Proposed Nations Championship

[Braveheart81]

Just once again rugby not embracing the possibility of growth

They are. It's just they're looking for commercial growth and that's why they've avoided the Pacific.

It sucks for Fiji in particular because they're strong enough to be part of it playing wise.

The Pacific Islands provide a huge amount of players worldwide particularly relative to their populations but the reality is that won't change because rugby will still offer a life changing career option.

 

[Derpus]

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.

What's the difference between the new world league and regular old rankings, except that Fiji aren't allowed in?

Without relegation and promotion it's rather pointless. Japan and and the US will have all the success Italy have had in the 6 nations. At least Fiji would actually win the odd game.

 

[Bandar]

They are. It's just they're looking for commercial growth and that's why they've avoided the Pacific.

Yeah I see the Pacific and Georgia a bit like Tasmania and the AFL - it's the No. 1 game in town but not the economic value to worry about it.

The difference is places like Spain, Germany and Brazil who had large populations and economies we would like to tap into. 12 years is a long time for them be be out in the cold.

The smaller nations will be worse off under this model, at least now they get to play the odd match against tier 1 but this league will fill the calendar and they will be left to play only each other.

 

[Bandar]

What's the difference between the new world league and regular old rankings, except that Fiji aren't allowed in?

If it went on rankings it would be:

1. New Zealand
5. South Africa
6. Australia
9. Fiji
10. Argentina
11. Japan

2. Ireland
3. Wales
4. England
7. Scotland
8. France
12. Georgia

 

[Derpus]

How good does that look, though.

Ah well.

 

[Rebels3]

I am surprised at the amount of blame the Southern Hemisphere teams are getting online for this, especially after Castle came out supporting prom/relegation.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

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

Here' the thing. They could have gone with 16 teams easily enough in my opinion via 4 groups of 4. Three of the 6Ns teams in each conference plus 1 from outside. The groups from each respective grouping then play teams from their opposing group (north vs north and south vs south) meaning they could have kept the 6Ns and used it to count toward those games. Similar down here. Then in July they play one set of hemisphere crossover and the same in November before the final. For 15 games each. This would then allow for the likes of Georgia, Russia, Japan, USA, Fiji plus a glut of about 5
(Canada, Uruguay, Brazil, Samoa and Tonga) other teams to be included in the 16.

And sure, give to 2-3 years to bed down before bringing in pro/rel. Which if we're being completely honest won't be even on the radar as a serious threat to the established T1 nations for some time. Realistically its those outside the top 12 that are going to be at the greatest threat. But if the unthinkable were to occur a circuit breaker in the form of a pro/rel game against the top nation from the 2nd division would heavily fall in favour of the 1st div side.

It not even that difficult for form a 2nd divsion. Use current structures like the REC, Asia D1 (though that should become the Asia-Pacific D1 involving 6 nations), ARC (which assuming the US maintains a presence would like Argentina make them excluded from progressing) and Africa. Top 2 from each could then progress to the Nations Cup (another pre-existing structure just with more marketing and promotion) split into 2 pools with the winner playing off for a shot at promotion.

 

[kiap]

I think people shouldn't get too carried away with this story just yet.

It's from a New Zealand perspective - nothing wrong with that, of course, but NZ is not a 'player'. They, and SANZAAR as a whole, will be deal takers more than deal makers.

• We've already seen who is the Boss Daddy. Had to be someone that scuppered the relegation "nonsense". Hmmm.
• It's an urgent rush to sign up this year and lock it away for a decade or more. I wonder why?

Yeah I see the Pacific and Georgia a bit like Tasmania and the AFL - it's the No. 1 game in town but not the economic value to worry about it.

What if said AFL isn't interested expanding to Canberra, Wellington or Cape Town either?

Th€y might hav€ a b€tt€r off€r.

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.

Indeed. And if CVC Capital Partners get their claws into the 6N action, this "Nations Championship" talk could be goneski.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I am surprised at the amount of blame the Southern Hemisphere teams are getting online for this, especially after Castle came out supporting prom/relegation.

We're the cash strapped Unions. So of course we must be the reasons for this happening. Even though as you allude to its on the record that we were (at least publicly) open to pro/rel and are the ones making the biggest structural changes for this to happen.

 

[fatprop]

Football has a decent model already set up to copy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_UEFA_Nations_League

 

[Derpus]

I wonder if relegation is more or less attractive to broadcasters.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Football has a decent model already set up to copy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_UEFA_Nations_League

Christ that would be heaps better than the plan the article suggests. Everyone would be able to participate and we could keep pro/rel as per my post a bit earlier. You could even once again use existing structures with some tweaks if you want to keep it to twelve without too much issue.

Traditional structure would be maintained and hell, I'd even support keeping to the plan of including Japan and the US to the RC. Partly because of their economies but also because I prefer the straight shot 5 game RC idea as opposed to this H/A BS.

 

[Bandar]

I wonder if relegation is more or less attractive to broadcasters.

I would imagine much less attractive for the broadcasters in USA, Japan & Italy

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I wonder if relegation is more or less attractive to broadcasters.

Looking at the potential teams in a theoretical 2nd. If you based it geographically speaking (so Europe, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Africa) at that level and went with just say 4 team in each group. You'd have something like this;

Europe - Spain, Russia, Romania and Georgia.
Americas - Canada, Brazil, Uruguay and Chile/Colombia
Asia-Pacific - Fiji (assuming they went with the 12 in the article), Tonga, Samoa, Hong Kong. Or Samoa, Tonga, Hong Kong and Korea if they used the Soccer set up.
Africa - Kenya, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Uganda, Tunisia and Morocco.

I personally think that would be a pretty interesting mix. And it's not as if they'd have to look too hard for footage as many already have broadcasting arrangements for their games anyway.

 

[RugbyReg]

There are two reasons that I think the Pacific teams have been shunned. 1) facilities - not sure how their broadcast facilities hold up for such a global competition; and 2) there is still plenty of (alleged?) corruption within all country's governing bodies.

Some of the stories you hear are heat breaking (even just reading Ben Ryan's book gives an insight).

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ 1) facilities outside of Suva are pretty much rubbish esp Apia Park, upgraded at great cost by a consortium lead by a relative of the PM/ Rugby Union Chairman but with capacity reduced from 12 to 8K which leads me to;
2) Fiji seem to be less corrupt rugby-wise than Tonga & Samoa but it's the proverbial low bar that's been set.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Concept-wise KRead for one isn't a fan:

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/a...-warns-we-need-to-protect-the-games-integrity

Nor are the "International Rugby Players council which comprises 40 senior figures representing a cross-section of the game (including captains of nine of the top 10 nations)".

 

[Adam84]

I wonder if relegation is more or less attractive to broadcasters.

Less...
Especially in emerging markets like America if there is no guarantee that their team will be in it, but can you imagine the scepticism of an Aussie broadcaster if the wallabies are a chance of been culled

 

[Derpus]

Not a fan of the player load argument. Just have bigger squads with more rotation.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Less.
Especially in emerging markets like America if there is no guarantee that their team will be in it, but can you imagine the scepticism of an Aussie broadcaster if the wallabies are a chance of been culled

Use a circuit breaker in the form of a pro/rel game. This would be heavily in favour of the WL teams. Even the US. A full strength Eagles are no joke these days.