Proposed Nations Championship

[Rugbynutter39]

Nations League concept scrapped:

"Despite strong progress in collaboration with unions, competition owners and International rugby players, including full engagement on the detailed process of financial due diligence, a lack of consensus on key issues, particularly the timing and format of promotion and relegation, left World Rugby with no alternative but to discontinue the project"

https://m.sport24.co.za/Rugby/world-rugby-scraps-controversial-nations-championship-plans-20190619

WTF do we do now?

I am glad world rugby held firm on promotion : relegation - pity could not have world league minus those nations vetoing - wonder if this means 6 nations take private equity money which would be pretty darn stupid

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think it's a lot more likely that if SANZAAR still agree to expand the RC to 6 teams that it'll be with Japan and the US and without any promotion / relegation - at least to start with. Without the extra cash the Nations Championship was going to bring I think there's no way SANZAAR chose Fiji over the US. The US are still weaker at this stage but they have the biggest economy in the world and a fledgling professional league that's basically aligned with the SH season. On the other hand all the top Fijian guys play in Europe and will be told by their clubs to make themselves unavailable for the RC window. I don't know how that can be overcome unless someone very wealthy decides to fund Fijian rugby and basically sign their top 25-30 players to contracts.

I think this scuppers Sanzaar expansion plans as not likely to get tv money interest to expand

 

[Dctarget]

Could someone explain for the uninformed Georgia's & Romania's opposition to it? Do they think they're on the cusp of six nations or something?? Also, why would their views hold any weight - I wouldn't think they had enough gravitas to sink this concept.

 

[Highlander35]

AFAIK Georgia and Romania would both be financially worse off and get fewer matches against tier 1 opposition under the Nations League than they would be under the default "San Francisco" agreement.

For all the love of money displayed here among other places, there wasn't actually much set up financially or competitively under the structure for those who weren't in the lucky group of 12 outside, "oh yeah, and every couple of years the best of the rest get a promotion/relegation series or something", rather than a regular structure of cross divisional play and Tier 2 Nations hosting Test matches.

 

[Omar Comin']

Cannot speak for Japan but MLR has been developing in terms of standard rather quickly. The quality of the first round this year was clearly higher than the end of the first season and the final couple of rounds were well ahead of that.

Against what will likely be more 2nd string XVs they'll be competitive enough to start.

I think Japan are in a better position to compete right now, they have a lot more players who have played at a top professional level. I agree from what I saw that the standard of MLR improved in year 2, but there's still a huge gap between that and Super Rugby. It'll take years for that gap to close. The US were hammered by Argentina XV a few months ago - I know it was a bit of a bad game for them, but you'd have to worry how they'd go in the first few years if they joined now, especially in away games. It's not like the All Blacks 2nd XV is that much worse than the first, especially against a lesser opponent. Losing the odd game by 40 points or so is maybe okay, but 70+ point drubbings for a few years could potentially do more harm than good.

I'm all for adding them by the way, but the SANZAAR unions would be smart to use their resources to help bring them up to speed as quickly as possible.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

AFAIK Georgia and Romania would both be financially worse off and get fewer matches against tier 1 opposition under the Nations League than they would be under the default "San Francisco" agreement.

For all the love of money displayed here among other places, there wasn't actually much set up financially or competitively under the structure for those who weren't in the lucky group of 12 outside, "oh yeah, and every couple of years the best of the rest get a promotion/relegation series or something", rather than a regular structure of cross divisional play and Tier 2 Nations hosting Test matches.

The original piece stated that each nations would receive £10m a season. That was when it was only worth £5b. When it was increased to £6.2b I'd imagine that would have have up accordingly. When the raise was announced they detailed that a total £355m would be distributed annually for participants in the structure. If the fee followed the increase the 12 would receive £12m. Though I suspect it would have been closer to £15m. Over 12 teams that would be between £144-180m for the first division. Where would the other $211-175m have gone?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I think Japan are in a better position to compete right now, they have a lot more players who have played at a top professional level. I agree from what I saw that the standard of MLR improved in year 2, but there's still a huge gap between that and Super Rugby. It'll take years for that gap to close. The US were hammered by Argentina XV a few months ago - I know it was a bit of a bad game for them, but you'd have to worry how they'd go in the first few years if they joined now, especially in away games. It's not like the All Blacks 2nd XV is that much worse than the first, especially against a lesser opponent. Losing the odd game by 40 points or so is maybe okay, but 70+ point drubbings for a few years could potentially do more harm than good.

I'm all for adding them by the way, but the SANZAAR unions would be smart to use their resources to help bring them up to speed as quickly as possible.

That Eagles team that played that game which was probably their worst game in two years was essentially their 2nd XV with a number of starters not present or available.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Could someone explain for the uninformed Georgia's & Romania's opposition to it? Do they think they're on the cusp of six nations or something?? Also, why would their views hold any weight - I wouldn't think they had enough gravitas to sink this concept.

In reality they had very little to do with the axing of the concept. Their opposition was to do with not being included in the original concepts 1st division and the issue of promotion/relegation. Most notably it not being on the table to start.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I am glad world rugby held firm on promotion : relegation - pity could not have world league minus those nations vetoing - wonder if this means 6 nations take private equity money which would be pretty darn stupid

What really annoys me is that the solution was fairly simple. Expand the top division from 12 to 16. Two conferences of 8 teams split into two pools of 4 each. Everyone has to play everyone in their conference once for 7 games with the 6Ns counting toward five of those games. The rest could be made up in the July where a pool from each conference would tour before hosting before hosting in November. To get the other 4 games to reach 11 they would play two games against teams from one of the pools from the RoTW conference in July and the other two from that pool in November. Top team from each conference goes to the final. The rest of the teams are then ranked 3-14 with the 16th team being relegated.

From the overall rankings/performances the Europe conference would have the 6Ns teams plus Romania/Spain while the ROTW conference would feature the SANZAAR nations, Japan, Fiji, and the USA.

Below that run a 12 team 2nd Div. with teams split into two conference along Europe and RoTW which would feature Europe: Spain/Romania, Russia, Belgium, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands and RoTW: Samoa, Canada, Uruguay, Namibia, Hong Kong and Brazil. This would run as WR (World Rugby) proposed the 1st Div to operate.

Below that would be the existing regional championships with the winner of each progressing to the Nations Cup format to determine a 3rd Div. winner to be promoted to the 2nd Div.

That would create a sizeable buffer between the 6Ns teams and relegation. Split the £355m that was offered in a £12/£6/£3 which would come to the total of £336m of that £355m on offer. It would also allow for a one off parachute payment of £12m for the 1st Div team being relegated and £6m for the 2nd Div. team. Which would bring it to £354m. Hell, at the 3rd Div. level they could go with £1m and that would represent significant funding increases. While if necessary boosting the payments to £14 and £7m for the top two divisions.

This would represent a significant boost in overall funding for pretty everyone of the potential 52 competing nations while actually achieving the goal of promotion/relegation.

 

[Omar Comin']

That Eagles team that played that game which was probably their worst game in two years was essentially their 2nd XV with a number of starters not present or available.

It was actually a pretty strong Eagles team with 11/15 of the starting side that beat Scotland in 2018, you can see the line up here: https://www.usarugby.org/2019/02/me...atch-two-of-americas-rugby-championship-2019/

To be fair I just read that they played with 14 men for just over half the match, though they were down 21-0 before the card. I guess to then only lose 45-14 isn't so bad and shows it was maybe just a really bad start. It'll be interesting to see how they go at the world cup - if they can be competitive with France, England and Argentina they'd be straight in.

 

[Dan54]

I guess the question would be how much pf the offer was made up based on the 6Ns teams participation.

I guess the offer was on the understanding it was for a World league, without any of the main players it lost it's value.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

They are but they wanted to enter the structure in the top division and npt have to win promotion.

I'd have thought that being part of a T2 comp with the possibility of promotion to T1, albeit almost certainly weighted against you, was better than being perpetually stuck in T2. It makes no more sense than Italy's & Scotland's (supposed) opposition on the basis they might some day get relegated.

 

[Sir Arthur Higgins]

May have been said but NZ, SA and Aus should
Vote with their feet.
NH tour games to England, France, Wales, Georgia, Romania, USA and Canada for a bit.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ if Georgia & Romania lobbied & voted against World League proposal they can go fuck themselves for a while. As for Wales, Ringinland etc yeah sure BUT if & only if they're prepared to share the dosh more fairly.

 

[dru]

^ if Georgia & Romania lobbied & voted against World League proposal they can go fuck themselves for a while. As for Wales, Ringinland etc yeah sure BUT if & only if they're prepared to share the dosh more fairly.

Georgia and Romania thought they should be allowed a chance up front and not be held back. Think we could support that. If SH rugby takes a position of one or two games max to unpaid traditional opposition, I'd imagine that Romania and Georgia might be happy to discuss terms.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Georgia and Romania thought they should be allowed a chance up front and not be held back. Think we could support that. If SH rugby takes a position of one or two games max to unpaid traditional opposition, I'd imagine that Romania and Georgia might be happy to discuss terms.

My issue is that none of the opponents seem to take into account the benefits the deals funding would have had down stream as opposed to the top end. Georgia seems to still hold hope that they'll one day become the 7th member of the cartel. Which is never gonna happen. Ever.

I understand the issue of promotion/relegation but the funding available for T2/3 would have achieved far more in a far shorter period of time than maintaining the status quo. Take Spain for example. A nation that has been experiencing 10%+ growth in playing numbers for the past 7-8 years. A growing local league in terms of professionalism and who this morning beat a full strength Uruguay in Montevideo comfortably 21-41 without their French based players.

The funding from the NC could have helped continue the trend of growth in numbers and pathways that would see the overall quality of their domestic league and national team to the point that they could be a competitive force at the RWC which would go a lot further than Georgia or Romania's protests.

 

[dru]

Georgia seems to still hold hope that they'll one day become the 7th member of the cartel. Which is never gonna happen. Ever.

So why would they support it? Ever? But they could be of interest for SH tests and have interest in $share to achieve it.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

So why would they support it? Ever? But they could be of interest for SH tests and have interest in $share to achieve it.

Because the funding achieved via the deal would allow for greater local development which would have positive net benefits over the 3 RWC cycles where they would have a shot of proving their competitiveness and negating the old argument of their ability to stick with the big boys.

 

[dru]

Because the funding achieved via the deal would allow for greater local development which would have positive net benefits over the 3 RWC cycles where they would have a shot of proving their competitiveness and negating the old argument of their ability to stick with the big boys.

And for the long term (“not ever”) relegate them to second tier. Take your choice and go from there. Seems they value an opportunity to the top division quite highly.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

And for the long term (“not ever”) relegate them to second tier. Take your choice and go from there. Seems they value an opportunity to the top division quite highly.

What do you think are the chances of Georgia ever being accepted even if they were capable? They unfortunately lack the commercial capacity to be an option for many of the T1 nations. At least in the NC model they would have seen increased funding and extra games against different opposition more regularly.