Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Posts: 2828
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby victorsra » Thu, 23 Nov 2017, 03:15

For me the one thing that would help all countries is a proper international window the same as football, where there are no club games allowed on certain dates, this would ensure that any players from Tier 2 countries are not faced with a club vs country dilemma.


That is impossible today.

Top 14 + Champions Cup = 38 rounds / Premiership + Anglo-Welsh Cup + Champions Cup = 39 rounds.

6N + June Tests + November Tests = minimum of 11 rounds

38 + 11 = 49.

1 year = 52/53 weekends;
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 10
Joined: Sun, 05 Feb 2017, 15:38
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby Higgik » Thu, 23 Nov 2017, 20:57

Agree there would not be the space with the current fixtures, but clubs should be looking towards a shorter season, where all players would be available. Unions should be prepared to move from traditional dates.
My idea would be to have a 22 week domestic club season and an 8 week European season. This would be played from November to April/May.
International matches would be played August to October, (14 weeks). This would mean moving 6N to August, with cross hemisphere moving to Late Sept to October.

This would give a season of 44 weeks maximum with players playing a maximum of 31 matches.

Non internationals could play a development style comp during the international season Sept to Oct, to help clubs.

I would also set up a four year cycle of internationals so that there is regular matches between T1 & T2 teams.

Posts: 2828
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby victorsra » Thu, 23 Nov 2017, 22:13

There is one way: that Top 14 and Premiership opt to have a couple of midweek matches, like Mitre 10 Cup. However, this would anyway put pression on players. Unless Top 14/Premiership/Pro14 have a legal limit of matches or hours played by a player in the competition. A rule that says a player cannot enter in the match sheet if he has exceeded X number of hours played. There must be one limit for clubs and another limit for national teams, of course.

For me this is the future for rugby. Clubs and national teams could have more matches if there is a clear, transparent and unified limit of hour played for professional players. This would allow a calendar that blocks club matches during national teams dates, to avoid pression on players. And squads would be larger with more opportunities for T2/3 players. Of course salary caps would have to be larger in this case, which means that probably just the rich leagues would like to enlarge their calendars, as poor pro leagues (like the English second division or the Italian Eccellenza) can adapt their calendars easier.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby Working Class Rugger » Thu, 23 Nov 2017, 23:50

Back in my playing days I was all for more professional games. I was in the system here in Aus and playing over 40 games a year split between school, reps, club and dev squad. That was just Rugby. Add another 12 or so RL games at school as well. So over 50 games a year. I figured that if I could do it then so could the pro's. However, my opinion has changed. I'm now suffering the effects of all that game time. Sore knee's, ankle's, lower back etc. And I'm only 31.

There's certainly a limit the human body can handle. And the game has come a long way from even my days playing in terms of athletic and physical development. Collision are far more powered thanks to this and inevitably the toll is much higher. There has to be a limit on games played and personally I think leagues like the NFL may be on the right track. I tend to think in terms of domestic league games that professional Rugby players shouldn't be playing more than 16-18 games total in terms of regular season play.

I know many may decry the loss of content in the North but taking into account the Euro structures you'd still have a very solid 24- 26 game season. And surely the opportunity to have players healthier and playing at the peak more often, with less restriction thanks to injury can only produce a better overall product. Which leads to better attendances and viewing audiences. Which leads to more money entering the sport.

From there you can run a pretty solid international season while providing players with reasonable rest periods. Probably a total of 40 weeks of Rugby a year.

Posts: 459
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 00:07

I don't know about Canada, but Rugby in the fall, if it wants to work commercially is a non-starter. The Owners of the MLR see that. Right now the league starts in April, but the game during expansion will be added on the left side of the calendar and eventually culminate I never want to see a full round robin in the states. Rugby needs to understand that they're playing one of the most physically demanding sports in the world. The lads get BFS year on year. The means meticulous S&C programs. But more importantly...in a 12 team league like Aviva or 14 like the Top14 or Pro14. You don't need to play 22 weeks of matches. You need to play like 16. Oh, and that Euro Cup, Pools should not be Home and away. International matches should be capped at 12...but even then for a 1st choice player he's still playing 35-40 games in a non-WC or Post Lions tour year. Need to get the Max games a player could appear in at 35. Or even less.

Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 00:27

TheStroBro wrote:I don't know about Canada, but Rugby in the fall, if it wants to work commercially is a non-starter. The Owners of the MLR see that. Right now the league starts in April, but the game during expansion will be added on the left side of the calendar and eventually culminate I never want to see a full round robin in the states. Rugby needs to understand that they're playing one of the most physically demanding sports in the world. The lads get BFS year on year. The means meticulous S&C programs. But more importantly...in a 12 team league like Aviva or 14 like the Top14 or Pro14. You don't need to play 22 weeks of matches. You need to play like 16. Oh, and that Euro Cup, Pools should not be Home and away. International matches should be capped at 12...but even then for a 1st choice player he's still playing 35-40 games in a non-WC or Post Lions tour year. Need to get the Max games a player could appear in at 35. Or even less.


Sixteen to 18 games is the sweet spot I think. Even with the apparent likely expansion of the Pro14 in the future it should be workable across the board. Again, many will decry such a move but we need to remember that Rugby is not Soccer and expecting players to play up to 40 games a season is completely nuts. i don't know if you'd be able to convince them to change the h/a nature of the Euro schedule but I think there could be scope to expand those structures to 24 teams each allowing for more pools but with smaller numbers of clubs in those pools (would also have the side benefit of opening more spots for T2 nations to engage with T1 clubs). Say 6 pools of 4 teams h/a for 6 games would improve things somewhat.

Posts: 2828
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby victorsra » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 00:36

European clubs want extensive calendars because they make money with TV contracts and tickets. The reality is that they want more and more matches, driven by their rush for famous players in a competition with football for space in the sports industry. But players can't deal with it, it is dangerous for players welfare. The new world calendar will be even worse for players with just one month between the end of one European season and the start of the next.

That is why I really believe the most important thing now from World Rugby is to rule over a limit of hours professional players could play. With this, the calendar can be better managed.

think there could be scope to expand those structures to 24 teams each allowing for more pools but with smaller numbers of clubs in those pools (would also have the side benefit of opening more spots for T2 nations to engage with T1 clubs). Say 6 pools of 4 teams h/a for 6 games would improve things somewhat.

More teams = less money for each one and less interesting matches. And Europeans love national leagues in round robin format...
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 01:19

victorsra wrote:European clubs want extensive calendars because they make money with TV contracts and tickets. The reality is that they want more and more matches, driven by their rush for famous players in a competition with football for space in the sports industry. But players can't deal with it, it is dangerous for players welfare. The new world calendar will be even worse for players with just one month between the end of one European season and the start of the next.

That is why I really believe the most important thing now from World Rugby is to rule over a limit of hours professional players could play. With this, the calendar can be better managed.

think there could be scope to expand those structures to 24 teams each allowing for more pools but with smaller numbers of clubs in those pools (would also have the side benefit of opening more spots for T2 nations to engage with T1 clubs). Say 6 pools of 4 teams h/a for 6 games would improve things somewhat.

More teams = less money for each one and less interesting matches. And Europeans love national leagues in round robin format...


Sometimes less is more though. There is no way players can play 35+ games a season at their peak levels of performance. It's not possible. And that's where at least from my perspective the more games = more money equation falls apart. What is more attractive from a fans perspective. Lots of games featuring players playing injured. Or missing. Or in competitions like the Anglo-Welsh Cup which are treated as more development opportunities for primarily academy or wider squad players with little recognition or interest. Or less games with all the best players available for longer performing at their peak or as close to it for longer.

I know which one I'd prefer. The volume = value equation is just lazy and deluded in a sport that requires among the greatest degree of physical engagement of any on the planet. Quality will always win out when it comes to interesting sponsors and broadcasters as high quality competition attracts more viewers than two half strength squads playing a slow and disjointed game.

Posts: 40
Joined: Tue, 24 Oct 2017, 22:03
National Flag:
SwedenSweden

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby AXLstockholm » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 01:50

Working Class Rugger wrote:
victorsra wrote:European clubs want extensive calendars because they make money with TV contracts and tickets. The reality is that they want more and more matches, driven by their rush for famous players in a competition with football for space in the sports industry. But players can't deal with it, it is dangerous for players welfare. The new world calendar will be even worse for players with just one month between the end of one European season and the start of the next.

That is why I really believe the most important thing now from World Rugby is to rule over a limit of hours professional players could play. With this, the calendar can be better managed.

think there could be scope to expand those structures to 24 teams each allowing for more pools but with smaller numbers of clubs in those pools (would also have the side benefit of opening more spots for T2 nations to engage with T1 clubs). Say 6 pools of 4 teams h/a for 6 games would improve things somewhat.

More teams = less money for each one and less interesting matches. And Europeans love national leagues in round robin format...


Sometimes less is more though. There is no way players can play 35+ games a season at their peak levels of performance. It's not possible. And that's where at least from my perspective the more games = more money equation falls apart. What is more attractive from a fans perspective. Lots of games featuring players playing injured. Or missing. Or in competitions like the Anglo-Welsh Cup which are treated as more development opportunities for primarily academy or wider squad players with little recognition or interest. Or less games with all the best players available for longer performing at their peak or as close to it for longer.

I know which one I'd prefer. The volume = value equation is just lazy and deluded in a sport that requires among the greatest degree of physical engagement of any on the planet. Quality will always win out when it comes to interesting sponsors and broadcasters as high quality competition attracts more viewers than two half strength squads playing a slow and disjointed game.


Quality over quantity. Always.

The more games played, the more indifferent both fans become. Every game must be meaningful, playing 30+ matches every season reduces their value.

As WCR pointed out, the NFL has established a "short, sharp and sweet" season and their attendances (both inside and outside the stadium) is simply massive. With less games every NFL regular season game is intriguing and much more hyped, even for neutral fans.

Even in test Rugby, the Wallabies play the All Blacks so many games every year now the fans are saying "who cares?" or "is there another game?" (of course, the Wallabies poor form does not help).

Posts: 219
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby carbonero » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 03:21

I don’t see it man. You are bringing own sensibilities to the table when the only thing that matters is what the French/English care about.

It is cultural. There is no point to compare it with the NFL. Can you imagine an Englishman without seven months of club rugby? They love their year long season, promotion/relegation, competing in Europe, etc. It is the norm in every sport.

I’ll give you that the fixtures are clearly congested and they could do a better job in capping the player’s minutes. Nevertheless, their model is the only one that looks sustainable. They don’t need the international game to subsidies the system. The stadiums are generally sold out. The TV rights keep going up. Why would they change anything?

Posts: 2828
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby victorsra » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 03:47

I’ll give you that the fixtures are clearly congested and they could do a better job in capping the player’s minutes. Nevertheless, their model is the only one that looks sustainable. They don’t need the international game to subsidies the system. The stadiums are generally sold out. The TV rights keep going up. Why would they change anything?


Yes, that is it.

The reality is that the English and French clubs are right now discussing how to increase their calendar (talks about more Anglo-Welsh Cup matches, Premiership with 14 clubs, Top 16...), we like it or not. And they have the economic power to drain Super Rugby and PRO14 players.

What looks more important with such scenario is to have a model that saves players' welfare and secures T2/T3 players availability for their national teams. Cap playing minutes for players, to be able to block dates in favor of the national teams without clashing with Top 14/Premiership calendars, allowing them to have a couple of midweek fixtures, using enlarged squads.

Remember: supporters care about the big picture, what position their club is in the standings and what they need to go up. They will fill the stands because matches worth points for their clubs. And the quality of the games wouldn't be a problem. Just look at Top 14 or Premiership matches during tests dates. The difference is that coaches would have their full squads available to choose the players in ALL rounds and it would be up to them to manage who they will select to play each match. With this, there would be big names in every match. It is not really a quantity over quality problem. It could even be better for the Premiership and Top 14 quality, because key players would play less and better (less pression with the capped minutes) and more players would have the opportunity to play and develop theirselves (T2/3 players and young T1 players), always playing side by side with key players.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1031
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 04:36

victorsra wrote:
I’ll give you that the fixtures are clearly congested and they could do a better job in capping the player’s minutes. Nevertheless, their model is the only one that looks sustainable. They don’t need the international game to subsidies the system. The stadiums are generally sold out. The TV rights keep going up. Why would they change anything?


Yes, that is it.

The reality is that the English and French clubs are right now discussing how to increase their calendar (talks about more Anglo-Welsh Cup matches, Premiership with 14 clubs, Top 16...), we like it or not. And they have the economic power to drain Super Rugby and PRO14 players.

What looks more important with such scenario is to have a model that saves players' welfare and secures T2/T3 players availability for their national teams. Cap playing minutes for players, to be able to block dates in favor of the national teams without clashing with Top 14/Premiership calendars, allowing them to have a couple of midweek fixtures, using enlarged squads.

Remember: supporters care about the big picture, what position their club is in the standings and what they need to go up. They will fill the stands because matches worth points for their clubs. And the quality of the games wouldn't be a problem. Just look at Top 14 or Premiership matches during tests dates. The difference is that coaches would have their full squads available to choose the players in ALL rounds and it would be up to them to manage who they will select to play each match. With this, there would be big names in every match. It is not really a quantity over quality problem. It could even be better for the Premiership and Top 14 quality, because key players would play less and better (less pression with the capped minutes) and more players would have the opportunity to play and develop theirselves (T2/3 players and young T1 players), always playing side by side with key players.


I find the idea of the AP and Top14 looking to further expand there season to be just so ridiculous. Look at the Top14 for example. Clubs regularly send 2nd rate teams on away games because they figure they'll make it up with their 1st team at home.

What the hell? Seriously. Supposed professional organisation taking that attitude leading into competition games. Nuts. Less games places more and more emphasis on performance. You play your best team more often in order not to drop those games because one poor game can in fact determine if you make the finals or not.

That adds so much more to the theatre of the game as well.

I look at the thinking of these leagues in the same way I look at the thinking of an accountant. Apologies if anyone here is one but I have a very low opinion of the school of thought that propagates that particular industry.It's all about numbers in there mind. More games of the same or middling quality mean more viewers. Which is true. That that doesn't mean any actual growth. Just the same viewers tuning in a for little longer.

From the outside it looks great. Like cutting wages or overtime at an org. in order to slightly bolster the companies profit margin. But it provides no actual return going forward and often can lead to more problems further down the road and it doesn't actually provide any real commercial growth. Which is what is key in delivering significant returns for sponsors and TV broadcasters.If by cutting the number of games leads to better overall player health and thus performance you are developing a better overall product. A better overall product becomes more attractive to not only existing viewers but potential new viewers as well.

This in turn grows the overall value of the product to sponsors and broadcasters alike.

Let's put it this way. Say the AP averages 120k per game over its 22 weeks season. That's 15.84m views across the course of the season. Now they go down this silly route of adding more games. Say four rounds worth. That figure then increases to 18.72m. Which looks pretty good but represent zero growth in real terms.But if you cut games and focus on providing a better more consistent product then you will be putting into place drivers to facilitate overall growth. And if done right. Strong growth at that.

At first figures wouldn't look super in comparison. But if a better product built the viewer base by 10% season on season within 5 years would add at least 50% more regular viewers.This all seems like pie in the sky stuff but in markets such as the UK and France there is a lot of room for growth and are very achievable.

Posts: 2828
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby victorsra » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 04:53

I understand what you say, but nevermind if those leagues will expand or not. If they keep their current formats, something must be done right now anyway and the idea of capping playing minutes stay. Because they won't reduce theirselves. That is out of the table for them, even if it looks reasonable. I'm just trying to think with their minds.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 219
Joined: Wed, 11 Jun 2014, 07:45
National Flag:
ArgentinaArgentina

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby carbonero » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 06:17

We are in the era of cord cutting and streaming services. Live sports event still drive decent ratings. They are probably the only reason to pay for your cable package. If you give them year-round content, broadcasters will shell out more money. More so in Europe than in other places because their fan base wants to consume games every week.

You can even find examples in the US. Baseball isn’t the most fan friendly TV product. They have 162 regular season matches averaging more than 3 hours per ball game. They still make a shit load of money with their local TV deals because broadcasters need to fill their schedule with reliable products ratings wise.

I don’t know where victor got his info but it doesn’t look that either competition is going to expand. They are not going to contract either. You might dislike it, but they are catering to their own fans. And it is clearly working.

Posts: 40
Joined: Tue, 24 Oct 2017, 22:03
National Flag:
SwedenSweden

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby AXLstockholm » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 06:56

I think this highlights why it is absolutely crucial Tier 2 nations of USA, Canada, Romania, Georgia (even Italy) and the Pacific Islands establish solid domestic professional leagues.

Progress will be extremely slow if Tier 2 players are relying on Top14/Aviva clubs (should they continue to play 30 plus games) to expand their preexisting squads to land a professional contract.

Posts: 1527
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 09:27

victorsra wrote:There is one way: that Top 14 and Premiership opt to have a couple of midweek matches, like Mitre 10 Cup. However, this would anyway put pression on players. Unless Top 14/Premiership/Pro14 have a legal limit of matches or hours played by a player in the competition. A rule that says a player cannot enter in the match sheet if he has exceeded X number of hours played. There must be one limit for clubs and another limit for national teams, of course.

For me this is the future for rugby. Clubs and national teams could have more matches if there is a clear, transparent and unified limit of hour played for professional players. This would allow a calendar that blocks club matches during national teams dates, to avoid pression on players. And squads would be larger with more opportunities for T2/3 players. Of course salary caps would have to be larger in this case, which means that probably just the rich leagues would like to enlarge their calendars, as poor pro leagues (like the English second division or the Italian Eccellenza) can adapt their calendars easier.


They have this already in England. Players are limited to 32 games in a season, game defined as more than 40 minutes of playing time.

Posts: 1527
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 09:30

victorsra wrote:European clubs want extensive calendars because they make money with TV contracts and tickets. The reality is that they want more and more matches, driven by their rush for famous players in a competition with football for space in the sports industry. But players can't deal with it, it is dangerous for players welfare. The new world calendar will be even worse for players with just one month between the end of one European season and the start of the next.


Except there are no proposals for more matches I've seen from the clubs, the reason we have more club v country conflicts is that the internationals have expanded from 6 weeks of the season (6 games) to 12 or 13 weeks (8 or 9 games plus prep weeks before autumn and 6N plus 2 rest weeks in 6N).

Posts: 2828
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby victorsra » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 14:27

Recently they started discussing this. In 2015 in England, http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/31657245, this year about Top 14 http://www.rugbyrama.fr/rugby/top-14/20 ... tory.shtml and the Anglo-Welsh http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... d-12755443 http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/39713384 Nothing concrete, but there are movements indeed and they can become serious.


They have this already in England. Players are limited to 32 games in a season, game defined as more than 40 minutes of playing time.

Didn't know that but I mean an unified cap (the same for all pro leagues) coming from World Rugby together with a block on national teams dates. Nevermind if there will be or wont be expansions, that is a way to keep clubs away from international dates.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 459
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 15:46

sk 88 wrote:
victorsra wrote:European clubs want extensive calendars because they make money with TV contracts and tickets. The reality is that they want more and more matches, driven by their rush for famous players in a competition with football for space in the sports industry. But players can't deal with it, it is dangerous for players welfare. The new world calendar will be even worse for players with just one month between the end of one European season and the start of the next.


Except there are no proposals for more matches I've seen from the clubs, the reason we have more club v country conflicts is that the internationals have expanded from 6 weeks of the season (6 games) to 12 or 13 weeks (8 or 9 games plus prep weeks before autumn and 6N plus 2 rest weeks in 6N).


But they did extend the season. Which I'm sure will lead to 3 or 4 more fixtures. When you should be cutting it be 5 or 6.

Posts: 226
Joined: Fri, 14 Aug 2015, 13:58
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby marvinparsons » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 16:01

From a Canadian perspective how/where/who we play our internationals is not very important. No matter how you slice it it'll be mainly the same quality of players producing the same results. The only difference is getting home matches that fill stadiums for money and exposure (i.e. Maori, Italy, Scotland etc.) and I think they are doing a fine job there.

Emphasis should be on a pro rugby and fixing club game.

Posts: 1527
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Options for Northern Hemisphere T2

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 24 Nov 2017, 16:29

TheStroBro wrote:
sk 88 wrote:
victorsra wrote:European clubs want extensive calendars because they make money with TV contracts and tickets. The reality is that they want more and more matches, driven by their rush for famous players in a competition with football for space in the sports industry. But players can't deal with it, it is dangerous for players welfare. The new world calendar will be even worse for players with just one month between the end of one European season and the start of the next.


Except there are no proposals for more matches I've seen from the clubs, the reason we have more club v country conflicts is that the internationals have expanded from 6 weeks of the season (6 games) to 12 or 13 weeks (8 or 9 games plus prep weeks before autumn and 6N plus 2 rest weeks in 6N).


But they did extend the season.
Which I'm sure will lead to 3 or 4 more fixtures. When you should be cutting it be 5 or 6.


When?

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], fridge46, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests