World League thread

thebaz

Former Former wrote: »

This is it.

No TV company is going to put up cash if there is a risk of having no audience a year later.

End of debate.

dont think its that clear cut - one of the most valuable football games is the Championchip play-off final (which wouldn't happen without relegation) - people like competive sport , knockout rugby or football is so much more enjoyable for neutrals than dead rubber games for a wooden spoon that have no consequnces.

But perhaps the reality I'm getting is Rugby just feals content to operate for an insulated cartel of wealthy countries, and tough **** on developing nations, or even Pacific islanders that have given so much to the game.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

It would mean losing a huge portion of it.

No, it would not. You might need to rethink that there

Exclamation Marc

thebaz wrote: »

But perhaps the reality I'm getting is Rugby just feals content to operate for an insulated cartel of wealthy countries, and tough **** on developing nations, or even Pacific islanders that have given so much to the game.

Well that's just utter tosh as everyone is criticising the potential ostracisation of the Pacific Islanders, Georgia etc. Just the proposed idea to bring them in is deeply flawed.

thebaz

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Well that's just utter tosh as everyone is criticising the potential ostracisation of the Pacific Islanders, Georgia etc. Just the proposed idea to bring them in is deeply flawed.

Tosh - so how can they get in ? - just wait 10 years for the next new TV contract, that will really help ther rugby development

Exclamation Marc

thebaz wrote: »

Tosh - so how can they get in ? - just wait 10 years for the next new TV contract, that will really help ther rugby development

Well with this world league they'll never get in...? So it's a non runner.

People are rightly saying that a sensible decision needs to be found to include them, and this is not it. Those in charge will search for a better solution. The growth of all nations is a boon for everyone but not if it sinks established teams beyond feasibility.

Clegg

According to The Telegraph the proposed World League is now 'dead in the water' after the intervention of some of rugby's leading players.

Essentially they're saying Sexton, Read and Farrell speaking out caught World Rugby by surprise. The three had a conference call With 40 other test players that are also members of the International Rugby Players. All were in agreement that player welfare issues made the proposed league unworkable.

They're citing a 'Six Nations Source's for their info.

Former Former

thebaz wrote: »

dont think its that clear cut - one of the most valuable football games is the Championchip play-off final (which wouldn't happen without relegation) - people like competive sport , knockout rugby or football is so much more enjoyable for neutrals than dead rubber games for a wooden spoon that have no consequnces.

It's not even remotely similar.

The money in the premiership comes from Sky and BT. Now, if West Brom get promoted and Southampton get relegated, Sky and BT don't care because their audience is still there. The money will flow regardless. Plus the Championship itself is a very, very popular league.

Now, imagine if NBC Sports (or whoever) pony up the cash for the rights to a league in which the USA play all the major teams in world rugby. Cash windfall.

Except the USA are the worst team in it, get hammered in every game and get relegated and Fiji are promoted. Suddenly, the US rights are worth a lot less because instead of USA v New Zealand, you're showing USA vs Tonga.

And maybe the following year, Japan get relegated and Samoa come up. Suddenly, the 500 million rich people of USA and Japan, with all their TV rights and sponsorship, have been replaced by the 1 million poor people of Fiji and Samoa.

And your league is finished, only it took down the Six Nations, World Cup and Lions with it.

We either do this with ring-fencing or we don't do it at all. Hopefully the latter.

Dave_The_Sheep

troyzer wrote: »

There's a difference between committing to the development of other nations and staking your entire financial future on it.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Right, yeah. Except no one is talking about staking anyone's entire financial future on it.

troyzer wrote: »

Well, they are. You're staking your entire financial future if it means you could get relegated and lose all of that income.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Being relegated would not mean losing all of that income

troyzer wrote: »

It would mean losing a huge portion of it.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, it would not. You might need to rethink that there

As entertaining as this interaction is, and I enjoy reading your posts most of the time, I'd love to see some reasons behind the reasoning here.

I need to know so I can pass off whosever thoughts I like the most off as my own tomorrow in my rugby circle.

Neil3030

Each 6N team would only need to take a minor hit (~5%) of their current revenues to put a parachute payment mechanism in place for relegated sides. And with the tournament then legitimately involving a host of new markets, that initial hit would surely soon be offset.

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

Each 6N team would only need to take a minor hit (~5%) of their current revenues to put a parachute payment mechanism in place for relegated sides. And with the tournament then legitimately involving a host of new markets, that initial hit would surely soon be offset.

If the 6 Nations implement revenue sharing (which pretty much ever mature professional sport in the world does, which I've been saying they should do here for 10 years, and they are now FINALLY investigating) its the first step in this direction. If ever there was a model that embraced actual development of European rugby with relegation, then a simple 1 year parachute payment model would be a small extension of this.

But they're still miles away from where they should be, which is under the auspices of a European body for everyone.

The idea that people are deciding which teams should play elite rugby based on the revenue they can generate should show you, very simply, how horribly broken the whole thing is. The 6 Nations is just a colonial closed shop and they're holding any real possibility of developing the future of wider European rugby hostage so they can continue lining their own pockets. And they've convinced everyone that this is how it should be.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If the 6 Nations implement revenue sharing (which pretty much ever mature professional sport in the world does and they are now FINALLY investigating about a decade too late) its the first step in this direction.

But they're still miles away from where they should be, which is under the auspices of a European body for everyone.

The idea that people are deciding which teams should play elite rugby based on the revenue they can generate should show you, very simply, how horribly broken the whole thing is. The 6 Nations is just a colonial closed shop and they're holding any real possibility of developing the future of wider European rugby hostage so they can continue lining their own pockets. And they've convinced everyone that this is how it should be.

I don't want it but I don't understand what the alternative is. If you open it up to everyone then it would just collapse. Countries like Georgia and Romania won't be able to pay for themselves and the countries which do generate all of the revenue (the current six nations) would have to start cutting budgets, reducing the number of contracted players etc. just to stay above water.

"Continue lining their own pockets" with their own cash you mean. It's not like Romania and Georgia are making a fortune for rugby and are being locked out. The Six Nations are pretty much the be all, end all of European rugby TV markets. It's not rocket science, Georgia entering the competition right now would get battered every year and would drain the resources of the other unions. Where's the win there?

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

I don't want it but I don't understand what the alternative is. If you open it up to everyone then it would just collapse. Countries like Georgia and Romania won't be able to pay for themselves and the countries which do generate all of the revenue (the current six nations) would have to start cutting budgets, reducing the number of contracted players etc. just to stay above water.

"Continue lining their own pockets" with their own cash you mean. It's not like Romania and Georgia are making a fortune for rugby and are being locked out. The Six Nations are pretty much the be all, end all of European rugby TV markets. It's not rocket science, Georgia entering the competition right now would get battered every year and would drain the resources of the other unions. Where's the win there?

Please explain exactly how "it would just collapse"

Not even going to begin to get into the idea that the unions are funding the 6 nations with their own money!

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Please explain exactly how "it would just collapse"

You do realise that most unions in the Six Nations are just about keeping out of the red? It's not like they're rolling in cash to begin with.

If you suddenly reduce their income by 10-15% to allow an extra two countries in, they just don't make savings by using one teabag instead of two. There would need to be real cuts which would damage the unions.

Collapse is probably a bit of an exaggeration but there are real, hugely negative consequences to opening it up. Georgia has to be able to pay for itself if it wants to join or at least not cost a fortune. It also has to be competitive.

I agree that they're never going to get there whilst being locked out. It's a catch 22. Which is why the obvious first step is for their national side to get more tier 1 tests, get a cut of 6 nations money to develop their game and get a Pro14 team.

So who's paying for the Six Nations if not for the crowds, TV audiences and sponsors from the Six Nations? Not many people are watching it outside of those countries relatively speaking.

irishbucsfan

No one is just allowing an extra 2 countries in. It would still be a 6 team competition at the top level just with a relegation play-off. And given they're already investigating a revenue-sharing model clearly taking a small hit would not have the effect you're claiming it would.

But let's ignore that and look instead at the counterfactual. "Georgia has to be able to pay for itself". Right so given Georgia has a population the size of Leinster and a GDP of about 20% of Leinster's, there is literally no way they should ever even explore the mere possibility playing elite rugby. What should Georgia do, just give up? It shouldn't matter how good Georgia are because their population is small and their people are much poorer than we are?

If that's true, then rugby has no future as a global sport.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No one is just allowing an extra 2 countries in. It would still be a 6 team competition at the top level just with a relegation play-off. And given they're already investigating a revenue-sharing model clearly taking a small hit would not have the effect you're claiming it would.

But let's ignore that and look instead at the counterfactual. "Georgia has to be able to pay for itself". Right so given Georgia has a population the size of Leinster and a GDP of about 20% of Leinster's, there is literally no way they should ever even explore the mere possibility playing elite rugby. What should Georgia do, just give up? It shouldn't matter how good Georgia are because their population is small and their people are much poorer than we are?

If that's true, then rugby has no future as a global sport.

Letting Georgia and Romania in partially shafts all current teams.

Relegation and promotion could completely shaft one team.

A revenue sharing model is a good idea, one which I literally just said in my previous comment. But not an equal share. We don't even have an equal share now, France and England make much more TV money than Ireland does because they're contributing more to the pie. And that's only fair.

It's not an easy problem, the fact that Georgia has to pay for itself. But if it can't pay for itself and the other nations are subsidising it and paying for the privilege of paying Georgia, then they have to at least be competitive. What's the point of introducing a financial black hole which gets battered every week?

Look, we clearly agree that the current setup is unfair. Georgia needs more opportunities. So let's start from there and give them more tests and professional team. Jumping straight into the Six Nations is bad for Georgia and everyone else.

irishbucsfan

Answer the question there. All the inaccurate tangents aren’t on topic

Georgia will never, ever be able to contribute anything like the amount we do. So please explain should they just give up on the dream of ever playing elite rugby, or how do you propose they should be included?

Is there route to the 6 Nations just “pray you discover a giant well of oil garnished with diamonds”?

troyzer

Georgia shouldn't just give up and I think in the long run, sacrificing some revenue to allow them to join is the right thing to do.

But there are several things that need to happen before they can get there:

1) They need to win a game against a tier 1 opponent. To do this, they need more tests and this should be given. This will demonstrate that they're competitive.

2) They need a financially stable professional team. This should also be given by the Pro14. Once they've demonstrated an ability to regularly beat tier 1 sides and they have at least a semi competitive professional team then they'll be able to demonstrate popular support, some commercial partners and a fertile TV market. Even if all of those aren't enough to pay for themselves, it'll go a long way to showing they won't be a complete drain on resources.

3) Let them into the competition.

irishbucsfan

So they (or anyone else at all) shouldn’t be given the benefits and funding that is provided to teams in the closed shop, like Italy are for no rugby reason at all, until they can prove that they’re able to play at the level that would generate without it.

That’s the entire problem really. That mindset is poisonous and it will keep the shop closed.

That’s fine, it’s the sport we have, the turkeys will never vote for Christmas. It’s just worth keeping in mind the next time we here the Unions touting their own virtuosity.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So they (or anyone else at all) shouldn’t be given the benefits and funding that is provided to teams in the closed shop, like Italy are for no rugby reason at all, until they can prove that they’re able to play at the level that would generate without it.

That’s the entire problem really. That mindset is poisonous and it will keep the shop closed.

That’s fine, it’s the sport we have, the turkeys will never vote for Christmas. It’s just worth keeping in mind the next time we here the Unions touting their own virtuosity.

I'm saying they need to bridge the gap. I absolutely agree that the current setup makes that impossible. We agree that it's unfair as it currently stands. We also agree that Georgia is never going to be able pay for itself and would be a drain to some extent on finances. We further agree that this IS a price worth paying.

Again, there's agreement that Georgia don't get enough tier 1 tests and they deserve a professional team. Both of these could be sorted in the next few months and it's an obvious step to take before letting them in the competition.

And that last point seems to be the only point of disagreement.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

like Italy are for no rugby reason at all

In fairness, Italy were able to show they were competitive for a number of years before they were brought (too late) into the 6N, same as Argentina in the Tri Nations. Georgia have never really risen above the level of cannon fodder for tier 1 sides.

Not saying there shouldn't be a path for them but the Six Nations isn't the answer. This world league is even worse.

troyzer

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, Italy were able to show they were competitive for a number of years before they were brought (too late) into the 6N, same as Argentina in the Tri Nations. Georgia have never really risen above the level of cannon fodder for tier 1 sides.

Not saying there shouldn't be a path for them but the Six Nations isn't the answer. This world league is even worse.

It should be noted as well that Argentina regularly beat tier 1 sides without being in any tier 1 club or international tournament. It's not impossible.

MJohnston

Irishbucsfan for World Rugby vice president - the train starts here

sydthebeat

MJohnston wrote: »

Irishbucsfan for World Rugby vice president - the train wreck starts here

FYP

irishbucsfan

MJohnston wrote: »

Irishbucsfan for World Rugby vice president - the train starts here

I would flip quicker than Pichot. I have always felt the power of the dark side

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, Italy were able to show they were competitive for a number of years before they were brought (too late) into the 6N, same as Argentina in the Tri Nations. Georgia have never really risen above the level of cannon fodder for tier 1 sides.

Not saying there shouldn't be a path for them but the Six Nations isn't the answer. This world league is even worse.

They weren’t competitive for a number of years in any significantly different way than Georgia are right now. They lost every game at the 1999 World Cup and were included in the followings years 6 Nations. They just had beaten Ireland a few times during the worst period in our history. They were just spectacularly lucky and chosen at the right time.

The Six Nations isn’t the answer because it should be entirely replaced by a truly European championship. There is no rugby reason that should prevent that. Just purely short term financial reasons.

troyzer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They weren’t competitive for a number of years in any significantly different way than Georgia are right now. They lost every game at the 1999 World Cup and were included in the followings years 6 Nations. They just had beaten Ireland a few times during the worst period in our history. They were just spectacularly lucky and chosen at the right time.

The Six Nations isn’t the answer because it should be entirely replaced by a truly European championship. There is no rugby reason that should prevent that. Just purely short term financial reasons.

There are loads of rugby reasons that should prevent that. The lower tier teams are nowhere near the same standard.

awec

thebaz wrote: »

dont think its that clear cut - one of the most valuable football games is the Championchip play-off final (which wouldn't happen without relegation) - people like competive sport , knockout rugby or football is so much more enjoyable for neutrals than dead rubber games for a wooden spoon that have no consequnces.

But perhaps the reality I'm getting is Rugby just feals content to operate for an insulated cartel of wealthy countries, and tough **** on developing nations, or even Pacific islanders that have given so much to the game.

The Championship in football is still a very high standard with a large audience.

The problem with rugby is there really is only a handful of top teams that draw big TV audiences.

No broadcaster will ever accept relegation in this league. Could you imagine England having a disaster of a season and getting relegated? Their audience would drop off a cliff.

irishbucsfan

troyzer wrote: »

There are loads of rugby reasons that should prevent that. The lower tier teams are nowhere near the same standard.

I’ve yet to hear a single coherent reason that Italy should be allowed to lose every game every year with no relegation play off. Or a single rugby reason why Georgia losing every game wouldn’t be significantly worse for the competition than Italy losing every game.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They weren’t competitive for a number of years in any significantly different way than Georgia are right now. They lost every game at the 1999 World Cup and were included in the followings years 6 Nations. They just had beaten Ireland a few times during the worst period in our history. They were just spectacularly lucky and chosen at the right time.

The Six Nations isn’t the answer because it should be entirely replaced by a truly European championship. There is no rugby reason that should prevent that. Just purely short term financial reasons.

IIRC they beat most of the Five Nations teams in the years leading up to their inclusion. I don't think Georgia have ever beaten a tier 1 team, despite the fact that they would always be playing against second/third string teams. I don't think they're comparable tbh.

As for ditching the 6N; I would have absolutely no interest in a European rugby championship and I'd class myself as a rugby obsessive bordering on weird. If I wouldn't watch it, do you think the wider public would? And if no one watches it, where does the money come from?

And if there's no money coming in to the national team, what happens to Irish rugby?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

The Championship in football is still a very high standard with a large audience.

The problem with rugby is there really is only a handful of top teams that draw big TV audiences.

But the Championship is fueled by the dream of reaching the Premiership. I’m a Wolves fan myself and that’s what kept us going for a long time. There was nothing inherently attractive about playing Brentford on a Tuesday night. The playoff final in Wembley against Sheffield United (a long time ago now) was one of the most significant days in the club’s history. All fueled by the quality of a different competition.

I’m not Georgian or Romanian but I’d imagine I’d find it very difficult to get excited about FIRA rugby knowing that regardless of how much we win, there’s nothing really to be gained beyond that trophy.