RugbyRebels

Saw that today. The players' associations have already responded with a hearty "What the f*ck?" both on welfare grounds and on solidarity with PI players who would quite like their national teams not to become an utter irrelevance. Plus, the 6N are apparently talking behind the back of World Rugby about their own plans for collective bargaining of their TV rights, which suggests they're hardly sold on the idea.

It's just bafflingly stupid. And short termist. Yes, a broadcaster's willing to pay for a deal that results in £7m more per union per year, but LV= were once willing to pay a lot of money for the sponsorship of the Anglo-Welsh Cup - one off commercial deals don't always result in ongoing income, especially when that commercial entity realises it's been sold a dud. I can't imagine the money will keep rolling in when it becomes clear that Japan and USA are nowhere close to being competitive in the Rugby Championship. Nor will there be the same money for the RWC when a champion is declared yearly.

It's just risible.

Puja

From what I’ve read the the 6N committee are far from on board, unless terrestrial TV can be guaranteed. As the whole concept is based on increasing income and the 6N is the cash cow I’m struggling to see how they square that circle.

There’s also this:



Plus, it shafts the PI’s and the rest of Europe.

Why not just make it 10 teams with the rugby championship and six nations? Why do we continue to add teams to competitions before they have earned the right to do so, USA and Japan would be a disaster and I don't think it would be good for the growth of the sport if they continued to get pumped every week apart from the occasional game against Italy and off-the-boil France.

The US beat Scotland last year and we all know Japan ran England very close. Those two aren’t too far away and are above Italy in the rankings, as are Fiji, Georgia and Tonga. They also happen to have big $€$€£££ potential which, sadly, is the primary driver. Unlike, say, off the top of my head, Fiji, Georgia and Tonga.

padprop wrote:Why not just make it 10 teams with the rugby championship and six nations? Why do we continue to add teams to competitions before they have earned the right to do so, USA and Japan would be a disaster and I don't think it would be good for the growth of the sport if they continued to get pumped every week apart from the occasional game against Italy and off-the-boil France.

$$$ ¥¥¥

I don't even get what problem this is trying to solve. The Autumn Internationals are a massive financial success, the 6N is a massive financial success, and I believe that inbound tours get the biggest crowds in the SH. It appears that the financial problem is Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship and I don't get why they don't just tweak those rather than screw with everything else.

Puja

World Rugby hit back:

https://www.world.rugby/news/401100

Puja wrote:

padprop wrote:Why not just make it 10 teams with the rugby championship and six nations? Why do we continue to add teams to competitions before they have earned the right to do so, USA and Japan would be a disaster and I don't think it would be good for the growth of the sport if they continued to get pumped every week apart from the occasional game against Italy and off-the-boil France.

$$$ ¥¥¥

I don't even get what problem this is trying to solve. The Autumn Internationals are a massive financial success, the 6N is a massive financial success, and I believe that inbound tours get the biggest crowds in the SH. It appears that the financial problem is Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship and I don't get why they don't just tweak those rather than screw with everything else.

Puja

The problem is that crowds in SH aren’t big enough, regardless of who they play. In NZ it’s because there are more sheep than people, even if the respective average IQ is similar, and small stadia, in Oz nobody actually gives a s**t about rugby and in SA, well, I don’t know but they don’t fill the stadia. That said, it’s about TV dollar with attendances the icing on the cake, ie they want the NH to subsidise the SH.

Mellsblue wrote:World Rugby hit back:

https://www.world.rugby/news/401100

"Consumer research confirms a structured annual competition would make fans and new audiences more likely to watch, attend and engage with international rugby, exposing the sport to new fans worldwide. There is also no doubt that a structured annual international competition would deliver significantly greater long-term global media revenue for reinvestment in the global game. This project has at its heart long-term growth and stability, not short-term wins, and that includes greater opportunity for players."

Research with whom? I've not come across a single rugby fan with anything more positive to say other than, "Might not be utterly rubbish, I guess." Also, I doubt their no doubt.

Puja

Puja wrote:

padprop wrote:Why not just make it 10 teams with the rugby championship and six nations? Why do we continue to add teams to competitions before they have earned the right to do so, USA and Japan would be a disaster and I don't think it would be good for the growth of the sport if they continued to get pumped every week apart from the occasional game against Italy and off-the-boil France.

$$$ ¥¥¥

I don't even get what problem this is trying to solve. The Autumn Internationals are a massive financial success, the 6N is a massive financial success, and I believe that inbound tours get the biggest crowds in the SH. It appears that the financial problem is Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship and I don't get why they don't just tweak those rather than screw with everything else.

Puja

Because I think the days of tweaking those competitions and hoping for a successful formula are gone. Super Rugby and the 3 big Southern Hemisphere unions are staring down the barrel, frankly.

What a pile of toilet. Just alternate world cup hosting between Japan and the USA because that is where this "market research" has come from. That way they can expose "new fans" to the sport.

"The Six Nations will travel south to each play three tests.

These will be randomly allocated so England, for example, could find themselves playing Japan, Australia and New Zealand while Wales could be off to Argentina then South Africa and New Zealand"

Mmm...random allocation of fixtures spanning numerous time zones and whole continents, yet presumably played on consecutive weekends.

The idea deserves to be binned just on the basis that it will effectively kill off PI rugby.

And the Lions.

Apparently the idea is dead already.

twitchy wrote:Apparently the idea is dead already.

What killed it? The players, the outcry over the closed shop, or the 6Ns deciding that the financial problems of others were none of their concern?

Puja

Citing concerns a closed shop would replace a closed shop, two closed shops even, is a little bit rich

morepork wrote:What a pile of toilet. Just alternate world cup hosting between Japan and the USA because that is where this "market research" has come from. That way they can expose "new fans" to the sport.

Maybe all future Lions tours could be sent to the USA with all profits being equally shared between participating unions

Digby wrote:Citing concerns a closed shop would replace a closed shop, two closed shops even, is a little bit rich

Not unreasonable, although this structure would turn all 4 windows into closed shops (by shutting down Summer and Autumn Internationals as well), rather than just 2.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Citing concerns a closed shop would replace a closed shop, two closed shops even, is a little bit rich

Not unreasonable, although this structure would turn all 4 windows into closed shops (by shutting down Summer and Autumn Internationals as well), rather than just 2.

Puja

That's still a bit rich. It's not like the tier 2 nations get much access to big games at any point in the season. If this is a problem the alternative shouldn't be to stick with the status quo

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:What a pile of toilet. Just alternate world cup hosting between Japan and the USA because that is where this "market research" has come from. That way they can expose "new fans" to the sport.

Maybe all future Lions tours could be sent to the USA with all profits being equally shared between participating unions

I don't understand why the NH doesn't just say this. The weaker party should not be able to hold the stronger party to ransom. See Brexit...

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:Citing concerns a closed shop would replace a closed shop, two closed shops even, is a little bit rich

Not unreasonable, although this structure would turn all 4 windows into closed shops (by shutting down Summer and Autumn Internationals as well), rather than just 2.

Puja

That's still a bit rich. It's not like the tier 2 nations get much access to big games at any point in the season. If this is a problem the alternative shouldn't be to stick with the status quo

While I don't disagree, this plan was for the benefit of New Zealand first and foremost, with Australia, South Africa and Argentina being secondary beneficiaries. While it's far from great that the PIs live off the inconsistent generosity of gifts from richer unions when they play AIs, we shouldn't be ripping up the calendar to make things worse.

Puja

As per the times, the PI nations and many players of PI descent in other nations, notably Tuilagi, are threatening to boycott the RWC if the PI nations are left on the outside of this latest debacle.

Sounds fair