World Rugby boss calls for Six Nations relegation

croket · 05-04-2016 11:08pm #1

Outgoing World Rugby president Bernard Lapasset on Monday backed calls for introducing promotion and relegation to the Six Nations.
"We need to change the format of the Six Nations Championship. If we want to look to the future, then the competition needs to be more open with a promotion-relegation system," Lapasset told French newspaper Le Figaro.
"It could be either direct, or after a play-off. But you need to quickly give a vision and some hope for these teams," he added, talking about second-tier European countries such as Georgia, Romania and Russia.
The debate for relegation and promotion emerged after Georgia's strong showing at the 2015 World Cup, and intensified after Italy's woeful displays in this year's Six Nations.
Italy were the last side added to the tournament in 2000, 90 years after France became the first country from outside the British Isles to take part.
President of rugby's world governing body since 2007, Lapasset will leave the job in May, with Englishman Bill Beaumont the only declared candidate to succeed him.
"The only problem will be the Six Nations. It will be difficult for him to open it up, but it has to expand," said Lapasset.
"There will be a Latin vice-president in Argentine Agustin Pichot. That opens prospects. That partnership has a good balance that can help bring rugby a little further."

http://www.afp.com/en/news/world-rugby-boss-calls-six-nations-relegation

CIARAN_BOYLE · 05-04-2016 11:23pm

croket wrote: »

http://www.afp.com/en/news/world-rugby-boss-calls-six-nations-relegation

personally im in favour of a playoff. Or maybe a series playoff in the autumn. Say italy finishes bottom then the team that wins the right to challenge for promotion (say georgia) and italy play a 3 match series and the series winner cometes in 6 nations.

Dave_The_Sheep · 05-04-2016 11:37pm

As long as it's a two-leg playoff I'm OK with that. Div 2 v Div 1-esque playoff for the "6th spot".

...play a 3 match series and the series winner cometes in 6 nations.

Why 3?

Journeyman_1 · 06-04-2016 12:38am

Can't have a draw after three games. Aggregate points could be pretty unfair if one game gets poor weather I guess.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2016 12:41am

I hate aggregate scoring in rugby. It absolutely doesn't work, scores are too dependent on conditions. If a 3 game series is possible it should be used. That or a single game in a neutral venue would be better than using aggregate scoring.

pickarooney · 06-04-2016 5:18am

I like it myself. All the Federale play offs use it and it makes for very exciting games.

former total · 06-04-2016 5:37am

This is a publicity stunt and is not to be taken seriously.

Lapasset was in charge of the French federation? Nothing. World Rugby? Tumbleweed.

On his way out the door in order to head up the Paris Olympic bid, for which he'll need votes from as many countries as he can get? Suddenly it's a great idea to bring the little guys into the family!

Lapasset knows better than most why this is unworkable, so it's just posturing.

hardCopy · 06-04-2016 5:42am

A one game playoff would be enough for me. If a Six Nations team can't beat the promotion candidate in one crucial game they deserve to go down.

I think in a three game series there's too much advantage for the incumbent and less chance of an upset.

jaykay74 · 06-04-2016 6:00am

hardCopy wrote:

I think in a three game series there's too much advantage for the incumbent and less chance of an upset.

But it shouldn't really be about an upset. It should be about the stronger of the 2 teams being in the following seasons 6 nations.

pickarooney · 06-04-2016 6:02am

Agreed on n Lapasset. Did nothing the whole time he was in office. Used to regularly pay lip service to opening in up the six nations but 0 action taken.

Jawgap · 06-04-2016 6:20am

I'd agree with the idea of relegation via a playoff - it would give the so called weaker countries something to aim for and add some spice to the 6 Nations itself as there'd be consequences for finishing bottom.

Recently we had some friends over from the US to attend the Italy and Scotland games and in the pub afterwards - as you do - there was a discussion on whether the US should be given the chance to play in the 6N - I thought it was quite intriguing!!

So throw in the US, Canada, Romania, Georgia, Russia (?) Spain (?) to play in an autumn tournament that concludes with the winner playing off against the bottom side from that year's 6N with the winner going on to play in the following year's 6N - it would certainly make the 6N a bit more northern hemisphere and a bit less Euro-centric.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 7:50am

Jawgap wrote: »

So throw in the US, Canada, Romania, Georgia, Russia (?) Spain (?) to play in an autumn tournament that concludes with the winner playing off against the bottom side from that year's 6N with the winner going on to play in the following year's 6N - it would certainly make the 6N a bit more northern hemisphere and a bit less Euro-centric.

How will that fit in the Autumn international window and who on earth will pay for it?

Let's be fair here - every time we talk about the ENC winner we're talking about Georgia. The rest of the teams at that level are rubbish.

I think this will both damage rugby in Italy and do very little to improve it in Georgia.

mrbrianj · 06-04-2016 8:03am

Not so much talk of this when France were rocky recently.

Jawgap · 06-04-2016 8:16am

Podge_irl wrote: »

How will that fit in the Autumn international window and who on earth will pay for it?

Let's be fair here - every time we talk about the ENC winner we're talking about Georgia. The rest of the teams at that level are rubbish.

I think this will both damage rugby in Italy and do very little to improve it in Georgia.

It's just an idea. I'd imagine TV revenues would provide a contribution and a reduced autumn programme would provide the space in the calendar.

Yes, I'd agree it's most likely to be Georgia in the short and medium term, but I certainly wouldn't overlook the potential for the US and Canada to progress very rapidly if the right competitive context was provided for them.

I'd disagree about damaging rugby in Italy or failing to help it in Georgia - nothing like the threat of a drop to inspire a team or the lure of a reward. Plus France's early performances with it became part of the 5N didn't exactly consign rugby to the dustbin of their sporting history.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 8:26am

Jawgap wrote: »

It's just an idea. I'd imagine TV revenues would provide a contribution and a reduced autumn programme would provide the space in the calendar.

How will a reduced Autumn program provide space for a 6 team tournament in 3 weeks? And who will show it? The main rugby watching populations are in the 6N and they won't because they'll have their own test matches to watch. So there will be non-existent TV revenues.

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus France's early performances with it became part of the 5N didn't exactly consign rugby to the dustbin of their sporting history.

Not being dropped out of the competition probably helped.

I understand the appeal of this, but its completely impractical. And Georgia aside, who are just off the level of the 6N teams, the ENC is way, way, way off the level of 6N teams. A promotion, ritual hammerings, and a demotion aren't going to change that.

croket · 06-04-2016 8:33am

must read : http://tier2rugby.blogspot.fr/2016/03/the-rising-rugby-nation-of-georgia.html

LeinsterDub · 06-04-2016 8:36am

Journeyman_1 wrote: »

Can't have a draw after three games. Aggregate points could be pretty unfair if one game gets poor weather I guess.

3 draws. A win a piece and a draw.

Journeyman_1 · 06-04-2016 8:37am

LeinsterDub wrote: »

3 draws. A win a piece and a draw.

Ok, its unlikely to have a draw over 3 matches when compared to two matches

ThisRegard · 06-04-2016 9:28am

former total wrote: »

Lapasset knows better than most why this is unworkable, so it's just posturing.

Genuine question, why is it unworkable? I personally always thought it would be beneficial to European rugby.

The Lost Sheep · 06-04-2016 10:00am

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd agree with the idea of relegation via a playoff - it would give the so called weaker countries something to aim for and add some spice to the 6 Nations itself as there'd be consequences for finishing bottom.

Recently we had some friends over from the US to attend the Italy and Scotland games and in the pub afterwards - as you do - there was a discussion on whether the US should be given the chance to play in the 6N - I thought it was quite intriguing!!

So throw in the US, Canada, Romania, Georgia, Russia (?) Spain (?) to play in an autumn tournament that concludes with the winner playing off against the bottom side from that year's 6N with the winner going on to play in the following year's 6N - it would certainly make the 6N a bit more northern hemisphere and a bit less Euro-centric.

I don't think we should have relegation from the 6 Nations. Yes we need to expand but first the sides in the European nations cup need more games outside the world cup against the "top tier" nations.
Georgia have only played 20 or so full tests against the 6Ns/4Ns sides. They have played ourselves and Argentina the most of tier 1 sides yet have only played 4 tests against ourselves. Romania have played more games but they were very very strong in 80s but fell apart when country did following fall of communism.

Podge_irl wrote: »

How will that fit in the Autumn international window and who on earth will pay for it?

Let's be fair here - every time we talk about the ENC winner we're talking about Georgia. The rest of the teams at that level are rubbish.

I think this will both damage rugby in Italy and do very little to improve it in Georgia.

Theyre not and they all need more games against the top sides but not in relegation from 6Ns. They all need more games in November and June.

Jawgap wrote: »

It's just an idea. I'd imagine TV revenues would provide a contribution and a reduced autumn programme would provide the space in the calendar.

Yes, I'd agree it's most likely to be Georgia in the short and medium term, but I certainly wouldn't overlook the potential for the US and Canada to progress very rapidly if the right competitive context was provided for them.

I'd disagree about damaging rugby in Italy or failing to help it in Georgia - nothing like the threat of a drop to inspire a team or the lure of a reward. Plus France's early performances with it became part of the 5N didn't exactly consign rugby to the dustbin of their sporting history.

A reduced Autumn programme wont happen as internationals are so key to finances and big teams need the tests...

ThisRegard wrote: »

Genuine question, why is it unworkable? I personally always thought it would be beneficial to European rugby.

Politics of the unions. There is definite medium/long term benefits but unions don't want to lose out in short term as there would definite be issues..

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 10:03am

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't think we should have relegation from the 6 Nations. Yes we need to expand but first the sides in the European nations cup need more games outside the world cup against the "top tier" nations.
Georgia have only played 20 or so full tests against the 6Ns/4Ns sides. They have played ourselves and Argentina the most of tier 1 sides yet have only played 4 tests against ourselves. Romania have played more games but they were very very strong in 80s but fell apart when country did following fall of communism.

Absolutely. Georgia should be playing more games against the 6N/4N teams. They should be playing on the regular Autumn rotation.

Jawgap · 06-04-2016 10:06am

ThisRegard wrote: »

Genuine question, why is it unworkable? I personally always thought it would be beneficial to European rugby.

In a practical sense it could be made to work, if the will was actually there, but as @thelostsheep points out the financial risk to the incumbents is too great for them to accept it.

I doubt the Italians or Scots would go for it; we'd be reluctant, Wales probably so as well. Perhaps only the French and English would be indifferent to it.

It's worth discussing though - in the context of whether anything is needed to refresh the 6N competition, outside the need for certain law reforms in the game.

croket · 06-04-2016 10:16am

Jawgap wrote: »

In a practical sense it could be made to work, if the will was actually there, but as @thelostsheep points out the financial risk to the incumbents is too great for them to accept it.

Milton Haig, headcoach of Georgia :

“For the improvement in our rugby, it is vital we find a competition that extends us a bit more. If it is going to cost us some money [to join the Six Nations], tell us how much, and I am sure our government and our benefactors would jump at the chance to try and finance something like that. It is not about keeping the status quo, but looking at potential, of what you could develop. And about adding value to the current competition. We can add value.”

http://www.worldsport.ge/en/page/136448_milton-haig-if-it-is-going-to-cost-us-some-money-to-join-the-six-nations-tell-us-how-much

snotboogie · 06-04-2016 10:28am

Would a Georgian Pro 12 team be workable?

thomond2006 · 06-04-2016 10:30am

snotboogie wrote: »

Would a Georgian Pro 12 team be workable?

The travel costs would be prohibitive I'd say.

CMOTDibbler · 06-04-2016 10:44am

croket wrote: »

Milton Haig, headcoach of Georgia :

http://www.worldsport.ge/en/page/136448_milton-haig-if-it-is-going-to-cost-us-some-money-to-join-the-six-nations-tell-us-how-much

It's not the cost to the new entrant but the cost to the side losing out on a place. Turkeys would vote for Christmas first.

Jawgap · 06-04-2016 10:48am

ThisRegard wrote: »

Genuine question, why is it unworkable? I personally always thought it would be beneficial to European rugby.

thomond2006 wrote: »

The travel costs would be prohibitive I'd say.

Could be done with some financial support and cost equalisation - I think one of the teams in Tiblisi is associated with Sarries.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 11:06am

Jawgap wrote: »

Could be done with some financial support

From who?

06-04-2016 11:10am

Ask yourself this, if this was reasonable, and doable, why wouldn't World Rugby simply not extend the 6Nations licence to them, thereby ending the competition, and creating the competition above themselves?

That's in their power.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2016 11:20am

Deleted User wrote: »

Ask yourself this, if this was reasonable, and doable, why wouldn't World Rugby simply not extend the 6Nations licence to them, thereby ending the competition, and creating the competition above themselves?

That's in their power.

Is it within their power? Wouldn't it require a vote and could Lapasset garner enough support to do that?

Ideally Rugby Europe would actually take charge of European rugby and everyone would play nice. But there's a lot of political power in that committee.

It may well just be personal politics between Lapasset and Beaumont though, I think that's most likely.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 11:35am

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ideally Rugby Europe would actually take charge of European rugby and everyone would play nice. But there's a lot of political power in that committee.

Sure, but who controls Rugby Europe? 6N joined up with it and it would become very difficult for it to remain a relatively closed shop - even if that is in the better interests of all parties.

Jawgap · 06-04-2016 11:42am

Podge_irl wrote: »

From who?

Sponsors. TV revenue. Grants from their government.

Plus, if county leagues in other sports in the ar$e end of nowhere can run cost equalisation schemes related to travel, I'm sure the brains running the Pro12 can come up with something to facilitate Georgian participation.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2016 11:42am

Podge_irl wrote: »

Sure, but who controls Rugby Europe? 6N joined up with it and it would become very difficult for it to remain a relatively closed shop - even if that is in the better interests of all parties.

I think that would be up for discussion if there was going to be such a major change. I'd imagine the 6 Nations would want a considerable amount of voting power so a balance would have to be struck and then viciously fought for every 5 years repeatedly forever.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 12:00pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think that would be up for discussion if there was going to be such a major change. I'd imagine the 6 Nations would want a considerable amount of voting power so a balance would have to be struck and then viciously fought for every 5 years repeatedly forever.

So basically your dream.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 12:06pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Sponsors. TV revenue. Grants from their government.

Plus, if county leagues in other sports in the ar$e end of nowhere can run cost equalisation schemes related to travel, I'm sure the brains running the Pro12 can come up with something to facilitate Georgian participation.

The Pro12 charged the Italians several million a season to initially participate in the league to offset the costs. They will have absolutely no interest in sourcing funding to pay for a Georgian team. Why would BBC/Sky care at all about a Georgian team being added - how does that in any way increase the TV value of the league? How much would local rights go for? I doubt very much.

Who will play for the team as well? All the best Georgian players are playing in France and probably on quite decent pay packets. Where do we find the extra four weekends to play the games?

croket · 06-04-2016 12:19pm

snotboogie wrote: »

Would a Georgian Pro 12 team be workable?

thomond2006 wrote: »

The travel costs would be prohibitive I'd say.

Unfortunately, yes.
I would like to see a professional league in Eastern Europe with teams from Romania, Georgia and Russia. More workable, I think 3 franchises with players from the georgian championship could join the professional Romania Super Liga

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Pro12 charged the Italians several million a season to initially participate in the league to offset the costs. They will have absolutely no interest in sourcing funding to pay for a Georgian team. Why would BBC/Sky care at all about a Georgian team being added - how does that in any way increase the TV value of the league? How much would local rights go for? I doubt very much.

Who will play for the team as well? All the best Georgian players are playing in France and probably on quite decent pay packets. Where do we find the extra four weekends to play the games?

Yes, most of the best players are playing in France and so Georgia can field a strong team without a professional domestic team.

06-04-2016 12:20pm

croket wrote: »

I would like to see a professional league in Eastern Europe with teams from Romania, Georgia and Russia. More workable, I think 3 franchises with players from the georgian championship could join the professional Romania Super Liga

Definitely this!

Legion2008 · 06-04-2016 12:34pm

snotboogie wrote: »

Would a Georgian Pro 12 team be workable?

I see this type of question time and time again ..... this is the last thing that the Pro12 needs ..... it already suffers due to weak Italian teams, how is it going to be more credible with a weak Georgian team.

Bottom line World Rugby needs to co-ordinate the global calendar, then create a league structure with the 6N and 4N along with some of the countries who don't have regular games against the Tier 1 countries, so include the likes of Georgia, Russia, Portugal, Somoa, Fiji, Tonga and have 2 leagues with a relegation/promotion structure between them.

Simply making this the responiblity of 6N's to help improve the weaker teams won't work, we fall down a level while the SH continues to evolve and get stronger.

It won't happen because this would kill the RWC as a 4 year event but maybe that's what's needed .... it would certainly be an exciting league.

Jawgap · 06-04-2016 12:50pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Pro12 charged the Italians several million a season to initially participate in the league to offset the costs. They will have absolutely no interest in sourcing funding to pay for a Georgian team. Why would BBC/Sky care at all about a Georgian team being added - how does that in any way increase the TV value of the league? How much would local rights go for? I doubt very much.

Who will play for the team as well? All the best Georgian players are playing in France and probably on quite decent pay packets. Where do we find the extra four weekends to play the games?

Well, look, the world is full of problems and if we want solutions can be found or we can all sit around listening to those who see nothing but problems.

First, for the Pro12 to remain the Pro12 someone would have to be dropped in favour of a Georgian side - most probably one of the Italian clubs.

I'd imagine the TV companies might see it more as improving the product, and giving them an 'in' with a new market than satisfying the needs of their existing mature markets - Georgia has larger population than Wales for example.

Players? Existing players, maybe a marquee player or two drawn back from France, Saracens players loaned and placed with the team for accelerated development as well as any recruits who want to play rugby in a sports mad city - to look at other sports, Leicester show what can be achieved with the right manager and supports in place, as well as canny player recruitments and development processes

06-04-2016 12:52pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Is it within their power? Wouldn't it require a vote and could Lapasset garner enough support to do that?

Yes and Yes.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ideally Rugby Europe would actually take charge of European rugby and everyone would play nice. But there's a lot of political power in that committee.

It may well just be personal politics between Lapasset and Beaumont though, I think that's most likely.

I think former total captured it well.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 1:03pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, look, the world is full of problems and if we want solutions can be found or we can all sit around listening to those who see nothing but problems.

First, for the Pro12 to remain the Pro12 someone would have to be dropped in favour of a Georgian side - most probably one of the Italian clubs.

I'd imagine the TV companies might see it more as improving the product, and giving them an 'in' with a new market than satisfying the needs of their existing mature markets - Georgia has larger population than Wales for example.

Players? Existing players, maybe a marquee player or two drawn back from France, Saracens players loaned and placed with the team for accelerated development as well as any recruits who want to play rugby in a sports mad city - to look at other sports, Leicester show what can be achieved with the right manager and supports in place, as well as canny player recruitments and development processes

Pie in the sky ideas don't really help anyone either.

Why would the Italians agree to dropping one of their clubs? We're now talking about a local Georgian team without most of their best players. How is that going to be better than an Italian team for anyone? Why are we asking everyone to fly an extra few thousand km to play what is likely to be another noncompetitive team.

Who does this benefit? If the answer is no one but Georgian rugby, while simultaneously damaging the interests of a current member of the Pro12 - why on earth would the Pro12 agree to it?

Italy is more populous than the rest of the Pro12 put together - TV companies still don't care about Italian matches. The only increase in TV rights would be the local Georgian rights and I can not imagine they will be worth much of anything.

Rugby isn't other sports. Players loaned from Saracens and local players with whatever "marquee player" you can get back (who will be on the lower end of the scale because they'll never match salaries) will be a completely useless team, and really bloody far away.

I think it would make the Pro12 worse. It's not a good idea.

Jawgap · 06-04-2016 1:08pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

Pie in the sky ideas don't really help anyone either.

Why would the Italians agree to dropping one of their clubs? We're now talking about a local Georgian team without most of their best players. How is that going to be better than an Italian team for anyone? Why are we asking everyone to fly an extra few thousand km to play what is likely to be another noncompetitive team.

Who does this benefit? If the answer is no one but Georgian rugby, while simultaneously damaging the interests of a current member of the Pro12 - why on earth would the Pro12 agree to it?

Italy is more populous than the rest of the Pro12 put together - TV companies still don't care about Italian matches. The only increase in TV rights would be the local Georgian rights and I can not imagine they will be worth much of anything.

Rugby isn't other sports. Players loaned from Saracens and local players with whatever "marquee player" you can get back (who will be on the lower end of the scale because they'll never match salaries) will be a completely useless team, and really bloody far away.

I think it would make the Pro12 worse. It's not a good idea.

It's a discussion board. Part of the enjoyment of being a sports fan (in any sport) is having silly discussions.

Will it happen? Will there be relegation from the 6N? No, it's unlikely in the extreme.

Likewise, a Georgian club being admitted to an expanded Pro12, is also extremely unlikely in anything other than the long term.

And rugby isn't other sports, you're right, but competition administration is competition administration whether it's tiddlywinks or rugby.

jm08 · 06-04-2016 1:30pm

Jawgap wrote: »

It's a discussion board. Part of the enjoyment of being a sports fan (in any sport) is having silly discussions.

Will it happen? Will there be relegation from the 6N? No, it's unlikely in the extreme.

Likewise, a Georgian club being admitted to an expanded Pro12, is also extremely unlikely in anything other than the long term.

And rugby isn't other sports, you're right, but competition administration is competition administration whether it's tiddlywinks or rugby.

First of all, the cost of living in Georgia is 61% less than in Ireland so there is going to be a big financial gap between them and the rest.

Secondly, Rugby Europe have organised a tournament in June in Tiblisi which Emerging Ireland won last year I think. Although Georgia is hosting it, they were not competitive.

Italy is still struggling after nearly 20 years in Tier 1 Rugby (and they were winning all around them when they joined the 6Ns). Georgia will also find the 6Ns challenging.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 06-04-2016 1:34pm

jm08 wrote: »

Secondly, Rugby Europe have organised a tournament in June in Tiblisi which Emerging Ireland won last year I think. Although Georgia is hosting it, they were not competitive.

Georgia have to take development sides from 6 nations teams seriously before anyone lets them compete with the main international team.

hardCopy · 06-04-2016 1:35pm

jaykay74 wrote: »

But it shouldn't really be about an upset. It should be about the stronger of the 2 teams being in the following seasons 6 nations.

But we already know who the statistically stronger team is, that's why they're in a higher league to begin with. I don't think you could ever realistically expect the lower league team to beat the wooden spoon over three games. They shouldn't be expected to reach for that level of consistency until they've had a chance to play regularly at that level.

A three game series is never going to be high stakes or interesting to anybody, the worst you'll see is the potential embarrassment of a 2-1 win for the incumbent team.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2016 1:36pm

Jawgap wrote: »

It's a discussion board. Part of the enjoyment of being a sports fan (in any sport) is having silly discussions.

Will it happen? Will there be relegation from the 6N? No, it's unlikely in the extreme.

Likewise, a Georgian club being admitted to an expanded Pro12, is also extremely unlikely in anything other than the long term.

And rugby isn't other sports, you're right, but competition administration is competition administration whether it's tiddlywinks or rugby.

Well sure. I'm under no illusions that I have any impact on anything!

My issue is not so much that it is unlikely. My issue is that I don't think it is a good idea in the first place.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2016 1:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes and Yes.

I think former total captured it well.

I don't think he could get nearly enough support to push that through. The 6 Nations and SANZAR together can control the agenda and they vote in a bloc, I really don't think there's anything World Rugby could do if they wanted to, which I very much doubt they do.

The change has to come from the 6 Nations committee, and it's not going to happen unfortunately for a long time.

jm08 · 06-04-2016 2:06pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think he could get nearly enough support to push that through. The 6 Nations and SANZAR together can control the agenda and they vote in a bloc, I really don't think there's anything World Rugby could do if they wanted to, which I very much doubt they do.

The change has to come from the 6 Nations committee, and it's not going to happen unfortunately for a long time.

There has been a fair bit of structural change with World Rugby recently.

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/122987

Lapassat managed to get elected chairman of World Rugby without the support of other 6Ns countries and NZ & Aus who supported Bill Beaumont.

The Lost Sheep · 06-04-2016 2:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

In a practical sense it could be made to work, if the will was actually there, but as @thelostsheep points out the financial risk to the incumbents is too great for them to accept it.

I doubt the Italians or Scots would go for it; we'd be reluctant, Wales probably so as well. Perhaps only the French and English would be indifferent to it.

It's worth discussing though - in the context of whether anything is needed to refresh the 6N competition, outside the need for certain law reforms in the game.

We wouldn't go for it. I don't think any of the 6 unions would go for it as the risk of relegation would be open and therefore it could happen so why would they let the risk of relegation occur?
We need to do more outside the 6 Nations and then use the improvements outside the 6Nations to then develop an alternative to the 6 Nations that involves more nations and opens the closed shop.

snotboogie wrote: »

Would a Georgian Pro 12 team be workable?

Don't think so and one entering the league doesn't help the league which has enough issues as it is.

06-04-2016 2:40pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think he could get nearly enough support to push that through. The 6 Nations and SANZAR together can control the agenda and they vote in a bloc, I really don't think there's anything World Rugby could do if they wanted to, which I very much doubt they do.

They are permitted to do so.
If it made sense, they would surely get the votes?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The change has to come from the 6 Nations committee, and it's not going to happen unfortunately for a long time.

No. The change could also come from above, as I have suggested. The likelihood of that is obviously limited, given that chasm it would open in the game, but it absolutely could come from above.

croket · 06-04-2016 3:04pm

jm08 wrote: »

Secondly, Rugby Europe have organised a tournament in June in Tiblisi which Emerging Ireland won last year I think. Although Georgia is hosting it, they were not competitive.

It was a Georgia A team. Georgia asked to put an official A team and World Rugby refused. Only 2 players from this team started (and won) 2 months later the RWC opening game against Tonga.

World Rugby boss calls for Six Nations relegation

Comments