Proposed Nations Championship

[Dismal Pillock]

NZH, citing SMH as the source, says 6N & SANZAAR will meet soon to discuss at comp similar to cricket WTC:

Rugby's new competition to crown world champion every two years

Rugby could be a step closer to crowing a world champion every two years.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Teams would accrue points from their respective competitions, such as Rugby Championship matches, as well as from June-July and end of year tours.

So a glorified ranking system - just like the one no one gives a shit about now - plus 1 extra test to decide the "World Champion"..... where no one wants to show their hand before the real big dance so keeps their powder dry.....

 

[Wilson]

The biggest thing out of that is the potential for Japan and Fiji to get more top flight rugby. Not sure the whole competition structure is necessary to make that happen though.

I was pro league of nations originally but I'm not so sure it adds much anymore. I think I'd prefer to see a couple of major regional tournaments in the in between years like soccer does with the Euros, Asian cup, etc. Have to put a bit of time in to get the grouping right to differentiate between six nations/rugby championship, but it gives more opportunity to tier 2 sides without the mess of promotion relegation and you can still have the top of each play off at the end of the year for some sort of not world cup.

 

[Derpus]

The main thing that was needed was a realignment of the calendar. Doesn't seem like this does that.

 

[Rebel man]

I like it, also if it helps the southern nation’s financially that’s also a plus

I feel with the proposal of it being held over two seasons it gives us two seasons to play tier two opponents and give back to the game

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

I like it, also if it helps the southern nation’s financially that’s also a plus

If it's not going to result in proper profit-sharing without the need to organise matches outside the WR (World Rugby) windows and/ or staged by private promoters NZR, RA, SARU etc should walk away.

 

[Rebel man]

If it's not going to result in proper profit-sharing without the need to organise matches outside the WR (World Rugby) windows and/ or staged by private promoters NZR, RA, SARU etc should walk away.

I agree there

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The biggest thing out of that is the potential for Japan and Fiji to get more top flight rugby. Not sure the whole competition structure is necessary to make that happen though.

I was pro league of nations originally but I'm not so sure it adds much anymore. I think I'd prefer to see a couple of major regional tournaments in the in between years like soccer does with the Euros, Asian cup, etc. Have to put a bit of time in to get the grouping right to differentiate between six nations/rugby championship, but it gives more opportunity to tier 2 sides without the mess of promotion relegation and you can still have the top of each play off at the end of the year for some sort of not world cup.

Particularly as it will only be 12 nations per division. It will be tough to see any of those willing face relegation. I'm a fan of the concept but I do not want something too narrow in scope. The only way I'd be happy is if there's a commitment to play Div 2 teams in the years in between.

 

[Rebel man]

Particularly as it will only be 12 nations per division. It will be tough to see any of those willing face relegation. I'm a fan of the concept but I do not want something too narrow in scope. The only way I'd be happy is if there's a commitment to play Div 2 teams in the years in between.

I agree for example in 25 the lions year we could have more regional tournaments

Like Aus travel to play Tonga, Samoa and emerging nations in Asia

Argentina could play Brazil, USA and Canada

The European nations could play the smaller European nations in their Autumn

 

[Wilson]

Particularly as it will only be 12 nations per division. It will be tough to see any of those willing face relegation. I'm a fan of the concept but I do not want something too narrow in scope. The only way I'd be happy is if there's a commitment to play Div 2 teams in the years in between.

Even if you get a commitment for relegation I'm not sure how much it really helps - in most cases you'd just see the bottom ranked team swapping in and out each tournament with neither of them getting any of the consistency required to improve - e.g. Italy and Georgia swap each year, meaning Italy gets fewer top flight games and Georgia only gets a few more, but neither can really build anything.

That's why I like the regional tournament option - Georgia/Romania/Spain/etc are all guaranteed a couple of pool games against tier 1 opposition each go around and if they can sneak into knockout rounds they get more. The same would happen For the Fiji/Samoa/Tonga here. If you aim for 2 tournaments of 16 that's going to go along way to expanding the pool of teams capable of playing at a world cup, which is definitely another goal of world rugby's. Long term (at least 20+ years) you could then start to shift into more specific regional tournaments of Europe, Asia Pacific, Africa, etc. but we're nowhere near that point yet.

 

[Derpus]

I agree for example in 25 the lions year we could have more regional tournaments

Like Aus travel to play Tonga, Samoa and emerging nations in Asia

Argentina could play Brazil, USA and Canada

The European nations could play the smaller European nations in their Autumn

Be shocked if the finances for this add up.

 

[Rebel man]

Be shocked if the finances for this add up.

Well currently we make next to nothing from going to Europe in the spring as the home side gets the gate

The talk last time was the TV rights for the League of Nations was worth $7.8b annually

So if that holds true every second year we make bank. It can’t be less than we get now

 

[Rebel man]

Also when I say more regional tournament I mean in that spring window

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Even if you get a commitment for relegation I'm not sure how much it really helps - in most cases you'd just see the bottom ranked team swapping in and out each tournament with neither of them getting any of the consistency required to improve - e.g. Italy and Georgia swap each year, meaning Italy gets fewer top flight games and Georgia only gets a few more, but neither can really build anything.

That's why I like the regional tournament option - Georgia/Romania/Spain/etc are all guaranteed a couple of pool games against tier 1 opposition each go around and if they can sneak into knockout rounds they get more. The same would happen For the Fiji/Samoa/Tonga here. If you aim for 2 tournaments of 16 that's going to go along way to expanding the pool of teams capable of playing at a world cup, which is definitely another goal of world rugby's. Long term (at least 20+ years) you could then start to shift into more specific regional tournaments of Europe, Asia Pacific, Africa, etc. but we're nowhere near that point yet.

An alternative would be to really commit to do it and run it as a 24 team competition run over 2 years. Two mixed divisions featuring two pools of 6 teams. Home and away against your pool opponents and a game against the other 6 teams in the pool in your division. Played exclusively in the June/July and November windows. With the November window in the 2nd year being the Finals.

Both the 6Ns and RC would exist and operate outside of this.

 

[John S]

An alternative would be to really commit to do it and run it as a 24 team competition run over 2 years. Two mixed divisions featuring two pools of 6 teams. Home and away against your pool opponents and a game against the other 6 teams in the pool in your division. Played exclusively in the June/July and November windows. With the November window in the 2nd year being the Finals.

Both the 6Ns and RC would exist and operate outside of this.

So would that mean an end to tours north/south in the window? (Ie would there be space for say England to tour Australia in the Jun/July window?)

 

[Dan54]

If it's not going to result in proper profit-sharing without the need to organise matches outside the WR (World Rugby) windows and/ or staged by private promoters NZR, RA, SARU etc should walk away.

Not sure it will make any difference to profit sharing. Though the one advantage is teams from NH will send full strength teams south, so make the profitmaking down here better? I still get stuck on the profit sharing thing, although it sounds good, do we penalise the countries that have bigger stadiums etc. It's really only NZ with the problem in SH as Aus and SA both have big stadiums so would have the ability to make as much money as anyone in NH. On the TV rights etc, that would I imagine be split like WC.

So would that mean an end to tours north/south in the window? (Ie would there be space for say England to tour Australia in the Jun/July window?)

Probably in 3 test series etc, but would have say England, Scotland and Wales tour come down and play, and with the advantage of full strength teams.

I still trying to get head around it and make up mind whether I like it or not, but certainly not dismissing idea, as can see some plusses, ie more tests for PIs ,Japan, USA etc etc.

 

[Derpus]

Not sure it will make any difference to profit sharing. Though the one advantage is teams from NH will send full strength teams south, so make the profitmaking down here better? I still get stuck on the profit sharing thing, although it sounds good, do we penalise the countries that have bigger stadiums etc. It's really only NZ with the problem in SH as Aus and SA both have big stadiums so would have the ability to make as much money as anyone in NH. On the TV rights etc, that would I imagine be split like WC.

Just play every game at Eden Park like the Poms do at Twickers.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Not sure it will make any difference to profit sharing. Though the one advantage is teams from NH will send full strength teams south, so make the profitmaking down here better? I still get stuck on the profit sharing thing, although it sounds good, do we penalise the countries that have bigger stadiums etc. It's really only NZ with the problem in SH as Aus and SA both have big stadiums so would have the ability to make as much money as anyone in NH. On the TV rights etc, that would I imagine be split like WC.

Probably in 3 test series etc, but would have say England, Scotland and Wales tour come down and play, and with the advantage of full strength teams.

I still trying to get head around it and make up mind whether I like it or not, but certainly not dismissing idea, as can see some plusses, ie more tests for PIs ,Japan, USA etc etc.

Should've specified I was talking about all revenue streams incl obviously TV/ live streaming, not just gate takings.

 

[Dan54]

Should've specified I was talking about all revenue streams incl obviously TV/ live streaming, not just gate takings.

Yep, well I think that goes without saying as it will be run under a company that would have the tv rights. But gate takings still will always be under the control of host countryt I imagine except in maybe case of finals?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ according to the initial proposal broadcast rights & net gate takings were to be pooled & shared equally between the participating Unions. Individual Unions could still do third-party deals outside of that framework so realistically the likes of England & France would end up with more dosh but the likes of Fiji would be exponentially better off.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ pretty sure I once posted my concern that the Nigels would find a way to include the port & cigar budget as a home team expense thereby knocking a zero off the net gate...