Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Would they really have had "more say?" They'd be very much pawns and the big nations could steamroll them on anything they wanted to.
World Rugby Chairman
- Thread starter Dan54
- Start date
Would they really have had "more say?" They'd be very much pawns and the big nations could steamroll them on anything they wanted to.
drewprint
Dick Tooth (41)
Clive Woodward certainly not mincing words with his thoughts on the vote!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/r...eaumont-World-Rugby-win-remains-carve-up.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/r...eaumont-World-Rugby-win-remains-carve-up.html
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
They may have received assurances from Beaumont and Laporte that reform is on their agenda and that they will be looked after. None of us will ever know, but human nature tells us that they think they will get a better deal from those two than from Pichot.
I'm not sure that Pichot was a great candidate, maybe they didn't trust him?
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Factor in that Woodward hates Beaumont.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Apparently Laporte promised Fiji a match against France or the French Barbarians every year. Additionally, Fijian national teams, including the Under-20's, will camp with their French counterparts at the expense of French Rugby.
https://fijisun.com.fj/2020/05/04/e...rld-rugby-vice-chairman-augurs-well-for-fiji/
https://fijisun.com.fj/2020/05/04/e...rld-rugby-vice-chairman-augurs-well-for-fiji/
Two points:
1. Why isn't there a convention the chairmanship rotate between the NH and SH?
2. When was the last time the chair came from the SH.
There have been nine RWcs, eight won by the SH and a single lonesome victory by a NH team, WTF are we doing wrong down here?
1. Why isn't there a convention the chairmanship rotate between the NH and SH?
2. When was the last time the chair came from the SH.
There have been nine RWcs, eight won by the SH and a single lonesome victory by a NH team, WTF are we doing wrong down here?
Last edited:
Going broke, it would seem.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I'm not surprised by this at all.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
It would seem that not having a chairman from the south hasn't affected the on field performances of international teams from the south.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Back in the old amateur alickadoo days before 1996, it used to rotate on a one-season basis between the 8 main members (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia).
e.g. Roger Vanderfield (ARFU) grasped the golden ring in 1984/85, Danie Craven in 1962, 73, 79, etc.
But, by the time Bill's term expires in 2024/25, it will be like a 30-year shut out for the SH:
2016 Beaumont (Eng)
2008 Lapasset [2] (Fra)
2003 Millar (Ire)
1996 Pugh [2] (Wal)
--------------
1995 Lapasset [1] (Fra)
1994 Pugh [1] (Wal)
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
They could almost do the rotation thing now if they wanted to - between them they control 24 out of the 50 votes.
If it's going to be an open election as it seems to have become, then it's going to be full of political horsetrading as we've just seen.
Pichot was a poor candidate and still almost got there. Put up someone with gravitas and experience like Graham Henry and the vote might have been different.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I think that this in part answers your question;
https://fijisun.com.fj/2020/05/04/e...rld-rugby-vice-chairman-augurs-well-for-fiji/
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
To me I think BB done alright at WR (World Rugby) and agree more likely to get nations cup over the line as key is getting 6 nations on board and reckon he has more chance to do so
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
And you could well be right QH, as I said I wasn't too upset who got it as I thought both just really want what is best for rugby, and they may just have a bit different approaches to it. I just thought that the likes of Fiji ,Canada etc etc may of been keener to get votes on board moving forward, but as you say they may not have a complete trust in Pichot. And Laporte certainly sweetened the pot anyway, for Fiji.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
It was no surprise to me that the island nations and Japan supported Beaumont and Laporte. 24 years since the islands were excluded from super rugby and no attempt by SANZAR/SANZAAR to include them there or to play regular tests against them.
My only surprise was that so many people here thought that they would automatically support the SANZAAR position.
I've been consistent ever since I joined G&GR that Australian rugby (and NZ for that matter, but it's not for me to say what's best for our kiwi friends) should be doing more to include the islands in our competitions. Not only was/is it the right thing to do, but it would be mutually beneficial in so many ways.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
And it would have presented some significant difficulties. Fiji is the best candidate, and even then there have been significant diplomatic issues, coups and the like.
Samoa's rugby governance has been pretty shonky over the years. Tonga's infrastructure is third world, and apart from the Royals and the Barons, only a handful of families have much money. Rugby (both codes) is an important export industry, any family that does not have at least one member living overseas and earning money is living in poverty. Sport is an ideal employer: which sport, does not matter. They do not need any help from us, there are lots of scouts on the ground, even junior league in Australia is better than nothing.
The biggest problem of course is the question of diverting our scarce and shrinking resources to propagate their entry into one of our competitions. Lots of costs, very little additional revenues. We have been chasing our tail, on the rare occasions we have done something brave (like the NRC) it did not last, because we do not have the collective appetite to take risks.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Although professional corporate boards and highly paid executives are in place to solve problems. The problem was will rather than logistics as shown by the successful inclusion of Fiji in the NRC (too little, too late but something)
You solve those problems by basing the teams in Australia so that they can play at first world grounds. This also provides broadcast content in our time zone. Even the leaguies have worked it out which is why when Tonga play Samoa in RL tests they play the games at Cambelltown Stadium before a full ground. Last year Australia played Tonga in a RL test in NZ and the ground was full. It just requires creatively thinking outside of the box.
It would make our competitions more attractive in fact. Basing the PI teams in Australia means more games in our time zone for TV and the number of expat islanders in parts of Australia provides an audience at the ground. I'd argue that one of the reasons we have gone backwards is that we haven't embraced something like this and have stuck with NZ and SA despite the decreasing popularity and engagement with Super Rugby. We're like the timid little brother of SANZAR, too frightened to do anything without big brother NZ there to prop us up and tough cousin SA there to provide the muscle.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Well I just finished listening to Mike Umaga talk about why he thinks Samoa and Fiji voted for Beaumont, he basically said he thinks because Beaumont may have tickled some bellies, and is pretty pissed not with WR (World Rugby), but the fact that the corruption he very strongly hinted at in Island rugby may just continue! He also made an interesting point about why players aren't interested in playing for Island teams, basically because he says they are not receiving moneys that WR (World Rugby) is putting into Islands!!