Proposed Nations Championship

[WorkingClassRugger]

So would that mean an end to tours north/south in the window? (Ie would there be space for say England to tour Australia in the Jun/July window?)

Likely. But the upside of that would be more variety in terms of teams featuring.

 

[Rebel man]

Yep, well I think that goes without saying as it will be run under a company that would have the tv rights. But gate takings still will always be under the control of host countryt I imagine except in maybe case of finals?

Last time

^ according to the initial proposal broadcast rights & net gate takings were to be pooled & shared equally between the participating Unions. Individual Unions could still do third-party deals outside of that framework so realistically the likes of England & France would end up with more dosh but the likes of Fiji would be exponentially better off.

That was my understanding that there would be revenue sharing so all nations got an even split. Last time they were talking about the annual broadcast rights being 7.8 billion USD so an equal share of that and the split of the gate takings would go a long way here

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Last time

That was my understanding that there would be revenue sharing so all nations got an even split. Last time they were talking about the annual broadcast rights being 7.8 billion USD so an equal share of that and the split of the gate takings would go a long way here

I'm pretty sure the initial offer was $7.8b(Euro) over 12 years. and was increased to $9.6b as things moved along. Still not something to be dismissed. If it were split equally among say 24 nations that's over $40m AUD. That would be significant enough for us. Imagine what it would do for other emerging nations.

 

[Rebel man]

I'm pretty sure the initial offer was $7.8b(Euro) over 12 years. and was increased to $9.6b as things moved along. Still not something to be dismissed. If it were split equally among say 24 nations that's over $40m AUD. That would be significant enough for us. Imagine what it would do for other emerging nations.

How are 24 nations getting cash? Only 12 are competing. If we are splitting the money 24 ways we should have nothing to do with it

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

How are 24 nations getting cash? Only 12 are competing. If we are splitting the money 24 ways we should have nothing to do with it

They mention establishing two divisions. If we want to help drive the game forward in a number of emerging nations there's no use in hoarding all the revenue among the top 12. The original proposal had this as part of the deal. The teams in the top division would get the largest share but those in the lower would see financial benefit as well. I don't actually think it would be evenly split. But if it did see $1b AUD revenue to be pooled and divided and those in the 2nd Div got $10m that would be huge for them. Though if it was one united Championship it only makes sense for the split to be evenly spread.

 

[Rebel man]

They mention establishing two divisions. If we want to help drive the game forward in a number of emerging nations there's no use in hoarding all the revenue among the top 12. The original proposal had this as part of the deal. The teams in the top division would get the largest share but those in the lower would see financial benefit as well. I don't actually think it would be evenly split. But if it did see $1b AUD revenue to be pooled and divided and those in the 2nd Div got $10m that would be huge for them. Though if it was one united Championship it only makes sense for the split to be evenly spread.

If we are splitting the money 24 ways we should go nowhere near it. We have to do what’s in our best interest first and foremost. If this nations cup can deliver us more money then we should look at it. If not we shouldn’t take part

We aren’t a charity the game here is struggling financially

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If we are splitting the money 24 ways we should go nowhere near it. We have to do what’s in our best interest first and foremost. If this nations cup can deliver us more money then we should look at it. If not we shouldn’t take part

We aren’t a charity the game here is struggling financially

We currently get $30m a year. IF we see similar levels of value in this proposal as we did in the original and IF they shared equally it that would see us receiving more than we currently do. As for it being charity. Think of it more as investment. An influx of funds would help drive development in regards to participation and HP opportunities for a range of nations. Which will help build their competitiveness and increase the value of the future rights.

 

[Rebel man]

We currently get $30m a year. IF we see similar levels of value in this proposal as we did in the original and IF they shared equally it that would see us receiving more than we currently do. As for it being charity. Think of it more as investment. An influx of funds would help drive development in regards to participation and HP opportunities for a range of nations. Which will help build their competitiveness and increase the value of the future rights.

But we can’t afford to be investing in other nations now. It’s the third year we are getting players to take a pay cut we will lose more big names overseas. We need to solely address our best interest financially

I do support growing the game in a global sense and as soon as we are back on our feet we need to look to do that

 

[Dan54]

I think there will be good additional money for everyone, say that there is 1B and is split among even if it 20 odd teams it would add $40mill to the coffers, I guessing it will not be too big a gap between top and second division or it won't do the job we hope which is to grow the game where it's needed. Also big disparity will make it too hard for teams to move between divisions, as we seeing now with haves and have nots.
I also wonder if there won't be more gate money if the mid year tests are actually played for something etc?

 

[Adam84]

6 Nations won’t be ‘pooling’ their revenue with anyone, let alone 18 other teams

 

[Rebel man]

6 Nations won’t be ‘pooling’ their revenue with anyone, let alone 18 other teams

They will if they see benefits for them. If the money gets split between the top 12 I can see it. Japan will be a massive TV market soon and they want a part of that revenue

For the more financially strong unions as @WorkingClassRugger pointed out it’s an investment for them so in the medium term they make more money than now

 

[Adam84]

They will if they see benefits for them. If the money gets split between the top 12 I can see it. Japan will be a massive TV market soon and they want a part of that revenue

For the more financially strong unions as @WorkingClassRugger pointed out it’s an investment for them so in the medium term they make more money than now

Yeah ‘Investment’ is a nice sentiment, but history and greed says it’s not a reality

Practically there’s no way the 6 Narions are pooling and sharing revenue across 18 other teams will see a net gain for 6 nations unions. Rugby Championship revenue is worth a fraction of the 6 nations.

You also have CVC private equity stakes in the 6 nations who aren’t going to give up a stake of their revenue easily.

The fact that concept this is driven by 6 Nations/Rugby Championsip unions and not WR (World Rugby) tells me this is about enhancing the wealth of those 10 countries and not the rest of the tier 2 nations. Japan and Fiji to potentially benefit as well.

There may be revenue sharing under the new concept, but you can forget any chance of it been equal or tier 2 teams receiving $10-$30million

 

[Rebel man]

Yeah ‘Investment’ is a nice sentiment, but history and greed says it’s not a reality

Practically there’s no was pooling and sharing 6 Nations revenue across 18 other teams will see a net gain for 6 nations teams. Rugby Championship revenue is worth a fraction of the 6 nations.

You also have CVC private equity stakes in the 6 nations who aren’t going to give up a stake of their revenue easily.

The fact that concept this is driven by 6 Nations/Rugby Championsip unions and not WR (World Rugby) as the previpus one was, tells me this is about enhancing the wealth of those 10 countries and not the rest of the tier 2 nations. Japan and Fiji to potentially benefit as well.

There may be revenue sharing under the new concept, but you can forget any chance of it been equal or tier 2 teams receiving $10-$30million

Nobody is suggesting that the tier two sides should get the same as the tier one sides

The 6 nations included Italy as they could see in the long run the stood to gain more from the extra game then they were to lose by splitting the revenue with an extra nation

 

[Adam84]

Yeah

Nobody is suggesting that the tier two sides should get the same as the tier one sides

The 6 nations included Italy as they could see in the long run the stood to gain more from the extra game then they were to lose by splitting the revenue with an extra nation

Yes they are:

Still not something to be dismissed. If it were split equally among say 24 nations that's over $40m AUD. That would be significant enough for us. Imagine what it would do for other emerging nations.

 

[Derpus]

Yeah

Yes they are:

Damn commies

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I wrote this up on the T2 forum. Thoughts.

One that I could think of is playing this over two years and instead of a 1st and 2nd division run it as a single competition with two divisions but similar to the old NZ NPC format with a Cup and a Championship. Each with two 'conferences' of 6 teams. In one we have the the 12 teams involved in the 6Ns and RC (I'm adding both Japan and Fiji to that equation) and the other those ranked 12-24 on the World Ranking/having appeared at the most recent RWC. Again split into two 6 team 'conferences'. Organised however you'll have it but I'd go with the REC as one and a mix of 2 PI, 3 Americas and 1 Africa in the other.

Over the two year window each team in the conference will play each other home and away (so for the RC, REC and 6Ns that would be as is now) plus each of the teams in the other 'conference' once for a total of 16 games. Additionally, each team will also play three teams from each of the two conferences from the other division in crossover games (which would contribute the their respective points tables) for another 6 games. Bringing the total number of games to 22 over two years. With the November window of the second year acting as the Finals.

From there each 'division' then split into their own respective 6 team finals series while the bottom 6 in each play in a 'rankings round' which alongside the finals series would go toward determining both qualification and pool placement in the upcoming RWC. Which with this in place could remain a 20 event until the Nations League grows out to 28/32 teams.

Point is, this would provide the best of both in my opinion. The structure they are angling for with the commercial benefits at both levels. While ensuring that each of the nations in the Championship level would get 6 games against Cup competition. Below this we can go with the the RET, Gold Cup, ARC and a combined Oceania/Asia regional championship of 6 teams a piece. Again split into two divisions. RET and Gold Cup in one and the ARC and Oceania/Asia in the other. Home and away over two years in their regional structures and one game against each of the teams from the other conference in their division. Top 4 from each division go through to play in a mini-tournament hosted during the Finals of the Nations League with the winner of that being promoted to the Nations League Championship while the last placed Nations League team is relegated to that level.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yeah

Yes they are:

In an ideal scenario. I'm totally not expecting that to be how it would actually flesh out. But my point is, if there is say $1b in revenue generated by this concept annually assuming the valuation remains largely the same as the initial proposal. Then we do need to ensure a fairer split of those revenues makes it to the T2 nations as a means of helping to drive investment in the game in terms of participation and HP pathways to assist in bringing the overall standards at that level closer to T1.

Why? Because having a 24 team structure that is more competitive across the board brings more interest internationally and helps drive value going forward.

 

[Adam84]

In an ideal scenario. I'm totally not expecting that to be how it would actually flesh out. But my point is, if there is say $1b in revenue generated by this concept annually assuming the valuation remains largely the same as the initial proposal. Then we do need to ensure a fairer split of those revenues makes it to the T2 nations as a means of helping to drive investment in the game in terms of participation and HP pathways to assist in bringing the overall standards at that level closer to T1.

Why? Because having a 24 team structure that is more competitive across the board brings more interest internationally and helps drive value going forward.

i don’t disagree with the sentiment of what you’re saying, I just think it’s improbable. I think it drastically underestimates the greed and selfish attitudes which exist.

If equality was the objective then the previous model pitched by World Rugby was best to achieve that, this however is a model pitched by 6 Nations and RC representatives. They’re going to be looking at self-interest first and ‘investing’ in their own unions ahead of others.

 

[boyo]

South Africa ‘set to replace Italy in the Six Nations in 2025’​

South Africa 'set to replace Italy in the Six Nations in 2025'

South Africa are set to replace Italy in the Six Nations in a move which would see the Springboks remove themselves from the Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship. South Africa’s switch to the Six Nations is very much on with talks continuing about the Springboks joining Europe’s showpiece...

nation.cymru

 

[Rebel man]

South Africa ‘set to replace Italy in the Six Nations in 2025’​

South Africa 'set to replace Italy in the Six Nations in 2025'

South Africa are set to replace Italy in the Six Nations in a move which would see the Springboks remove themselves from the Southern Hemisphere Rugby Championship. South Africa’s switch to the Six Nations is very much on with talks continuing about the Springboks joining Europe’s showpiece...

nation.cymru

Can’t see that actually happening, Italy owns one seventh of the 6 nations valued at £365,000,000. South Africa would have to buy them out and I doubt they have the money