Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Are you:

For
6
10%
Against
52
90%
 
Total votes : 58
User avatar
Posts: 2535
Joined: Wed, 30 Apr 2014, 16:57

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby 4N » Thu, 16 May 2019, 22:33

victorsra wrote:Very naive text.

Professional leagues in minor nations won't simply grow. It is international rugby and only it that really has appeal in emerging nations. Kill the Tupis calendar and rugby's economy is dead here. SLAR is only an ilusion at the momment.

You need quality calendar. Meaningful tests and meaningful club leagues. You need a plan. The free hand of the market won't solve anything. In fact it will only make it even more uneaven and benefit even more the T1 rugby.


:thumbup:

And it would benefit those with a “head start” in professionalism - artificially propping up smaller markets over bigger emerging ones like Brazil or Russia.

Posts: 7
Joined: Thu, 02 May 2019, 18:42
National Flag:
IrelandIreland

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Shev » Fri, 17 May 2019, 01:10

international rugby and only it that really has appeal in emerging nations. Kill the Tupis calendar and rugby's economy is dead here.

Yes you are probably right, international rugby does have a much larger following than club rugby. Even in tier one nations this is true. I would like to think club rugby would be able to survive on it's own but in reality professional club rugby would probably not be able to survive in smaller countries if it wasn't for the financial backing of the unions.

Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby TheStroBro » Fri, 17 May 2019, 03:33

victorsra wrote:Very naive text.

Professional leagues in minor nations won't simply grow. It is international rugby and only it that really has appeal in emerging nations. Kill the Tupis calendar and rugby's economy is dead here. SLAR is only an ilusion at the momment.

You need quality calendar. Meaningful tests and meaningful club leagues. You need a plan. The free hand of the market won't solve anything. In fact it will only make it even more uneaven and benefit even more the T1 rugby.

The solution to market expansion is a fucking open system. Nonsense to believe it is better to have no 6N.

Besides how is it true Top14 rugby develops better players?


I don't know anything about Brazil in the Rugby context. But the lack of notoriety of the Eagles means nothing to building a commercial enterprise, there's basically a blank slate.

Posts: 66
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2014, 15:20
National Flag:
TurkeyTurkey

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby erginclass » Fri, 17 May 2019, 07:04

World Rugby should kick the person who has a got idea of World League.

They should go back to "San Francisco Agreement". Which is good solution for now.

Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 17 May 2019, 07:41

What this Theroar opinion piece lacks, is understanding, that rugby outside of tier1 and a few tier2 countries is an unknown curiosity.
You've got two chances to grow the game.

a) Create a big international tournament and try to get the smaller nations up. That's what soccer did. They had their first pro leagues (Austria in the 1920ies was the first if I am right) and creates and inclusive environment where new teams were not only welcomed but promoted. Accept no single obstacle in the international game. Create a big tournament on your continent, again except no obstacles (like the Brits tried to create in both tournaments with their Home Nations whatever cup) and accept no excuses why to not play somebodey. If you don't play, you get the consequences. The national game was what ultimately created the way for the pro leagues everywhere.
I think this solution will always be blocked by the 6N. Even small steps. Won't work.

b) Have an existing uber commercial super league and market the sh** out of it. This is what the NFL does. This works well, but as gridiron international games are more like a fun children's camp, the growth in playing base can only be to a certain degree.

I think, that our single biggest hope is that MLR becomes a huge success and starts doing NFL-things AND that the 6N don't suck them up by offering them a place and hasn't destroyed the international game in the rest of the world.
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.

User avatar
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2014, 23:16
National Flag:
NetherlandsNetherlands

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Silver Fox » Fri, 17 May 2019, 08:42

erginclass wrote:World Rugby should kick the person who has a got idea of World League.

They should go back to "San Francisco Agreement". Which is good solution for now.
I am sorry that I feel that I have to keep on repeating myself.
But can anyone explain to me the difference between the "San Francisco Agreement" (which is generally accepted) and these latest rumours (that everyone opposes) other than that they will label the T1-T1 matches and get a shitload of money for it?
Last edited by Silver Fox on Fri, 17 May 2019, 09:59, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2014, 23:16
National Flag:
NetherlandsNetherlands

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Silver Fox » Fri, 17 May 2019, 09:04

To help you on your way:
A 10 team T1 Nations Campionship involves 45 games (annually and not counting a final).
41 of them are already on the calendar in the "San Francisco Agreement".


For those who don't realise when these 41 matches are played:
15 in the 6N
6 in the RC
12 in November
8 in July

Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 17 May 2019, 11:01

Silver Fox wrote:To help you on your way:
A 10 team T1 Nations Campionship involves 45 games (annually and not counting a final).
41 of them are already on the calendar in the "San Francisco Agreement".


For those who don't realise when these 41 matches are played:
15 in the 6N
6 in the RC
12 in November
8 in July


While your 15 6N games are correct, the RC has a home-and-away round-robin with 12 games, if I am not totally wrong.
I agree, that a breakdown on the game numbers is absolutely necessary to really judge this. Where did you get the numbers of 45 games from?
Actually the 12 games in the RC might even make a very good point for your opinion.

Edit: numbers from 2018 only counting games between RC + 6N
6N: 15
RC: 12 +1 (Bledisloe)
November: 16
Mid-year: 14
---------
58

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_end- ... rnationals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_June ... nion_tests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bledisloe_Cup
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: 2659
Joined: Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 13:30
National Flag:
GermanyGermany

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby RugbyLiebe » Fri, 17 May 2019, 11:14

Breakdown of possible World League games.

6N: 15
RC: 12
Rest: 24 (4 teams playing 6 other teams each).
-------
63

if this numbers are correct, we have 5 more games between tier1 nations leading to 5 less games against tier2.

T1vsT2 test in 2018 (not counting Barbarians, World XV, Maoris, French Barbarians etc.):
Mid-year: 3
Nov: 7
--------
10

So if my calculations are correct it would cut games between tier1 and tier2 teams by 50%. That is indeed significant and would make a case to call this a disaster.

Edit: there is a small variable in this, as during the Interhemisphere-duells, two Northern teams will be available for 4 weeks. So if one cuts the Barbarians etc. you could get 8 games against t2 out of that.

Edit2: games against Barbarians, World XV, Maoris, French Barbarians in 2018
Mid-year:
Tier1: 1
Tier2:1

Nov:
Tier1:1
Tier2:4

If this stays the same, you have 6 free slots against tier2 left. That's a 40% reduction then. Add a third Bledisloe game and you have those 5 games I was talking about under Edit1.
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: 4724
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 17 May 2019, 11:50

What is the solution to all of this? We've got a situation where some of the games T1 nations are struggling for finances, they've got all of these potentially lucrative markets they can tap into with the right idea, but other T1 nations are reluctant to agree to change because they don't have the same financial issues. If this was a case where all 10 T1 nations were in a bad position financially there would be greater chance of compromise and innovation. So, the game is stuck in a loop. Everyone knows the game would be better if these lucrative markets were developed into competitive rugby nations, but no-one can find a way to accommodate everyones needs in order to do it. Promotion and Relegation? Too risky for 6N teams. Expanded RC? No longer lucrative enough. T1 v T2 matches? Not enough room in the schedule. Not to mention the Players Association not being consulted and the threat of T2 nations withdrawing from the World Cup if this idea goes through. I no longer know what the answer to all of this is. If we go back to basics, if we assume for a moment that rugby is a brand new sport, if we had a clean slate, we have to ask ourselves what does the structure of the sport look like? What schedule would make the most sense? I feel the only way we get the right answer is if everyone is willing to wipe the slate clean.

Online
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun, 18 May 2014, 13:27
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Working Class Rugger » Fri, 17 May 2019, 12:08

thatrugbyguy wrote:What is the solution to all of this? We've got a situation where some of the games T1 nations are struggling for finances, they've got all of these potentially lucrative markets they can tap into with the right idea, but other T1 nations are reluctant to agree to change because they don't have the same financial issues. If this was a case where all 10 T1 nations were in a bad position financially there would be greater chance of compromise and innovation. So, the game is stuck in a loop. Everyone knows the game would be better if these lucrative markets were developed into competitive rugby nations, but no-one can find a way to accommodate everyones needs in order to do it. Promotion and Relegation? Too risky for 6N teams. Expanded RC? No longer lucrative enough. T1 v T2 matches? Not enough room in the schedule. Not to mention the Players Association not being consulted and the threat of T2 nations withdrawing from the World Cup if this idea goes through. I no longer know what the answer to all of this is. If we go back to basics, if we assume for a moment that rugby is a brand new sport, if we had a clean slate, we have to ask ourselves what does the structure of the sport look like? What schedule would make the most sense? I feel the only way we get the right answer is if everyone is willing to wipe the slate clean.


Eliminate the 'loss of finances' angle by having the same annual payout for teams in both divisions. That way, if a team goes down it doesn't result in a lean year the next season.

Posts: 4724
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby thatrugbyguy » Fri, 17 May 2019, 12:39

What's been exposed is just how rugby's limited reach for the best part of 100 years has come back to bite it in the arse. Cricket doesn't have this problem due to India alone, where they have hundreds of millions of people who watch the sport. Cricket can get away with limited international spread because there's so many people from one country bringing in the money for the game. Rugby doesn't have that. At best, rugby has a core audience today of maybe 40 million people globally. 45 million if we're lucky. And that's today, 30 years ago it would have been less. The game has got itself into this situation because no-one thought long term. After the success of the 1987 World Cup there should have been a meeting the following day coming up with a plan long term to develop the game internationally, Japan, USA, Canada, Spain, Germany, the USSR etc, there should have been targets from day one to grow the game in these big nations. But it was all just self interest. 32 years later this is where we are.

Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu, 06 Apr 2017, 17:09
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Tobar » Fri, 17 May 2019, 16:45

RugbyLiebe wrote:b) Have an existing uber commercial super league and market the sh** out of it. This is what the NFL does. This works well, but as gridiron international games are more like a fun children's camp, the growth in playing base can only be to a certain degree.


The NFL is a very bad example because no one plays gridiron in other countries. Yes of course it has a growing popularity (I know a decent amount of folks in France playing semi-pro) but they will be beaten by D3 college teams in the US. Hockey and baseball are much better examples (and to a lesser degree, basketball). If you look at hockey, the NHL is a US/Canadian league but 7 or 8 teams have won Gold at the Olympics with around 15 different countries in the top 4. Then in baseball which has a far smaller international "test match" kind of following, 3 countries have won the 4 WBCs and all of the best players are in the MLB, with the exception of Japan's players.

But in all honesty, neither are really the best example for rugby because we are in a much different international sports landscape. All the major sports in the US were professionalized over 100 years ago and players started making pretty big salaries before rugby even allowed its own players to be paid. Having an even semi-successful commercial super league would be very helpful for growing the player base and helping the international game.

I think, that our single biggest hope is that MLR becomes a huge success and starts doing NFL-things AND that the 6N don't suck them up by offering them a place and hasn't destroyed the international game in the rest of the world.


I hope it will be a big success and that the teams and continues to prioritize US based players over foreigners. Not that I'm against the idea of foreign players in our league, in fact I'm very open to having more join given the amount of space we have to grow, but I'd like to see better development of the sport here rather than just relying on some big foreign talent like what still happens in MLS. My only fear is that if MLR can grow large enough (if it reaches MLS level of salary cap then it will be on par with many other leagues) then owners will start shifting their attitudes towards helping grow the Eagles' player base and focus just on revenue/winning. Your priorities start to shift a bit when your team's value jumps to a couple hundred million dollars.

Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby TheStroBro » Sat, 18 May 2019, 04:05

thatrugbyguy wrote:What is the solution to all of this? We've got a situation where some of the games T1 nations are struggling for finances, they've got all of these potentially lucrative markets they can tap into with the right idea, but other T1 nations are reluctant to agree to change because they don't have the same financial issues. If this was a case where all 10 T1 nations were in a bad position financially there would be greater chance of compromise and innovation. So, the game is stuck in a loop. Everyone knows the game would be better if these lucrative markets were developed into competitive rugby nations, but no-one can find a way to accommodate everyones needs in order to do it. Promotion and Relegation? Too risky for 6N teams. Expanded RC? No longer lucrative enough. T1 v T2 matches? Not enough room in the schedule. Not to mention the Players Association not being consulted and the threat of T2 nations withdrawing from the World Cup if this idea goes through. I no longer know what the answer to all of this is. If we go back to basics, if we assume for a moment that rugby is a brand new sport, if we had a clean slate, we have to ask ourselves what does the structure of the sport look like? What schedule would make the most sense? I feel the only way we get the right answer is if everyone is willing to wipe the slate clean.

Current players associations are lapdogs of their Unions and professional leagues. In fact most of their funding comes direct from their Rugby Unions instead of member players paying dues.

Posts: 236
Joined: Sat, 03 May 2014, 00:22
National Flag:
New ZealandNew Zealand

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Scoob » Sat, 18 May 2019, 06:36

I think the rugby unions rate themselves like a business.

C.E.O England rugby union. We are in charge,we make most money,whatever happens goes through us.

Deputy C.E.O France. Has a slightly more rational approach and willing to talk.


Managers. Ireland,New Zealand,Sth Africa,Australia,Wales,Scotland,Italy. Wants C.E.O wages and willing to do most things to get it.Are sheep followers to upper hierachy


Supervisors Argentina,Japan,USA, The above board would talk to them occasionally,you might make us a bit of $$$ here and there nothing to write home about though.


Groundsman,labourers Fiji,Georgia Do the grunt work,but not recognised by anyone despite having a great rugby culture and brain.
Summary---To many Chiefs not enough Indians.

User avatar
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2014, 23:16
National Flag:
NetherlandsNetherlands

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby Silver Fox » Sat, 18 May 2019, 10:29

RugbyLiebe wrote:
Silver Fox wrote:To help you on your way:
A 10 team T1 Nations Campionship involves 45 games (annually and not counting a final).
41 of them are already on the calendar in the "San Francisco Agreement".


For those who don't realise when these 41 matches are played:
15 in the 6N
6 in the RC
12 in November
8 in July
While your 15 6N games are correct, the RC has a home-and-away round-robin with 12 games, if I am not totally wrong.
I agree, that a breakdown on the game numbers is absolutely necessary to really judge this. Where did you get the numbers of 45 games from?
Actually the 12 games in the RC might even make a very good point for your opinion.

Edit: numbers from 2018 only counting games between RC + 6N
6N: 15
RC: 12 +1 (Bledisloe)
November: 16
Mid-year: 14
---------
58
My reasoning is that they took the 12 team round robin format they presented in the video and down-scaled it to 10 teams.
It was supposed to be an single round robin tournament where all teams play each other once.
There are many sites out there with a proper explanation but this is the idea:
To determine the number of games for a single round robin tournament use the following formula, N x (N-1)/2.
With a tournament of 6 teams, the calculation would be: 6 x (6-1)/2 = 6 x 5/2 = 30/2 = 15 games
Or: With 6 teams 3 games can be played per matchday. To play all 5 opponents 5 matchdays are needed. 3 x 5 = 15 games in total.
With 10 teams the total is 45.

Ofcourse there will be no extra matchdays so the idea is to make the games that are already been played in the 6N and the RC count also for the Nations Championship.
So that's all 15 6N matches and only 6 of the RC matches. The other 6 RC matches and extra Bledisloe cup matches don't count.
In November all 4 RC teams play 3 6N opponents (12 matches).
In July the 4 RC teams are host to the other 3 6N opponents (12 matches).

This is all consistent with the video they launched two months ago.
This is also in line with the "San Francisco Agreement".
The one difference however is that in the SFA the four RC nations were to play two 6N teams in a post RWC year and two 6N teams plus one T2 nation in the other two years.
To accomodate the four 'missing' Nations League matches the RC teams will have to play an extra match in a post RWC year. The four 6N visitors will likely, with player wellfare as an excuse, give up on the scheduled T2 match.
In the other two years there is a three week window in July there is no need for extra matchdays. But instead of playing T2 the T1 teams will be playing against each other on 4 occasions.
That's 8 T1-T2 matches less.

It is good that you asked me to explain the numbers because I found a fault in my numbers.
When they announced the SFA they said it would involve an increase of T1-T2 matches of 39%.
Over the last 2 RWC cycles there were 76 of them which would go up to 106 (over 2 RWC cycles).
With these latest plans that would drop to 66 (where previously I thought it would be 90).

With this realisation I will change my mind and no longer support the idea.
I think the sacrifice is too big for T2 rugby.
As other posts also indicate the sport is only helped longterm with more inclusion of nations outside the established few.
I very much doubt that the extra investment in T2 that comes from the Nations League will be enough to compensate for being excluded to this degree.
Better to wait another four years, think things through, see what the development of regional leagues bring and strive for a 24 RWC.

Posts: 6
Joined: Thu, 16 May 2019, 17:34
National Flag:
FinlandFinland

Re: Your feelings on the World League proposal (poll reset)

Postby rugby ideas » Sun, 19 May 2019, 21:48

My alternative vision is to have ten levels of four teams per level in Yr 1, Yr 3 and Yr 5 (so 5th to 8th would be in group 2 and 9-12 in 3),
and in Yr 2 and in Yr 4 we would have the top six in Level A; 7-10 in B; 11-14 in C; .... This way we don't end up with the same teams in the same context or in a 4/5 yoyo for too long, but instead have a great opportunity for all to progress, and to play ALL their nearest neighbours in the rankings in good rugby action.

There are not necessarily 40 countries in this. It could either be the top 39 and a rest of the world alliance, or NSW & Queensland may be seperated off and given natl teams of their own ...

Previous

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Luka37, Rowan, Working Class Rugger and 15 guests