere north of £12million per union. Nice money year on year, and no union will accept less or to come out of it...Don't know the contractual details to see if that's even possible, unions must be some sort of associated shareholder.

New Zeeland and Australia...are great brands and will put many bums in stadiums...but are too far!...South Africa it's a possibility but that means destroying the south hemisphere RC...
I don't know really... Spain and Germany are the natural contenders if they want to take it as a pet project... but if possible leave World rugby pay for it...yes, it will take about 25 years..:)

Posts: 4
Joined: Wed, 03 Oct 2018, 20:45
National Flag:
RomaniaRomania

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby dans » Sun, 14 Oct 2018, 12:22

Blurandski wrote:[How outrageous, a company doing what is best for the company! 6N Ltd and WR have a long history of working together, and if I were in WR I'd be telling them that if they want to grow their pot, expansion is the only way, because they've near maxed out the British Isles.


I have absolutely nothing against the 6N Ltd... good luck to them making even more money...they'll need it when unions like RFU and WFU need to pay > £100k their team players for a full annual season (incl. tours) … not including prizes. I never said have not been successful, they continue to average +60k spectators in the home nations (+FR) but they've been doing this for years while the costs steadily increased.
Of course these unions are not interested in playing matches against Tier 2 teams when they make nothing out of it.
It's also fine for the players, they need to maximise their revenue like any top athlete in their prime.

What I have a problem with, is when it competes against and then draws World Rugby into it in order solve their own growth problem.
And I wonder who was supposed to look at the interests of the little guys who struggle to stay alive and maintain interest for the sport in the smaller nations?
I still am of the opinion the only solution is to disrupt the sport. And it has to happen in Europe and it has to start from the bottom tiers both at national and club level.
I thought for a while that will come through WR, but they are not independent enough from the rich and powerful guys in the sport.


Blurandski wrote:[I see no evidence of audiences going down year on year in any 6N nation, let alone all. I'd love to see some citations.


Here you are ..6N attendances for the last few years...
Year Total
2012 1,043,395
2013 1,026,527
2014 1,027,472
2015 1,040,964
2016 1,030,921
2017 996,662
2018 991,844
Last edited by dans on Mon, 15 Oct 2018, 14:10, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 1275
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby TheStroBro » Sun, 14 Oct 2018, 17:34

Blurandski wrote:The fact that clubs aren't making money is irrelevant, few sports clubs do, and that's not because sports as a whole can never be profitable, but rather because of how teams want to compete heavily, which creates increasing wage bills. Should all 13 clubs decide to lop 1/3rd of the salary cap tomorrow then 11 of them would be profitable by a decent amount. Talk is cheap as well, if players want to play fewer games then they'll accept lower money contracts that contain lower max minute stipulations, to my knowledge no player has taken such a deal, despite them occasionally being offered. WR invests minimal amounts in T1 countries, instead leaving it to SANZAAR and the 6N to redistribute within themselves to create a level of equality. As of 2015 about than 5% of WR's outgoing funding (so subtract WR's running costs) went to T1s (£2m/yr of £38m). While there is the chance of WR spending more on T1s in the future, T2s hold enough power to block it should one T1 break ranks.


In the US, every major sports team makes money...so I don't understand how Sports teams survive in Europe. Hell, event teams in the minors are profitable.

Posts: 2268
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby RugbyLiebe » Mon, 15 Oct 2018, 08:08

TheStroBro wrote:In the US, every major sports team makes money...so I don't understand how Sports teams survive in Europe. Hell, event teams in the minors are profitable.


Short answer: money is not the most important thing in all Western European states. Our whole societies are still basing communities way above profit (although the radical capitalism from the US becomes more common). Sport teams were never meant to make a profit. They were meant to bring the community together.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 925
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 20:40
Location: Europe
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby Thomas » Mon, 15 Oct 2018, 08:21

RugbyLiebe wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:In the US, every major sports team makes money...so I don't understand how Sports teams survive in Europe. Hell, event teams in the minors are profitable.


Short answer: money is not the most important thing in all Western European states. Our whole societies are still basing communities way above profit (although the radical capitalism from the US becomes more common). Sport teams were never meant to make a profit. They were meant to bring the community together.


I was going to answer when you got in:

The issue is cultural, American sports are more driven traditionally about money making and profit. Whereas European clubs are more community bases and sustainability. Further Clubs tend to be more entrenched rather than shop around for the next city or location that will maximise profit.

There are exceptions such as Wasps to Coventry and London Irish to Reading but they were not profit driven as far as I can ascertain.

Posts: 732
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby Tobar » Mon, 15 Oct 2018, 13:43

It’s interesting how they are typically more “community” focused and less about profit yet soccer players are some of the highest paid athletes in the world. If you want to look at profitable community sports teams then look at college football and basketball, 100,000 people show up to sit in the stands every week and that doesn’t include the thousands of people tailgating, watching at bars and yelling Roll Tide to each other.

For the record, I’m not disagreeing with you at all, American sports are typically run much more like Fortune 500 businesses than teams in other countries. Just making some other points about sports culture here.

Posts: 2268
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby RugbyLiebe » Mon, 15 Oct 2018, 13:56

Tobar wrote:It’s interesting how they are typically more “community” focused and less about profit yet soccer players are some of the highest paid athletes in the world. If you want to look at profitable community sports teams then look at college football and basketball, 100,000 people show up to sit in the stands every week and that doesn’t include the thousands of people tailgating, watching at bars and yelling Roll Tide to each other.

For the record, I’m not disagreeing with you at all, American sports are typically run much more like Fortune 500 businesses than teams in other countries. Just making some other points about sports culture here.


True but that's a quite newish trend. They actively took over the us-sports way of marketing their team. Bayern Munich's manager Uli Hoeness has always cited the NFL as the way how to promote your team. And he is basically the one-man-army behind Bayern Munich's success. Just as recently as the 1990ies, soccer was as commercialized as it is today. (Hence why I wrote, that the American way is gaining more ground). Soccer fans would never ever accept their "Community team" to be relocated etc. Even if the community character is just a fairy tale today, it is one that people still believe in. I.e. in ice-hockey the Munich team is owned by Red Bull. Not a single post from this team on social media will be found were not one (most likely more soccer than ice-hockey fan) is ranting about the commercialisation of the sport through Red Bull.
So you are absolutely right about the hypocracy this actually is.
How to grow rugby worldwide?
Look at the world ranking in July. Teams ranked 1-10 have to play one team from 11-20 (they don't play in a regular competition) away the next year. 11-20 play 21-30 away and so on. Yes, it really is that simple.

Posts: 578
Joined: Sun, 07 Dec 2014, 20:31
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: World Rugby announces historic agreement on long-term ca

Postby Figaro » Tue, 16 Oct 2018, 07:53

I think the falling 6N crowds are primarily in France and Italy (and to do with their poor recent form) rather than a long-term concern. England, Ireland and Wales are pretty much at-capactiy for all their games, despite charging extortionate rates for tickets.

Even when clubs make profits this is usually because they have alternative income streams (e.g. conference facilities, letting the stadium out for concerts, etc. etc.). Even the WRU are heavily reliant on using the Stadium for non-Rugby events like Ed Sheeran concerts, boxing etc., though they have to fund the community and pro game to some extent as well of course.

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], fridge46 and 22 guests