Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Your feelings on the World League proposal

Are you:

For
22
47%
Against
11
23%
Undecided
14
30%
 
Total votes : 47
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Working Class Rugger » Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 22:53

Tobar wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Rugga wrote:12 team league with a play off to stop a team like Scotland swapping with a Uruguay. If the league goes ahead will there be no six nations and rugby championship?

What do people think of having it every for years in between a World Cup and lions tour?


No. Both the 6Ns and RC will continue.


How? Sure you could count 6N/TRC towards World League but then that gets all messed up if anyone outside those 12 enters.


It's set to run during the July and November test windows. Both the 6Ns and RC operate outside of both of those windows.

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Working Class Rugger » Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 22:58

fullbackace wrote:Undecided, leaning towards no. Even with relegation It'll just be US/Georgia/Italy going up and down. Others are screwed. So one season of good tests followed by a season of bad tests... From the development point of view it's much better if you mix Tier 1 and Tier 2 tests in the same year.


For me the key will come down to money. How much this structure is worth and how it is distributed. Would be nice if it were a 36 way split but in all honesty it will be tiered. But what each nations does with the funds they receive will likely dictate whether they stay up or go down. And this is actually an advantage to the emerging nations. The larger Pro Unions have much bigger overheads and more mouths to feed thus won't be able to dedicate the same % of those funds to the necessary elements the emerging Unions could to rapidly close the gap.

Posts: 1448
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby TheStroBro » Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 23:12

This could be a good idea...if it's only 1 of 3 years in between World Cups. You would have to do it in a non-Lions tour year...but you just take the gap the Lions are in now and the Lions would tour the year following the World Cup and not just to 1 of 3 countries either.

I would go:
2020-Lions Tour
2021-World League
2022-Normal
2023-World Cup

If you require a playoff, I don't see the second tier ever getting a reward. In fact I find that a way to ringfence it without calling it ringfencing. So slag that. You win second tier you go up to first tier.

However, this really doesn't force Unions to be more self-sustainable, it's just more handouts.

Posts: 344
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Blurandski » Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 23:46

Tobar wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:
Rugga wrote:12 team league with a play off to stop a team like Scotland swapping with a Uruguay. If the league goes ahead will there be no six nations and rugby championship?

What do people think of having it every for years in between a World Cup and lions tour?


No. Both the 6Ns and RC will continue.


How? Sure you could count 6N/TRC towards World League but then that gets all messed up if anyone outside those 12 enters.


It's a maximum of six match days, so it can just be the July and Nov windows. As for the other question, keeping home matches at one time of year really helps with promotion and public following, the November internationals are an event, some countries having a couple of home matches in November then a random home fixture in July really wouldn't work too well.

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Working Class Rugger » Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 23:59

TheStroBro wrote:This could be a good idea...if it's only 1 of 3 years in between World Cups. You would have to do it in a non-Lions tour year...but you just take the gap the Lions are in now and the Lions would tour the year following the World Cup and not just to 1 of 3 countries either.

I would go:
2020-Lions Tour
2021-World League
2022-Normal
2023-World Cup

If you require a playoff, I don't see the second tier ever getting a reward. In fact I find that a way to ringfence it without calling it ringfencing. So slag that. You win second tier you go up to first tier.

However, this really doesn't force Unions to be more self-sustainable, it's just more handouts.


A straight pro/rel system is what is used in the age grade system and I agree it would be the fairest way rewarding performance. It's just some of the larger Unions will make things difficult in the process. If this proves lucrative and what you get depends on which division you are playing any chance of losing the income would make many anxious about what is really a non-issue for most of them.

I think part of the thinking behind this model is that it would allow WR to divert their current developments funds to the teams ranked 37 and below. If this is lucrative and the monies received are greater than what WR distributes now then everyone wins in a way. At least that's what I'm hoping for. I understand your issues with the handouts model. I think it will hinge on what those funds are used for. If the Unions were smart they'd invest in HP and development. Trying to get as many people playing and providing them with the best possible pathways while doing so. This would greatly assist in growing their bases whiich will be essential to drive this concept on.

On WR behalf I really want to see a marketing plan not for just the 1st division but for all three designed to drive visibility and commercial growth. This would help not only the structure but with the added visibility allow individual Unions to seek out their own commercial interests domestically. Which would alleviate the reliance on monies from this structure.

That said, if this is a truly commercial structure then each of the participating Unions are in themselves stakeholders in the venture. Which is the model used by many sports leagues internationally. The league generates commercial deals and distributes them among stakeholders. Who then use them for the operations. This would be the case in the World League just on a different scale.

As for the schedule. I wouldn't actually mind Lions tour moving to the year before the RWC. That way using the years you've highlighted.

2020 - World League
2021 - World League
2022 - Lions
2023 - RWC.

But only if the World League runs over two years. With the first year being the 'group' stages to determine placings and the second year being the 'finals' leading to the final rankings - winner and relegated/promoted teams. I think if structured right it could mix up the matches just enough to make it compelling enough to audiences. And being moving the Lions from 2020 to 2022 and having an off year you allow audiences to have a break leading into the RWC every four years.

User avatar
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat, 19 Apr 2014, 14:41
National Flag:
NetherlandsNetherlands

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby NedRugby » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 00:14

Everyone except Silver Fox is only looking at T1 and T2. But if it really is going to go all the way down to 36 in the rankings then there's a lot of T3s involved as well. Personally I don't know how a league with Colombia v Switzerland, or Lithuania v Korea would be funded so I think teams 25-36 might never get their league off the ground. The Netherlands has just sneaked into the top 24 (maybe for the first time, not sure) and this is probably higher than our true level because we have got there by beating weaker teams. For teams like this a chance to play someone like Romania or Uruguay is as appetising as it would be for you guys to get a crack at Scotland or Australia. So I am very much in favour, even if T1s are ringfenced (though like everyone here I would prefer they weren't, but you have to be realistic) and even if the third level ranked 25-36 doesn't materialise. It is still better than what we have now.

Posts: 4497
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 00:23

Working Class Rugger wrote:For me the key will come down to money. How much this structure is worth and how it is distributed. Would be nice if it were a 36 way split but in all honesty it will be tiered. But what each nations does with the funds they receive will likely dictate whether they stay up or go down. And this is actually an advantage to the emerging nations. The larger Pro Unions have much bigger overheads and more mouths to feed thus won't be able to dedicate the same % of those funds to the necessary elements the emerging Unions could to rapidly close the gap.


If everything is proportional depending on what level of the pyramid a team is on I think that's a reasonable distribution of the finances. So, lets say the teams in Division I get 50% of the TV revenue distributed equally, Division 2 get 30% distributed equally, and Division 3 the final 20% spread equally among themselves. Then everything is merit based. Promotion means you earn more the following year, get relegated and you earn less. All of a sudden there's incentive for Unions to better themselves.

A big issue is going to be whether there is going to be TV coverage for each of the 18 games per round, and how to best schedule them in a way so there's as little overlap as possible. It not much good touting a 36 team nations league and having only 7 or 8 games broadcast. Do you want people to know Spain are playing Canada or not? If there's no coverage of the lower divisions I don't know who this helps.

This concept is only going to work if:
A) There's a willingness from the 6N to risk being relegated and playing less glamorous teams the following year.
B) The scheduling makes sense for people to follow and has actual value.
C) There's enough media coverage across all 3 Divisions.
D) The financial structure is merit based and gives teams incentive to improve.
E) It doesn't devalue the World Cup.
F) There are enough opportunities for teams to be promoted to a higher division. It's little use having a one up/one down system because we risk the same teams getting promoted and relegated.

If all those problems are resolved then the concept is workable.

Posts: 4497
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 00:30

NedRugby wrote:Everyone except Silver Fox is only looking at T1 and T2. But if it really is going to go all the way down to 36 in the rankings then there's a lot of T3s involved as well. Personally I don't know how a league with Colombia v Switzerland, or Lithuania v Korea would be funded so I think teams 25-36 might never get their league off the ground. The Netherlands has just sneaked into the top 24 (maybe for the first time, not sure) and this is probably higher than our true level because we have got there by beating weaker teams. For teams like this a chance to play someone like Romania or Uruguay is as appetising as it would be for you guys to get a crack at Scotland or Australia. So I am very much in favour, even if T1s are ringfenced (though like everyone here I would prefer they weren't, but you have to be realistic) and even if the third level ranked 25-36 doesn't materialise. It is still better than what we have now.


If WR thinks they can run 3 divisions then they must have an idea of what the costs would be. There is a lot of benefit to this concept for teams ranked 25-36, it would guarantee regular competition each year, in some cases it would double the number of tests they play, with the added incentive of promotion to a higher level. Again, on paper this idea has merit.

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Working Class Rugger » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 01:00

thatrugbyguy wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:For me the key will come down to money. How much this structure is worth and how it is distributed. Would be nice if it were a 36 way split but in all honesty it will be tiered. But what each nations does with the funds they receive will likely dictate whether they stay up or go down. And this is actually an advantage to the emerging nations. The larger Pro Unions have much bigger overheads and more mouths to feed thus won't be able to dedicate the same % of those funds to the necessary elements the emerging Unions could to rapidly close the gap.


If everything is proportional depending on what level of the pyramid a team is on I think that's a reasonable distribution of the finances. So, lets say the teams in Division I get 50% of the TV revenue distributed equally, Division 2 get 30% distributed equally, and Division 3 the final 20% spread equally among themselves. Then everything is merit based. Promotion means you earn more the following year, get relegated and you earn less. All of a sudden there's incentive for Unions to better themselves.

A big issue is going to be whether there is going to be TV coverage for each of the 18 games per round, and how to best schedule them in a way so there's as little overlap as possible. It not much good touting a 36 team nations league and having only 7 or 8 games broadcast. Do you want people to know Spain are playing Canada or not? If there's no coverage of the lower divisions I don't know who this helps.

This concept is only going to work if:
A) There's a willingness from the 6N to risk being relegated and playing less glamorous teams the following year.
B) The scheduling makes sense for people to follow and has actual value.
C) There's enough media coverage across all 3 Divisions.
D) The financial structure is merit based and gives teams incentive to improve.
E) It doesn't devalue the World Cup.
F) There are enough opportunities for teams to be promoted to a higher division. It's little use having a one up/one down system because we risk the same teams getting promoted and relegated.

If all those problems are resolved then the concept is workable.


I agree on the split of revenues. It's how I see it likely fleshing out. And it does provide incentives for development and performance for all participating Unions. Move up the divisions and you get the opportunity to earn more. Don't play your best and you risk losing cash. I really cannot see the 9 big players being in danger of relegation for a while anyway and if so watch the divisions expand from 12 to 16 in short time. Which is something they should be aiming for in time to include more targeted markets in the future anyway without having to add a 4th division.

I do agree with the broadcast of games. Differing time zones of participants will help but it needs to be broadcast at the very least domestically in each nations and easily accessible for broadcasters in others. I think it would be smart not to call them Div 1, 2 or 3. Instead to opt for World Series, World League and World Shield or something like that. This will all depend on detailed marketing plans being established for the structure and its individual divisions solely focuses on driving growth in visibility and commercial growth.

Posts: 344
Joined: Mon, 12 Mar 2018, 02:19
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Blurandski » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 01:53

At the very least it needs to be a 2 up, 2 down system (1 per conference), preferably there would also be a playoff between 3&4th bottom and 3rd&4th top between the division below. I also wonder how they're going to deal with who joins the bottom tier, hopefully they'd do something like relegating the bottom two sides, and then inviting the best finishing not already qualified teams from each of the ARC/ARCh, the RE leagues, best African team, and best Asian/Oceanian team. So currently it'd consist of: Czech Republic, Paraguay, Tunisia, Malaysia. Top 2 qualify.

As for the revenue split, something like 45%, 25%, 15% would work for me, with the remaining 15% to go to WR to spend as they see fit.

Posts: 4497
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 02:17

I think there needs to be at least a 3 up/3 down system. 3 groups of 4 the last place team in each group gets relegated, and the winners of the three groups in the lower league get promoted. The question of teams outside of the top 36 is interesting though. I think regional winners playing off for a place in division 3 is a good idea.

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Working Class Rugger » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 02:35

Blurandski wrote:At the very least it needs to be a 2 up, 2 down system (1 per conference), preferably there would also be a playoff between 3&4th bottom and 3rd&4th top between the division below. I also wonder how they're going to deal with who joins the bottom tier, hopefully they'd do something like relegating the bottom two sides, and then inviting the best finishing not already qualified teams from each of the ARC/ARCh, the RE leagues, best African team, and best Asian/Oceanian team. So currently it'd consist of: Czech Republic, Paraguay, Tunisia, Malaysia. Top 2 qualify.

As for the revenue split, something like 45%, 25%, 15% would work for me, with the remaining 15% to go to WR to spend as they see fit.


I think at best we'll see similar to that in the U20s structure on one up and one down until its well and truly bedded down and sure signs of the 2nd division becoming increasingly competitive are visibly seen. In terms of adding to the structure in the future. Structurally without adding a 4th div you could do that by expanding at the very least the 1st div from 12 to 16 teams and move up the top 4 from the 2nd div which in turn would see the top 4 from the 3rd div move up opening up 4 new spaces in the 3rd div. They could of course expand the top 2 divisions which would add another 8 places but let's go with just 4. As for who those places will go to if or when that comes up. Well, I think you have to look at the nations/economies involved in the proposed model and those that would fall outside of it if it gets up. There are two pretty damn big ones and a couple fairly substantial ones sitting outside the 36 that you'd imagine would be on WR hit list.

WR would have to make the choice between rewarding rankings or the growth potential of larger economies. Personally, if they were to look to include more they should look at expanding the top 2 divisions opening up 8 places which would allow WR to elevate the likes of China, India and Mexico while also rewarding others for rankings.

But ultimately that will depend heavily on whether the money is there and part of that relates to the split. I have no issue with the 45/25/15 split so long as the 15% WR would get from it is heavily invested in promoting the structure across all three divisions in efforts to grow its visibility and viewership. Again this is where the 2nd and 3rd divs have an advantage as the growth opportunities in these makes is much greater than the more established Unions though still substantial in themselves. WR will still have the monies from RWC to spend on developing the game in emerging nations but if this works out to be lucrative what they were once beholden to spend would be essentially voided as these nations would be receiving if not at the least the same potentially substantially more than what WR would be giving them via this structure.

Honestly, if WR were to receive 15% of the take then I would want to see 15% growth in viewership and commercial interest/visibility annually. So if the audience for the concept is say 20m in year one over a five year cycle I would want it to have grown to nothing less than 35m in order to grow the financial base of the competition.

Posts: 4516
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby victorsra » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 02:53

thatrugbyguy wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:For me the key will come down to money. How much this structure is worth and how it is distributed. Would be nice if it were a 36 way split but in all honesty it will be tiered. But what each nations does with the funds they receive will likely dictate whether they stay up or go down. And this is actually an advantage to the emerging nations. The larger Pro Unions have much bigger overheads and more mouths to feed thus won't be able to dedicate the same % of those funds to the necessary elements the emerging Unions could to rapidly close the gap.


If everything is proportional depending on what level of the pyramid a team is on I think that's a reasonable distribution of the finances. So, lets say the teams in Division I get 50% of the TV revenue distributed equally, Division 2 get 30% distributed equally, and Division 3 the final 20% spread equally among themselves. Then everything is merit based. Promotion means you earn more the following year, get relegated and you earn less. All of a sudden there's incentive for Unions to better themselves.

A big issue is going to be whether there is going to be TV coverage for each of the 18 games per round, and how to best schedule them in a way so there's as little overlap as possible. It not much good touting a 36 team nations league and having only 7 or 8 games broadcast. Do you want people to know Spain are playing Canada or not? If there's no coverage of the lower divisions I don't know who this helps.

This concept is only going to work if:
A) There's a willingness from the 6N to risk being relegated and playing less glamorous teams the following year.
B) The scheduling makes sense for people to follow and has actual value.
C) There's enough media coverage across all 3 Divisions.
D) The financial structure is merit based and gives teams incentive to improve.
E) It doesn't devalue the World Cup.
F) There are enough opportunities for teams to be promoted to a higher division. It's little use having a one up/one down system because we risk the same teams getting promoted and relegated.

If all those problems are resolved then the concept is workable.


Agree with everything.

The promotion/relegation system of the Uefa Nations League has 4 teams (out of 12) relegated, 1 from each group.

Really cruel but if this is the model for World Rugby maybe they'll modify a bit making the 4 bottom teams facing Repechages against the 4 group winners of the 2nd division.

This woudn't be bad as we'd have at least 2 T1s facing teams ranked 13-16, but only if played home and away.

Maybe such composition would achieve a compromise of the 6Ns about relegation.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Working Class Rugger » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 03:12

victorsra wrote:
thatrugbyguy wrote:
Working Class Rugger wrote:For me the key will come down to money. How much this structure is worth and how it is distributed. Would be nice if it were a 36 way split but in all honesty it will be tiered. But what each nations does with the funds they receive will likely dictate whether they stay up or go down. And this is actually an advantage to the emerging nations. The larger Pro Unions have much bigger overheads and more mouths to feed thus won't be able to dedicate the same % of those funds to the necessary elements the emerging Unions could to rapidly close the gap.


If everything is proportional depending on what level of the pyramid a team is on I think that's a reasonable distribution of the finances. So, lets say the teams in Division I get 50% of the TV revenue distributed equally, Division 2 get 30% distributed equally, and Division 3 the final 20% spread equally among themselves. Then everything is merit based. Promotion means you earn more the following year, get relegated and you earn less. All of a sudden there's incentive for Unions to better themselves.

A big issue is going to be whether there is going to be TV coverage for each of the 18 games per round, and how to best schedule them in a way so there's as little overlap as possible. It not much good touting a 36 team nations league and having only 7 or 8 games broadcast. Do you want people to know Spain are playing Canada or not? If there's no coverage of the lower divisions I don't know who this helps.

This concept is only going to work if:
A) There's a willingness from the 6N to risk being relegated and playing less glamorous teams the following year.
B) The scheduling makes sense for people to follow and has actual value.
C) There's enough media coverage across all 3 Divisions.
D) The financial structure is merit based and gives teams incentive to improve.
E) It doesn't devalue the World Cup.
F) There are enough opportunities for teams to be promoted to a higher division. It's little use having a one up/one down system because we risk the same teams getting promoted and relegated.

If all those problems are resolved then the concept is workable.


Agree with everything.

The promotion/relegation system of the Uefa Nations League has 4 teams (out of 12) relegated, 1 from each group.

Really cruel but if this is the model for World Rugby maybe they'll modify a bit making the 4 bottom teams facing Repechages against the 4 group winners of the 2nd division.

This woudn't be bad as we'd have at least 2 T1s facing teams ranked 13-16, but only if played home and away.

Maybe such composition would achieve a compromise of the 6Ns about relegation.


How I would like to see it structured would be over two years with year 1 being pool play to determine the top 4 from each pool who would then go on to the 'finals' pools the next year featuring home and away to determine top one or even two team to play in the semi-final and final or just final. The bottom from each pool would go into their own pool to play off to seen which ones play off against the top 2 from the division below in a promotion/relegation winner takes all play off.

So in year one you would have two pools of 6 and in year two 3 pools of four.

Posts: 4497
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 03:24

The thing about the relegation situation is the T1 teams don't have a leg to stand on as to why it shouldn't be implemented. They've already got their own closed shop competitions, they've already got more than enough opportunities to automatically qualify for the following World Cup. What possible reason can they honestly give to dismiss the concept when the two competitions that draw most of their money and give them the most publicity remain unchanged? Lets say the TV money is going to offset any losses they may inherit from playing lower ranked teams in Division 2, what's their argument against the idea at that point? Is it just a case of status then? What, they think they are too good to play Canada or Uruguay or whoever? The idea on paper solves the problem rugby has, it preserves the existing closed competitions, but opens up the chances for nations to get a chance at the bigger teams on a more regular basis.

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Working Class Rugger » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 03:32

thatrugbyguy wrote:The thing about the relegation situation is the T1 teams don't have a leg to stand on as to why it shouldn't be implemented. They've already got their own closed shop competitions, they've already got more than enough opportunities to automatically qualify for the following World Cup. What possible reason can they honestly give to dismiss the concept when the two competitions that draw most of their money and give them the most publicity remain unchanged? Lets say the TV money is going to offset any losses they may inherit from playing lower ranked teams in Division 2, what's their argument against the idea at that point? Is it just a case of status then? What, they think they are too good to play Canada or Uruguay or whoever? The idea on paper solves the problem rugby has, it preserves the existing closed competitions, but opens up the chances for nations to get a chance at the bigger teams on a more regular basis.


I suspect much of their issues relate around other aspects such as gate receipts etc. more so than any potential TV revenue because I completely agree with everything else you've said here.

Posts: 4516
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby victorsra » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 04:18

Whatever the format I do agree this competition should be 2020-21, 2022-23 and so on, with groups in year 1 and finals in year 2.The problem is the calendar during the RWC year.

But this could work like this:

July 2020 - League Groups phase
November 2020 - League Groups phase
July 2021 - no League, only Lions + tests + whatever regional competition people in the forum want
November 2021 - League finals (in an expanded version with home and away matches at least in SFs)
July 2022 - League Groups phase
November 2022 - League Groups phase
August 2023 - League finals (in a shorter version, with a pre selected venue, around the RWC host country, max 2 rounds)
September-October 2023 - RWC

BTW, that's how UEFA Nations League works. Now they are playing the 2018-19 season and next season will be 2020-21.
Brazilian Rugby News: www.portaldorugby.com.br

Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 14:11
National Flag:
ZimbabweZimbabwe

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Sables4EVA » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 06:58

I can't decide. Though there is the threat of the top teams isolating themselves from all other rugby nations, it does mean the lower tier nations get a few more meaningful games. I t all depends on whether they ring fence the divisions or not and whether the nations outside the top 36 have a good chance of playing games to improve their rankings to get into the top 36.

I mean, the UEFA Nations League seemed to work better than I expected and it made for an exciting session of games rather than a string of meaningless and boring friendlies.

Posts: 2424
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby RugbyLiebe » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 08:59

iul wrote:Don't be naive guys, the T1s will be ringfenced. You think if Scotland get relegated they'll be OK with a year of tests against Romania, Spain, Uruguay, Namibia, Germany and Canada(or something like that)? For fuck's sake, the T1s pulled out of the U18 euro because a couple of them got relegated.


Not even relegated, were facing relegation matches :evil:

If Pichot gets his saying, I'm fine with it, but I have to agree with iul that chances are very slim.
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: 4497
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 09:59

Sables4EVA wrote:I can't decide. Though there is the threat of the top teams isolating themselves from all other rugby nations, it does mean the lower tier nations get a few more meaningful games. I t all depends on whether they ring fence the divisions or not and whether the nations outside the top 36 have a good chance of playing games to improve their rankings to get into the top 36.

I mean, the UEFA Nations League seemed to work better than I expected and it made for an exciting session of games rather than a string of meaningless and boring friendlies.


There will have to be some type of regional playoffs for teams outside the top 36 to get into the third division. Just looking at nations ranked 37-48 you've got Czech Republic, Paraguay, Malta, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Ivory Coast, Sweden, Morocco, Malaysia, and Croatia. A lot of Africa in that group.

Posts: 964
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Tobar » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 18:54

As we keep discussing this, we keep uncovering more and more issues that need to be cleared up. We need to understand the revenue stream, viewing options, tournament format, pro/rel format, scheduling, assistance for lower tiered teams. The list just keeps building and I really hope they are taking the time to discuss this and not agree on the first thing they can think of come January.

I do agree that this could be a game changer for the 3rd division teams, whatever the case is for tournament/promotion format. At the very least, this guarantees that they will have at least 6 or so matches per year against teams they may never get the chance to play. South American teams like Paraguay and Colombia are lucky to just start playing Brazil, Chile and even Mexico. The idea that they could be playing Kenya, Poland, Korea or Switzerland is terrific.

But then the issue comes up - how can these teams afford to travel to play these countries? How can they ensure that their players are able to play an additional 6 matches per year? Colombia is part of the SA 6 Nations and ARChallenge which both ran this year from 5/5 - 5/20 and 8/4 - 9/1. Can they seriously compete in 11 test matches when almost all of their players are amateur? Will they have to play the matches in a neutral location over a shortened period, similar to the repechage?

Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 20:40
Location: Europe
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Thomas » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 20:21

You hit the nail on the head regarding this proposal, What is the revenue stream? How will it work and most importantly how can these teams afford to travel to play ?

Some of these countries OECD Ranking leaves much to be desired and some of their priorities are on more pressing domestics issues than globetrotting sports. that's the reality.

Just because T1 Countries can afford the expenditure, Below a certain level most will struggle and I don't just mean traveling.

Posts: 964
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Tobar » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 21:28

Right, and I'd be open to having 1 team host 2 or 3 other teams for the time being to help offset costs. This was the format for the Americas Rugby Challenge - Colombia hosted Mexico, Paraguay and Guayana and they played 3 matches over the period of 7-8 days. It was a good tournament and allowed fans to go to some games. It's not ideal but for countries in this ranking it is definitely better than playing in a neutral venue.

Posts: 4497
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 13 Dec 2018, 23:48

Tobar wrote:As we keep discussing this, we keep uncovering more and more issues that need to be cleared up. We need to understand the revenue stream, viewing options, tournament format, pro/rel format, scheduling, assistance for lower tiered teams. The list just keeps building and I really hope they are taking the time to discuss this and not agree on the first thing they can think of come January.

I do agree that this could be a game changer for the 3rd division teams, whatever the case is for tournament/promotion format. At the very least, this guarantees that they will have at least 6 or so matches per year against teams they may never get the chance to play. South American teams like Paraguay and Colombia are lucky to just start playing Brazil, Chile and even Mexico. The idea that they could be playing Kenya, Poland, Korea or Switzerland is terrific.

But then the issue comes up - how can these teams afford to travel to play these countries? How can they ensure that their players are able to play an additional 6 matches per year? Colombia is part of the SA 6 Nations and ARChallenge which both ran this year from 5/5 - 5/20 and 8/4 - 9/1. Can they seriously compete in 11 test matches when almost all of their players are amateur? Will they have to play the matches in a neutral location over a shortened period, similar to the repechage?



My concern is none of the issues people here are bringing up have been thought about by WR or the T1 nations. It's all well and good to say 3 divisions of 12 teams but as you say, who's paying for these lower division teams to travel? If someone is going to cover the costs of Columbia traveling to play in Poland, Switzerland and Korea in November then that's great, in fact it's more than great, it's a potential game changer for the entire game. More T3 teams playing more often along with a genuine pathway to higher divisions and better quality opposition. But if it's going to be left to these T3 nations to cover the expenses then I don't know how feasible it is. If those costs are factored into the potential TV deal that is rumoured then there's far less pressure on those smaller unions financially. The question is whether that has been thought of. I will say this, this World League idea seems to be coming from WR and not the T1 nations, so at the very least they don't have complete control over the idea at present. It all depends on how genuine the idea is, what the objective is, and who it's for.

Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri, 25 Apr 2014, 14:11
National Flag:
ZimbabweZimbabwe

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal

Postby Sables4EVA » Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 06:01

thatrugbyguy wrote:A lot of Africa in that group.


Exactly, and for a continent where the game is growing in numbers if not in quality it could either encourage or discourage growth if it is not handled correctly. The quality will come if there is a drive towards improvement.

Tobar wrote:As we keep discussing this, we keep uncovering more and more issues that need to be cleared up. We need to understand the revenue stream, viewing options, tournament format, pro/rel format, scheduling, assistance for lower tiered teams.


Is it a case of a "build it and they will come" mentality?

PreviousNext

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 17 guests