• 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

zer0

Jim Lenehan (48)
The tournament would be held for the three years between World Cups and would mean an end to tours by international tours although it reportedly wouldn't affect the tours by the British & Irish Lions.

So it's the end of tours except for when it isn't. Great. Glad that's clear.

Also seems as though some unions could find themselves in a somewhat precarious financial position should they have a bad year and get relegated. To use the local example, it seems that Australian attendances have been bad for Argentina and South Africa. Imagine what they'd be like for Romania and China.
 

Beer Baron

Phil Hardcastle (33)
Thinking long term (provided this concept lasts long term), i think this is an awesome idea.
Georgia would be stoked - it will be their way of proving they deserve the 6N spot.
the PI nations will hopefully get more regular games and better funding. Will be interesting to see how the $$ are distributed. Has this been made public yet - even at a high level?
 

Strewthcobber

Andrew Slack (58)
In that case will be interesting to see how they can jam another NZ game in the schedule - no way will Australia want to go a year without an All Black game at home
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
^^^^^^ with RA being averse to going up against the NRL & ARL playoffs it might have to be squeezed in between the July inbound matches & the S6N proper, or between the S6N & Northern tours if there's not enough of a gap.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
^^^^^^^^ I think we'd be looking at a Southern Six Nations-type scenario.


If they look to use the Top 6 ranked SH teams then we'll be seeing Fiji and Tonga entering such a competition. Unless they make some arrangement for Japan to be included as a SH nation somehow. And if they are truly looking to include the top 6 NH while not making the above arrangement for Japan. Going from the current ranking what do you think are the chances of them dumping Italy from the 6Ns in favour of the Cherry Blossoms?

I'm all for different thinking but this stinks of keeping it in the club.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
If they really wanted to change things up they could look to do it with two divisions of 16 teams based on current world rankings. So 1-16 would be Div 1 and 17-32 would be Div 2. Each division could then be split into 4 pools of 4 determine once again via rankings similar to world rankings determine the top 12 pool in the RWC.

Run it over a two year period. During the current Test windows. The first year involves the 6 games home and away for each team to determine rankings. Top 2 from each pools move into the Super 8 or whatever they want to call it and the bottom 8 into a similar set up. One to determine the overall winner and the other to determine relegation.

Again in July the play each other for three games but instead of a return leg in November the top 2 from each progress into the final stage to determine the Champion in November. In the bottom half of the top division similar would happen in reverse with the bottom two of each pool falling into a relegation pool. The top 2 go through to play in ranking games against the bottom 2 of the Super 8 stage. Call it Middle 8. In November the relegation pool play off with the last place team having to play the winner of Div 2 in a sudden death play off game.

Division 2 would go through an identical process for the most part and in time WR (World Rugby) could then look to introduce a 3rd Division with team ranked 37-48 involved.

This would give them their world league structure while allowing the the maintenance of the current regional structures and cup competitions in place .i.e. 6N's, TRC, ARC, ENC etc.
 

Strewthcobber

Andrew Slack (58)
I don't really get how this is going to work, or at least why they think it's going to improve revenue.

Year One - league of nations. We host NZ, Arg, Samoa, Wales, France, Japan

Year two - lions tour ???. Presumably we play games against teams not involved, and still run a TRC?

Year three, we host SA, Tonga, Ireland, england, Scotland

Year four, world cup and a reduced TRC?

So we host fewer games, against more teams which don't draw. Where's the revenue come from?
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
I actually do get it. It is to create more opportunities for other tier 2 nations to build stronger base.

So the Georgia's, Fiji, Japan of the world get more revenue and more regular competition which then builds better domestic base and indeed for competition in other competitions (hmm World Series Rugby anyone).

Sure lot of things to work through but I do get the ideas (at least some of them) behind it. But equally yes commercially lot to work through to understand how it will work. But for my mind making other countries outside the traditional SANZAAR and Six Nations sides more competitive can only make for more attractive product in not only this competition but other traditional competitions and domestic markets.

I actually on reflection more and more like the thinking behind it.

I actually have been a fan of what World Rugby done over the last decade to help grow the game so I have bit more faith in them then others as they are prepared to try and be innovative which in today's competitive sports market is critical.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
I actually do get it. It is to create more opportunities for other tier 2 nations to build stronger base.

So the Georgia's, Fiji, Japan of the world get more revenue and more regular competition which then builds better domestic base and indeed for competition in other competitions (hmm World Series Rugby anyone).

Sure lot of things to work through but I do get the ideas (at least some of them) behind it. But equally yes commercially lot to work through to understand how it will work. But for my mind making other countries outside the traditional SANZAAR and Six Nations sides more competitive can only make for more attractive product in not only this competition but other traditional competitions and domestic markets.

I actually on reflection more and more like the thinking behind it.

I actually have been a fan of what World Rugby done over the last decade to help grow the game so I have bit more faith in them then others as they are prepared to try and be innovative which in today's competitive sports market is critical.


I'm not against the concept. I actually wrote a piece over at The Roar last year (https://www.theroar.com.au/2017/03/13/world-league-rugby-pathway-forward/) regarding using something similar for T2 nations and below. I just think that they are structurally a little off.

I tend to believe it would work better with divisions of 16 teams instead of 12 and done in a way that provides more interaction with different opposition while allowing for more traditional competitions to be maintained.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
For me the key WCR is the fact they are planning a tier 2 league of nations with a promotion / relegation system.

So I am assuming that the initial first year is based on top 12 ranking of nations as to who gets involved and thereafter each year the bottom team gets relegated from tier one LON and top of tier 2 LON gets promoted.

Don't disagree devil in the detail WCR and lot to work through but I like the idea more I think of it and the positive flow on effects. I also have lot more faith in World Rugby then say SANZAAR. But yes don't discount some issues to work through to make something like this successful but yes concept wise like it.

ps thanks for link to your article on the roar as been overseas for last few weeks so behind on my rugby reading on the roar....
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
I don't really get how this is going to work, or at least why they think it's going to improve revenue.

Year One - league of nations. We host NZ, Arg, Samoa, Wales, France, Japan

Year two - lions tour ???. Presumably we play games against teams not involved, and still run a TRC?

Year three, we host SA, Tonga, Ireland, england, Scotland

Year four, world cup and a reduced TRC?

So we host fewer games, against more teams which don't draw. Where's the revenue come from?
If it was well marketed it could work.

I would be more inclined to go see us play teams we don't often play at home. Samoa, Tonga, etc. I havnt been to a test since the first Bledisloe after the England series and i have no real inclination to go watch us play NZ, SA or Argentina yet again.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
If it was well marketed it could work.

I would be more inclined to go see us play teams we don't often play at home. Samoa, Tonga, etc. I havnt been to a test since the first Bledisloe after the England series and i have no real inclination to go watch us play NZ, SA or Argentina yet again.


Sort of why I think 16 teams across four pools is better. You'd likely see a better mix of teams which I think would be more interesting as a fan.
 

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I don't really get how this is going to work, or at least why they think it's going to improve revenue.

1. Year One - league of nations. We host NZ, Arg, Samoa, Wales, France, Japan

2. Year two - lions tour ???. Presumably we play games against teams not involved, and still run a TRC?

3. Year three, we host SA, Tonga, Ireland, england, Scotland

4. Year four, world cup and a reduced TRC?

5. So we host fewer games, against more teams which don't draw. Where's the revenue come from?

In reverse order:

5. I'd imagine WR (World Rugby) are working on the basis of more content meaning more revenue. Plus I'd hope there'll be some match-day revenue sharing e.g. 1/3 host Union, 1/3 visitors, 1/3 into a kitty to top up the Unions that don't have a Twickenham or a Stade France (or an ANZ Stadium :)).

4. In RWC years there'll be no "crossover" matches in July & November & it'll be just the SH6N.

2. Yeah, I don't see how you can run this in a Lions year without the SH part of it running into the November window. I really hope this isn't used as an excuse to cull the Lions, I'd rather see this comp run only in the even-numbered years.

Sort of why I think 16 teams across four pools is better. You'd likely see a better mix of teams which I think would be more interesting as a fan.

I prefer the league format myself, as clearly do a majority if not all of the Unions who were at the meeting in Sydney.
 
Top