• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Proposed Nations Championship

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
At same token would NZ, SA and Australia really agree to possibility of relegation if 6N member not playing by same rules...
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Yeh in my head I always new the home nations would never allow for relegation / promotion but my heart was hoping may be World rugby could dangle a carrot to entice them which yes my head knew was never realistic but gotta have your dreams.

I personally think the League of nations is a fantastic concept which could really super charge interest in rugby and advance rugby in tier 2 nations. Benefit for Australia is obvious to me as part of really promoting value of world game whilst also making pacific island countries stronger which again would be win for rugby with global rapid rugby etc on its coat tails.

I love the vision but yes I personally am skeptical if would ever see the light of day. But would love to be wrong.
 

Dctarget

John Eales (66)
Hey can someone explain why England is so against relegation? Sorry for being slow, but is it just from pure fear of relegation or other reasons?
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Hey can someone explain why England is so against relegation? Sorry for being slow, but is it just from pure fear of relegation or other reasons?
Its not just England. None of the six nations want to risk falling out of that competition. Its worth tens of millions of dollars each year to them without even mentioning the >100 year history.

If you've never lived in that part of the world it can be a bit difficult to appreciate how good a tournament it is. We have nothing even close. Why would they want it changed?
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
I am assuming that the Home nations would still play each other.

Imagine the unimaginable. AUS gets relegated from the SH Rugby Championship. We would still play NZ in a Bledisloe.
When in the calendar could they fit that in? That's another three weeks of internationals.

We don't have the club v country agreements they have to deal with
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Its not just England. None of the six nations want to risk falling out of that competition. Its worth tens of millions of dollars each year to them without even mentioning the >100 year history.

If you've never lived in that part of the world it can be a bit difficult to appreciate how good a tournament it is. We have nothing even close. Why would they want it changed?
It's both understandable and disappointing at the same time. It really locks the game into the current format and prevents it from ever moving forward or evolving.

At the same time, it's essentially the biggest rugby tournament outside the RWC, so what can you do?

Rugby's history and historical structure really hold it back sometimes.

The obvious comparison is Soccer, which has all inclusive continental cups (Asian, African, Euros, Copa America, etc), continental qualification, a hugely competitive World Cup and now continental leagues. Shit we can only dream of and will likely never have.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Things do change.

In 1886 there were four home nations only.
1920 France added for 5 nations.
6 Nations history goes back only to 2000.
 

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
They do change, and I would at least somewhat welcome a sort of limited relegation system (every 2 years rather than every year, 3 game playoff Home, Away and neutral/2nd home game for bottom 6 Nations team etc.).

But I think some people are missing that it's not JUST relegation: the 2nd sticking point, that the 6 Nations needs to be on FTA is another big one that many are commenting on. That's something which is apparently impossible to guarantee as all the Broadcasting rights fall to this new managing body. They've all seen how badly cricket has done in England since the move to Sky in 2009.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Things do change.

In 1886 there were four home nations only.
1920 France added for 5 nations.
6 Nations history goes back only to 2000.

Don't forget also that France were excluded from 1932-39 so it's not like there's this great unbroken evolution of 4N -> 5N -> 6N.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
So at the current rate of change we can expect a 7 nations at some point between 2040 and 2060.

Coolio.
 

zer0

Jim Lenehan (48)
From this piece:

"Stuff understands that a major commercial opportunity has resulted in a proposed worldwide league involving the top 12 rugby countries being formalised a lot sooner than expected."

If this is the case, and if the US is being included in the RC, then I'd guess this "major commercial opportunity" involves a US broadcaster. Be it one like CBS, ESPN etc... or Amazon.

Regardless, as per my position on the second post in this thread, taking the cricket approach of further segregating the dozen or so current leading nations from the hoi polloi -- I believe this is WR (World Rugby)'s technical term for any nation not included in this old & rich boys club -- is a terrible idea.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
From this piece:

"Stuff understands that a major commercial opportunity has resulted in a proposed worldwide league involving the top 12 rugby countries being formalised a lot sooner than expected."

If this is the case, and if the US is being included in the RC, then I'd guess this "major commercial opportunity" involves a US broadcaster. Be it one like CBS, ESPN etc. or Amazon.

Regardless, as per my position on the second post in this thread, taking the cricket approach of further segregating the dozen or so current leading nations from the hoi polloi -- I believe this is WR (World Rugby)'s technical term for any nation not included in this old & rich boys club -- is a terrible idea.


What pisses me off the most is that Fiji which are 9th in the world have earned the right to be there and are being completely screwed over. That and the one really compelling element in the 2 divisions with pro/rel that albeit tenuous at least provided a pathway for T2 nations has in the name of self-interest been canned.
 

Bandar

Bob Loudon (25)
I wouldn't mind so much if they said no relegation for the first 2-3 years to get it settled down and then have a play off every year so it's not automatic.

Just once again rugby not embracing the possibility of growth :(
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Fiji are being screwed, but it'd also be very difficult for them (or any PI team) to compete in the RC given almost all of their players are in Europe. The quality of the Fijian team in August/September would be a lot lower than in November. At least the US and Japan will be able to play at full strength throughout the entire tournament.

I don't like the lack of promotion/relegation either, but I guess there's still some progress here in that a fairly closed shop of 10 is becoming a closed shop of 12. Hopefully the 12 teams are each required to play say 2 teams outside of the world league every year. And maybe at some point in the future it could become a world league of 14 or 16 with promotion / relegation. Sadly it would probably require some bigger economy countries really knocking on the door. It's easier to ignore Georgia, Fiji and Uruguay than it would Germany, Spain and Brazil.
 
Top