Rugby as a World sport - and nimbyism

First topic message reminder :

I suspect that most posters here want to see Rugby growing globally (its a common argument on the lines of "if we want to see the game expand".

But as soon as anyone suggests a method of expanding the game, the nimbys turn up in their droves making wild accusations about imagined obsessions and bias against the 'other' sides and teams.

So. In what ways can Rugby Union can be encouraged and assisted expand to a global level without some teams and some nations having to take a hit? I'll leave it to you to provide suggestions and I look forward to being enlightened...

Kiwireddevil wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote: Geoff, just fyi, Samoa were offered the chance to submit a bid for the 15th spot in Super Rugby (that ultimately went to the Melbourne Rebels), but they decided not to apply.

Maybe the way it was put together didn't work for them.
A different model might succeed. I am sure they would need financial support and this would, initially, hurt the Tier 1 nations.

If we are truly to expand the game a lot of sacred cows are going to have to change/go.
However we must not throw the baby out with the bath water and destroy that which works both in terms of supporter interest and financial income. A very difficult balancing act.

I dont believe, that any Tier 1 nation, is prepared to go far enough to change things in the short term. My proposal for example requires France to only have 2 players per team who are non French internationals - they are never going to agree to that.

I fear you're right there. There's all too many examples in recent history of all the Tier 1 nations quite happily trying to look after #1.

PS, an interesting and fairly recent blog post here on a Samoan side: http://www.savalinews.com/tag/samoa-rugby-union/ - though that proposal may be even more pie-in-sky than the Welsh Valleys region

Maybe the IRB should skim off more money from the big nations and direct it to countries like Georgia, Romania and Russia. Help fund a fully pro structure between them like the Super 15 or the Pro12. Maybe 8 pro franchises between the three countries. And get them into the HC or Amlin.

I'd target these countries first, because unlike the PI's, they have the potential to grow and sustain a fully pro structure themselves. In fact I think Russia already have a pro league and the Georgians are at least semi pro. I think they get crowds similar to Scottish and Welsh regions (so I've heard, don't know if it's true).

Feckless Rogue wrote:Maybe the IRB should skim off more money from the big nations and direct it to countries like Georgia, Romania and Russia. Help fund a fully pro structure between them like the Super 15 or the Pro12. Maybe 8 pro franchises between the three countries. And get them into the HC or Amlin.

I'd target these countries first, because unlike the PI's, they have the potential to grow and sustain a fully pro structure themselves. In fact I think Russia already have a pro league and the Georgians are at least semi pro. I think they get crowds similar to Scottish and Welsh regions (so I've heard, don't know if it's true).

FRR,
Maybe skimming some (more) dosh of the big nations is a very good idea - but that would have effects in Ireland remember. If there was any danger of an effect on the provinces, this board would be on fire. No?

On the topic of players being allowed to represent tier two countries after already representing tier one countries, how far do we let this go ? For example, if half a dozen older All Blacks could not get into the New Zealand side any more or chose to play for Samoa and then they helped Samoa become a top tier nation, I suppose say ranked 7th or 6th in the world, could those dual nationality players still be allowed to represent their second nation ? Would Samoa then loose their right to this privilege for future players until they slipped down the rankings ? This is all a can of worms that I would not want to open, and a player should be held responsible for their own actions, so if a player chooses one nationality then they can not change their mind afterwards. If this rule was passed a player like Isa Nacewa would have a massive weapon to take to court with him.

lordowlais, I see tier two as the following.

A country that cannot sustain a professional league d to their economy,

The fact that they might rise in the rankings to 6 is highly unlikely, as they will have to consistently beat top nations and there will simply not be that many available.

How many are currently available if we had to check. a handful per team at best.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Maybe the IRB should skim off more money from the big nations and direct it to countries like Georgia, Romania and Russia. Help fund a fully pro structure between them like the Super 15 or the Pro12. Maybe 8 pro franchises between the three countries. And get them into the HC or Amlin.

I'd target these countries first, because unlike the PI's, they have the potential to grow and sustain a fully pro structure themselves. In fact I think Russia already have a pro league and the Georgians are at least semi pro. I think they get crowds similar to Scottish and Welsh regions (so I've heard, don't know if it's true).

Good idea. They should concentrate on European countries especially the smaller ones who are just small fish in a big pond in the world of soccer.

Ok, so lets use Wales as an example.....

WRU still in/paying off debt in the millions.
Unable to fund an A-side, it was an A-side of a Sevens side.
4 regions - whose top paid players are leaving because the regions can no longer fund their contracts due to a £3.5m playing budget (total playing budget) imposed on them by the WRU.
The WRU then arranges games outside of the IRB window, on top of the standard format of international tests, in order to raise money to help fund the regions/fight their debt (which is a double-edged sword as they invariably come at crucial times in the HC groups meaning the regions are forever on the backfoot with their own union).
All the while, the regions are on their last limbs financially too, being supported by investors who all seem ready to stop investing.
The regions only cover South Wales, half of this small country is barely utilised (Im not going to get into the 'Valleys Rugby' concept).
In-house fighting between regions/semi-pro clubsides and then all fighting eachother.
Wales already play the PI sides regularly, as we're reminded when results dont go our way.....

Wales punches above its weight in all aspects of rugby union, how are they supposed to help out anyone else any more? Or where is the money going to come from?
Just asking as its so black and white to some......

I'd advise some of you to stop spouting complete nonsense and maybe look at the facts behind each union before going into "holier than thou" mode when it comes to tier 2 rugby....

aucklandlaurie wrote: Geoff

Excuse me, you were the one that introduced rudeness to the discussion, dismmissing Tuilaepa saileles remarks as invective and hyperbole, and coming across as diatribe.

This is someone who speaks English as a second language, not every one is educated in English as finely as you, but that doesnt give you the right to decide that their opinions dont count.

If you want to accuse me of rudeness then fine, but dont discount the chance that I can more than reply in a likewise manner.

The whole tone of that article was unpleasant in tone and comes to pointing the finger of racism at people who happen to believe that a player should only play for one nation. Fair enough English is not his first language but such vindictiveness is unpleasant regardless of who says it.

We on here should not stoop to that level

come on guys, lets stay on topic, I am sure it is only a few misplaced words that came accross aggressive.

Lets move on please.

biltongbek wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:

profitius wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Profitius

However you dont seem to mind that Samoa has less voting rights and presence at the IRB than wales do you ? or would that be an example where differing rules is a good thing?

All teams should have equal voting rights. I want the game to grow as much as anyone. A few new top international teams would be great for rugby.

All countries - all 95 affliated nations.
Will never work

Yep, if all 95 countries have equal voting powers rugby may not be controlled by the top ten nations, eh?

It would not be controlled by the top 20 or indedd the top 30 either .

A lot of small nations could get together and dictate the way the game is run.
I would favour some sort of graduated voting systems - say 4 Tiers with:

Tier one - 10 teams - 5 votes 50 votes
Tier two - 15 teams - 3 votes 45 votes
Tier three - 25 teams - 2 votes 50 votes
Tier four - 45 teams - 1 vote 45 votes

That might work and gives, roughly, equal weight to each tier

By the way. I only jokingly referred to gardening in the Welsh backyards, I really didn't mean anything nasty.

geoff, do you know by any chance how the votes work currently?

Carpe Diem wrote:As far as the six nations is concerned rather than relegate why not promote? Why not have a 7 nations with the 7th place being taken up by the winner of the 2nd tier European nations cup from the previous year? It would be a great incentive for the lower ranked teams and surely one extra match each against 'lesser' opposition isn't going to hurt too much.
Actually that's a stupid idea as the team 'promoted' wouldn't be able to take part in the qualifying competiton for the next year. Right back to the drawing board!!!

No that could work. In the short term the 7th team would be a yo yo but if it works then others could be relegated. It also gives the Tier 1 nations a few years to adjust and do what is necessary to prevent them finishing 7th. If they dont tough.

You still have the harsh reality though that if the English finish 7th they and the TV companies would take the hump and take the money with them.

geoff998rugby wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:As far as the six nations is concerned rather than relegate why not promote? Why not have a 7 nations with the 7th place being taken up by the winner of the 2nd tier European nations cup from the previous year? It would be a great incentive for the lower ranked teams and surely one extra match each against 'lesser' opposition isn't going to hurt too much.
Actually that's a stupid idea as the team 'promoted' wouldn't be able to take part in the qualifying competiton for the next year. Right back to the drawing board!!!

No that could work. In the short term the 7th team would be a yo yo but if it works then others could be relegated. It also gives the Tier 1 nations a few years to adjust and do what is necessary to prevent them finishing 7th. If they dont tough.

You still have the harsh reality though that if the English finish 7th they and the TV companies would take the hump and take the money with them.

look guys its promotion and relegation or nothing. you cant have one or the other

biltongbek wrote:geoff, do you know by any chance how the votes work currently?

"Foundation" Unions (the 5 nations and the tri nations) get 2 votes, Argentina, Italy, Japan and Canada get 1 vote, and the regional associations of Asia, Africa, Europe, Oceania, South America and North America/Caribbean get 1 vote each representing tier 2 & 3.

I think that is spot on.

Even reducing the top 8 nations to 1 vote would mark a significant shift in influence

thanks kiwi.

biltongbek wrote:thanks kiwi.

No worries.

From memory Samoa currently holds the Oceania vote - it rotates around.

to grow the game we have to do it in stages, it would be a bit pointless giving one vote to all. But at the same time we need to give the emgening teams the same rights as the top teams

So for now top 30 get 2 votes, the other 60 get 1 vote- job done

hahah not directed at you Bil

I just think its too easy to say "Things need to be changed, and its your lot thats holding out on everyone" with a puffed up chest.

However, all I've seen so far is this nimby attitude from all!

Every union/country will have its own issues that need to be addressed for the future of the sport in that country before they can look to help promote elsewhere.

As someone posted some links aroundearlier, theres is PLENTY going on around the world to help developing rugby countries.

Changing the amount of votes each country gets is another way to start, but there'll always be instances that we can pick out to show why something isnt fair or right. Just because it may happen to a different country, doesnt make it any more justified or correct IMO.

I just chose Wales as the example I knew most about.

Im sure Bil could go into SA's struggles, or Kiwi could for NZ and so on...

Comfort wrote:hahah not directed at you Bil

I just think its too easy to say "Things need to be changed, and its your lot thats holding out on everyone" with a puffed up chest.

However, all I've seen so far is this nimby attitude from all!

Every union/country will have its own issues that need to be addressed for the future of the sport in that country before they can look to help promote elsewhere.

As someone posted some links aroundearlier, theres is PLENTY going on around the world to help developing rugby countries.

Changing the amount of votes each country gets is another way to start, but there'll always be instances that we can pick out to show why something isnt fair or right. Just because it may happen to a different country, doesnt make it any more justified or correct IMO.

I just chose Wales as the example I knew most about.

Im sure Bil could go into SA's struggles, or Kiwi could for NZ and so on...

I have done in the past, ad nauseum

Sadly I can't see the IRB voting system changing too much, the turkeys generally aren't in favour of Christmas

thats sort of my point though, why would the tier 1 countries who are struggling as it is, then vote to give themselves less power in the world game? When thats their only real bargaining chip as it is....

I mean, would you do that?

thought not....

I'd vote for Christmas if i was a turkey. Girl turkeys are fugly.

I wonder what sort of reaction what reaction there would be on v2 if a billionaire Russian oligarch took a fancy to building an HEC-winning side at a tiny fraction of the cost of a footy club toy.

Say a five-year project and no wage caps.

My guess that there'd be a quick realignment of ERC regulations.

biltongbek wrote:I forgot to mention we also send a lot of players to play in other backyards as well, even in their biggest stadiums in their national colours, so we are pretty much helping everyone.

So maybe that makes us. EBY

Everyone's England's back yard.

Fixed that for you.

wales606 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:I forgot to mention we also send a lot of players to play in other backyards as well, even in their biggest stadiums in their national colours, so we are pretty much helping everyone.

So maybe that makes us. EBY

Everyone's England's back yard.

Fixed that for you.

"Everybody's Back Yard" applies to NZ moreso - if you count coaching staff as well as NZ-developed players pretty much everyone's pinching off us

Kiwireddevil wrote:

wales606 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:I forgot to mention we also send a lot of players to play in other backyards as well, even in their biggest stadiums in their national colours, so we are pretty much helping everyone.

So maybe that makes us. EBY

Everyone's England's back yard.

Fixed that for you.

"Everybody's Back Yard" applies to NZ moreso - if you count coaching staff as well as NZ-developed players pretty much everyone's pinching off us

*cough* hypocrite *cough*

Don't blame us for stealing your coaches - we do give them back to you to win world cups - Henry, Hansen, soontobeGatland.

In the next 10 years, how many new teams do you think will get to Italys current level?

Have the IRB any goals in that regards?

For starters, I am not sure I want a 'global' season. I love having Rugby to watch all year round. When one big competition ends, there is always another around the corner!

What does need to happen, however, is for specific 'Test' windows to be set where no club rugby is played. These for me would be all four weekends in November and June worldwide. And 8 weeks for the 6N up North and similar for the 4N down South.

Perhaps you could have Currie Cup/ITM Cup games down South and up North LV Cup or something similar (a European u23 competition?) in these windows to keep the clubs going.

Basically, it is crucial that countries like Georgia, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji get full access to all their players if the below is going to succeed!

I'm just going to do a by-nation summary of what I think needs to happen to improve each developing nation:

Argentina

They have a good test schedule now.

I think the next step for them is to sort their club side out. The best solution would probably be to allow them to have a side in the Oz division of Super Rugby. There would have to be some kind of compromise where teams get a bye after playing away, but I think it could work. The money from hosting big tests and a Super Rugby club side would probably allow Argentina to set up a pro club league like the CC/ITM Cup.

In addition, I would like to see the 2027 RWC go to Argentina.

Italy

Obviously have a pretty good test schedule the next steps involve:

- Getting their best players (and some classy foreigners) to play at home so one of their regions can reach the Heineken Cup Knockouts.
- Hosting a HC Final. Imagine a game at the San Siro.
- Hosting the 2023 RWC.

I think there is a big chance to capture the hearts of the Italians with all the footballing scandals they have had.

Georgia, Romania, Russia

They need a better test schedule. I think it would be good to set up a parallel 'Six Nations' competition with these three plus France A, England A and Ireland A (or two pools of four with Wales A, Scotland A and Italy A too).

It would be good if they had November/June games against USA, Canada, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga too. Once they start taking them on then you can put them against the 4N sides.

Once they start beating/competing with the A teams regularly then you can talk about expanding the Six Nations.

On a club level, a team from each of these countries could be added to the lowest ranked Euro competition.

Spain, Portugal, Germany, Ukraine

They could be put into a third Six Nations tournament with two from Belgium, Holland, Moldova, Czech Republic and Poland.

There could be relegation and promotion between this competition and the one above.

USA and Canada

I would add these sides to the Pacific Nations Cup. Or into a 4 team tournament with Mexico and Uruguay.

They could get November/June tests with Georgia, Russia and Romania.

Pacific Islands

They have the the PNC already and that would be a good competition if sides were full strength. Eventually, you could combine the PNC and the 4N. To be honest, I don't think a full strength Samoa would look out of place in the 4N now.

I think they get fairly good November and June tests already. It'd be nice for Japan to get a good test schedule too.

Club wise, I think it could be best for the players from these countries to play in the Japanese leagues and bring up the standard there. You could have clubs teams in Japan assigned to Fiji, Samoa and Tonga and be told to get young players from those countries and go and play games in those countries. Make it a Pacific League.

This would also make it easier for the release of players for their countries.

My biggest idea for the Pacific Islands would be for them to combine once every two years (in non RWC and Lions years) in June for a 'Lions-esque' series against France, England, Ireland or Wales. Three tests and four games against club sides in the host nation. It would be epic and would raise a lot of money for the PI nations' unions.

Where do the Baabaas fit in?

I definitely think there is a place for them to play NH sides in late May when clubs are playing cup finals so there are players doing nothing. In November, the Southern Hemisphere Baabaas always seem to get out a strong side and play against one of the other SH countries.

EBOP wrote:When people say grow the game, are there specific countries or regions they refer to?

Seeing as Rugby seems to be growing in the home nations (a broad and somewhat sweeping comment i know, but looking at posts that reported last years footfall scores i am making an assumption), not sure about France, but it is well establoished there, hopefully growth in Italy and (now) the national sport of Georgia and (apprentley) growing rather well in the ex-Soviet states i am more than a little surprised that ze Germans never caught the Rugby itch.

If they did i feel, and if there is development of ex-USSR rugby playing countries i think it could be very exciting times.

AlastairW wrote:

EBOP wrote:When people say grow the game, are there specific countries or regions they refer to?

Seeing as Rugby seems to be growing in the home nations (a broad and somewhat sweeping comment i know, but looking at posts that reported last years footfall scores i am making an assumption), not sure about France, but it is well establoished there, hopefully growth in Italy and (now) the national sport of Georgia and (apprentley) growing rather well in the ex-Soviet states i am more than a little surprised that ze Germans never caught the Rugby itch.

If they did i feel, and if there is development of ex-USSR rugby playing countries i think it could be very exciting times.

Ze Germans had a pretty handy team in the 1930s apparently

aucklandlaurie wrote: Reminds me of that remit that New Zealand took to the IRB last year to allow Tier i players to also play for their Islands of heritage, It was soundly defeated when the Celtic nations vetoed it with a block vote, Now why would they do that I wonder?

I'm amazed that this is story is still floating around. I guess a good story lasts better than facts. I read about this a long time ago in the Irish papers. What isn't mentioned is that South Africa and France also voted against this proposal. Something about national identity meaning something came up... Of course this can't fit in with the myth that countries certain small countries voted against it out of insecurity and fear of losing out to rising island nations. Aren't they horrible bullies. Hmmm. A lot of other unions also voted against it. If I have time I'll look up the facts. This is what I remember from it. France and South Africa and some others were also against it.

There's a possible 26 votes in the IRB, the Celtic countries together have six.

What I think does need reporting is all the events and funding that the IRB provides for around the world. They really need a better publicity officer. On their website I come across so much that they do all over the world but it's not reported and you really have to look for it.

I did mention earlier in the thread that SARU voted against it.

We all want the game to 'grow' (actually an inaccurate comment to begin with as only those who have a desire for the game 'growing' express that desire) - but let's go with the flow for a sec. We all want the game to grow but the smaller ones don't want it to grow at their expense..................................... that's Portnoy's point, I think; and isn't it a fine point to make when you come from a nation of some 60 million and growing.

So for Portnoy the theme song might be: We all want the game to 'grow' and we know here in England that no matter which way, what direction, what shoe size or shirt colour, we'll be growing with it - guaranteed.

Not much *gulp* needed for Portnoy's continuing ambitious plans for Rugby world growth.

Now, a little logic to end my contribution. If a present small nation falls away into the sewage pipe of this new complex called a bigger world game then that's not 'growth' for them at all - that's the sound of a death croak. "But then your boys can come over and play for our multiplex side here in Engerlond, innit" would probably be Portnoy's response