New European Rugby cup (or whatever it is called) - Qualification agreed

First topic message reminder :

"Rugby Union is too complicated to understand to attract a mass audience in the first place."

which is the problem for union fans..

because otherwise league or NFL could overtake rugby and kill it.

Off course the reality is it isnt to complicated and by far the best form, but if union doesn't progress(as at the moment it is by far the biggest global rugby type game) others will over take

geoff998rugby wrote:One thing that occurs to me is - if, by some miracle, the meeting today, between all 6 Unions, comes to some sort of truce/agreement where does that leave the Welsh Regions ?

West of England

Riskysports wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:One thing that occurs to me is - if, by some miracle, the meeting today, between all 6 Unions, comes to some sort of truce/agreement where does that leave the Welsh Regions ?

West of England

And nowhere to play

Interesting snippet in the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/dec/20/welsh-rugby-union-regions-dispute-high-court

In amongst the regurgitation of the Welsh dispute is this paragraph, apparently with respect to yesterday's Dublin meeting of six unions:

"The French Rugby Federation told the four RaboDirect Pro12 unions that its involvement in the 20-team, five-nation Heineken Cup proposed for next season was conditional on it being run by Fira, the organisation of developing unions in Europe, not European Rugby Cup Ltd or the Six Nations committee, leaving them with two unpalatable alternatives: no European club rugby next season or acceptance that Fira should become involved in how the whole game in Europe is run."

If it is to be believed (I've seen no corroboration elsewhere), then FFR (presumably with IRB behind them) are now dumping ERC immediately and ramping up the pressure on the "Home" unions to accept incorporation of professional european rugby into FIRA-AER.

It might also release the BT block on PRL competing under ERC, but would they be as happy as LNR seem to be in this alternative?

The other question is whether FIRA-AER governance is as unpalatable to the Unions as stated, or not?

There is the obvious progression that 6N may fall into the hands of FIRA-AER, raising the prospect of promotion/relegation with their ENC competitions and money-sharing with the rest of Europe. However, the Celtalians appear to have accepted FIRA-AER governance for the club competitions after next season already, although we don't really know on what terms.

Wouldn't trust Rees to be 100% on the money here. Did he also not state after the French buckled that their involvement was still relying on the English, which it seems is now bogus.

I honestly don't know what the differing offers are out there and what aspects are palatable or unpalatable to each party but if you had to ask me who I would rather play in a European competition, the English or the French I would go with the former from a fans perspective.

Better craic and banter with the English fans imo and more rivalry

No issue with FIRA running the european cup at all. I don't care who does so long as it remains in the hands of the unions

so now, finally, with the PRL out, and the FFR saying the above, can we all agree...

ERC is DEAD

BT trying to out-maneuver Sky by sponsoring the Provinces.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/10533040/BT-Sport-planning-rugby-sponsorship-deals-with-the-four-Welsh-regions-and-four-Irish-provinces.html

Disband Aviva and T14 says Brian Moore

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/european-rugby/10533889/Brian-Moore-a-clear-pathway-is-needed-for-future-of-European-rugby.html

Central contract as well - he has seen the light  

I like the idea of a pan-European tournament to replace the mess of a season we have now. I don't think English and French regions would be a good idea though. Club loyalty's are strong.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I like the idea of a pan-European tournament to replace the mess of a season we have now. I don't think English and French regions would be a good idea though. Club loyalty's are strong.

Didn't stop the Welsh or Scots trying it   

quinsforever wrote:so now, finally, with the PRL out, and the FFR saying the above, can we all agree...

ERC is DEAD

Oh no its not (according to French paper Midol)

Midol wrote:
[T]he ratification Thursday at the general meeting of the LNR of the new agreement with the FFR endorsed unconditionally the participation of the French clubs in the 20th edition of the European Cup.

Newspaper cutting on Post #7920 here

http://www.munsterfans.com/threads/33536-The-Future-of-the-Heineken-Cup-In-Doubt/page396

geoff999rugby wrote:Disband Aviva and T14 says Brian Moore

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/european-rugby/10533889/Brian-Moore-a-clear-pathway-is-needed-for-future-of-European-rugby.html

Central contract as well - he has seen the light  

They wouldn't need to disband the clubs - just make them feeder clubs like all the Union owned clubs do like Crusaders, Blues, etc.etc. Thats how it works in Ireland also. Paul O'Connell's Amateur club is Young Munster and he has played for them a few times coming back from injury in the last year or so.  Everyone must know that Jerry Flannery club is Shannon ....

The more I think about it, the more I'm amazed that Munster actually field a team bearing in mind the local rivaleries between the clubs.

Really interesting. I have been saying it all along. For the good of English rugby the PRL not the ERC should be disbanded and the RFU should take control. If Irish rugby were to drop to three teams would that mean Munster and Connacht would merge and be know as Cunster?

We could hardly just get rid of Connacht.

Anyone see Thornley v Moore on Twitter?

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/european/2013/1212/492489-moore-and-thornley-involved-in-spat/

Pretty funny. They both make some good points.

GunsGerms wrote:Really interesting. I have been saying it all along. For the good of English rugby the PRL not the ERC should be disbanded and the RFU should take control.If Irish rugby were to drop to three teams would that mean Munster and Connacht would merge and be know as Cunster?

We could hardly just get rid of Connacht.

Why?

Sin é wrote:

quinsforever wrote:so now, finally, with the PRL out, and the FFR saying the above, can we all agree...

ERC is DEAD

Oh no its not (according to French paper Midol)

Midol wrote:
[T]he ratification Thursday at the general meeting of the LNR of the new agreement with the FFR endorsed unconditionally the participation of the French clubs in the 20th edition of the European Cup.

Newspaper cutting on Post  #7920  here

http://www.munsterfans.com/threads/33536-The-Future-of-the-Heineken-Cup-In-Doubt/page396

And it all changed the following day. From the Guardian -

'the WRU's board discussed the issue after Friday's meeting in Dublin between the Six Nations involved in the Heineken Cup succeeded only in aborting the five-country tournament, excluding England, that had been agreed last month.

The president of the French Rugby Federation, Pierre Camou, had said that French participation hinged on the tournament being run by Fira, the organisation made up of the smaller unions, as a precursor to a major shake-up of the way the game in Europe is organised.

When the RaboDirect Pro 12 unions, together with England, thwarted Camou he was so angry he stormed out of the meeting, leaving French participation in Europe in doubt, even if the English clubs are persuaded to renegotiate on the basis that the Heineken Cup will be run from next season by the Six Nations committee.'

GunsGerms wrote:Really interesting. I have been saying it all along. For the good of English rugby the PRL not the ERC should be disbanded and the RFU should take control. If Irish rugby were to drop to three teams would that mean Munster and Connacht would merge and be know as Cunster?

We could hardly just get rid of Connacht.

I think you may have missed the paragraph that points out that for England and France, any reform that doesn't take account of the club structure can only be theoretical. And the tone of irony that fairly drips from the first few paragraphs.

Still, the cat is squarely among the pigeons now, isn't? The FFR riding over the hill like Gandalf on Shadowfax to save the HEC and ERC now looks awfully like a power grab. Except it can't be, because the FFR is a Union, and therefore its motives are automatically pure, its interest is only in promoting the good of the game and the collected bottom burps of its leaders have the heady bouquet of Chateau Margaux 2005.

[Note: the previous sentence should be read with a tone of heavy irony]

Poorfour wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Really interesting. I have been saying it all along. For the good of English rugby the PRL not the ERC should be disbanded and the RFU should take control. If Irish rugby were to drop to three teams would that mean Munster and Connacht would merge and be know as Cunster?

We could hardly just get rid of Connacht.

I think you may have missed the paragraph that points out that for England and France, any reform that doesn't take account of the club structure can only be theoretical. And the tone of irony that fairly drips from the first few paragraphs.

Still, the cat is squarely among the pigeons now, isn't? The FFR riding over the hill like Gandalf on Shadowfax to save the HEC and ERC now looks awfully like a power grab. Except it can't be, because the FFR is a Union, and therefore its motives are automatically pure, its interest is only in promoting the good of the game and the collected bottom burps of its leaders have the heady bouquet of Chateau Margaux 2005.

[Note: the previous sentence should be read with a tone of heavy irony]

All the unions look out for themselves, why wouldn't they? The spreading of the game is up to the IRB and they are currently doing a good job in that imo. But the HC or some other form of a European comp must stay to ensure the survival of the current European unions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/welsh-european-dispute-may-end-up-in-court-1.1636878

"Yesterday the WRU’s board discussed the issue after Friday’s meeting in Dublin between the Six Nations involved in the Heineken Cup succeeded only in aborting the five-country tournament, excluding England, that had been agreed last month.
The president of the French Rugby Federation, Pierre Camou, had said that French participation hinged on the tournament being run by Fira, the organisation made up of the smaller unions, as a precursor to a major shake-up of the way the game in Europe is organised.

When the RaboDirect Pro 12 unions, together with England, thwarted Camou he was so angry he stormed out of the meeting, leaving French participation in Europe in doubt,"

"The Welsh regions met yesterday and agreed they could not sign the participation agreement given the uncertainty over Europe,"

"The union’s offer to centrally contract players has been refused by the regions because it would eat into their funding. The money would come from the £6 million they receive from central funds under the participation agreement and their proposal to increase that to £9 million was turned down by the WRU."

So are we all back at square one?

WRU and RRW heading to court?

This all really is a big mess and the sooner its sorted the better.

I think we all may miss out on European rugby next year, and RRW and WRU will prob still be at loggerheads.

HammerofThunor wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Really interesting. I have been saying it all along. For the good of English rugby the PRL not the ERC should be disbanded and the RFU should take control.If Irish rugby were to drop to three teams would that mean Munster and Connacht would merge and be know as Cunster?

We could hardly just get rid of Connacht.

Why?

because the PRl doesnt care about International rugby, grassroots rugby or anything other than the AP. Its the RFUs job to care about everything rugby related in England and it should be in an organised symbiotic hierarchy from top to bottom. Its the only sensible way to structure rugby in my opinion and its proven to work very well.

Thanks for the answer. I don't agreed but that's the point of these things, right?

Yep, absolutely. I like the AP, have watched it for years and years but I do find it strange that England fans are so loyal to the PRL. Possibly because the league has such a rich history. It is however, possible to disband the PRL and maintain the league and its traditions while aligning it a little more with the best interests of English rugby.

Bring back the letters on the Leicester jerseys too.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:
All the unions look out for themselves, why wouldn't they? The spreading of the game is up to the IRB and they are currently doing a good job in that imo. But the HC or some other form of a European comp must stay to ensure the survival of the current European unions.

By European Unions do you mean 6 Nations Unions? But yes the IRB (or FIRA) are the responsible for growing the game internationally (or in Europe). Which is why they should have the overall control of the competitions in their region. But that shouldn't be rushed in based on this Europeans dispute.

GunsGerms wrote:Yep, absolutely. I like the AP, have watched it for years and years but I do find it strange that England fans are so loyal to the PRL. Possibly because the league has such a rich history. It is however, possible to disband the PRL and maintain the league and its traditions while aligning it a little more with the best interests of English rugby.

Bring back the letters on the Leicester jerseys too.

But in what way are the PRL not aligned with the RFU? And yes, the PRL is just the collective body of the clubs. But remember the Professional Game Board run pro rugby in England, that is a mix of the RFU and professional clubs. It seems to be working very well at the moment. The main change needed is to expand to include all the pro clubs, including the ones in the championship. This is supposed to be happening for the 2016 agreement.

It's not about being loyal to the PRL. People may find some of their actions annoying. But people are generally pro traditional clubs, pro balance between international and domestic, and pro promotion/relegation. Thinking that the current international window is sufficient to ensure a healthy and important international game is not the same as not being interested in international rugby. Thinking that domestic rugby is a point in its own right is not the same as not being interested in international rugby.

If the game in England can support a domestic pro league then it should. Most of the clubs are either in profit or making a relatively small loss (~£1M). A few are losing a lot. They're not all losing to meet the current cap (Irish have said their playing salary budget was £2.5M, but no doubt they'll start losing more now they have investors to cover the loses).

And now I can't remember my point or how this started....FACT

HammerofThunor wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Yep, absolutely. I like the AP, have watched it for years and years but I do find it strange that England fans are so loyal to the PRL. Possibly because the league has such a rich history. It is however, possible to disband the PRL and maintain the league and its traditions while aligning it a little more with the best interests of English rugby.

Bring back the letters on the Leicester jerseys too.

But in what way are the PRL not aligned with the RFU? And yes, the PRL is just the collective body of the clubs. But remember the Professional Game Board run pro rugby in England, that is a mix of the RFU and professional clubs. It seems to be working very well at the moment. The main change needed is to expand to include all the pro clubs, including the ones in the championship. This is supposed to be happening for the 2016 agreement.

It's not about being loyal to the PRL. People may find some of their actions annoying. But people are generally pro traditional clubs, pro balance between international and domestic, and pro promotion/relegation. Thinking that the current international window is sufficient to ensure a healthy and important international game is not the same as not being interested in international rugby. Thinking that domestic rugby is a point in its own right is not the same as not being interested in international rugby.

If the game in England can support a domestic pro league then it should. Most of the clubs are either in profit or making a relatively small loss (~£1M). A few are losing a lot. They're not all losing to meet the current cap (Irish have said their playing salary budget was £2.5M, but no doubt they'll start losing more now they have investors to cover the loses).

And now I can't remember my point or how this started....FACT

I agree with every word of that. Some on these boards think that the levels rugby below international teams are only useful to the extent that they support international rugby.

International rugby is the icing on the cake. There is no need for it to be played outside the international windows. Too much and it ceases being special.

HammerofThunor wrote:It's not about being loyal to the PRL. People may find some of their actions annoying. But people are generally pro traditional clubs, pro balance between international and domestic, and pro promotion/relegation. Thinking that the current international window is sufficient to ensure a healthy and important international game is not the same as not being interested in international rugby. Thinking that domestic rugby is a point in its own right is not the same as not being interested in international rugby.

I think this is a terrific summary, mate. And this is how most people I know who are fans of their English clubs or English Rugby supporters in general tend to feel. International and Club Rugby are not mutually exclusive and both have an equal raison d'être.

In the spirit of the amity of the holiday let's hope the Euro Rugby business gets settled.

And we have to agree to be different some times. The Irish model seems to work brilliantly - for Ireland. There is no guarantee that it would work elsewhere in this corner of Europe (was gonna say British Isles but...)

By the same token we in England can support a working professional club scene. It isnt quite there but it gets closer year on year.

There is talk on here and elsewhere about a British and Ireland league, and in an ideal world that could be a terrific prospect, but there is a danger too- a warning from what happened in Wales when they formed the region. How much do you risk alienating your existing audience by changing everything.

And, of course, thinking that International rugby is the main priority doesn't mean that domestic rugby is unimportant (the Irish system is an example of such), thinking that International rugby (or the money it raises) is vital to supporting pro-rugby in a country does not mean domestic rugby is unimportant.

Way too much on here people are labelled at the extremes, if you don't think 'this' you must think 'that'. If you don't want unions controlling every aspect of the game you must want international rugby to fail and have domestic rugby like football. If you want union control you must not care about domestic rugby and just want it as a feeder to the international game. It's all nonsense. Don't me wrong there are some people with (IMO) ridiculous views (I'm still hoping they're on the WUM) but the vast majority have slightly differing viewpoints.

I'd like to hear more of the French proposal to change the governance of European rugby. I don't necessarily think that the French want more power for themselves. Perhaps they want less power for the pro 12 unions. If they speak always with one voice then it must be frustrating for the French and English unions to deal with. I'd like to know exactly what would happen if this proposal went ahead. Does anyone have any leads on this? (before I go trawling through French news websites)

Don't know how long this has been here but...
http://www.regionalrugbywales.com

FAQs make an interesting (biased) read.

Intotouch wrote:I'd like to hear more of the French proposal to change the governance of European rugby. I don't necessarily think that the French want more power for themselves. Perhaps they want less power for the pro 12 unions. If they speak always with one voice then it must be frustrating for the French and English unions to deal with. I'd like to know exactly what would happen if this proposal went ahead. Does anyone have any leads on this? (before I go trawling through French news websites)

As I understand it they want the European competitions to be run by the FIRA-AER, which is the collection of European Unions. The French have a better relationship with them than the British and Irish unions. The idea is they would run the European domestic competition and, potentially, the European international competition.

Personally think this is needed for the long term but it will mean the current home nations will have less of a say over the direction.

Intotouch wrote:I'd like to hear more of the French proposal to change the governance of European rugby. I don't necessarily think that the French want more power for themselves. Perhaps they want less power for the pro 12 unions. If they speak always with one voice then it must be frustrating for the French and English unions to deal with. I'd like to know exactly what would happen if this proposal went ahead. Does anyone have any leads on this? (before I go trawling through French news websites)

I would too. This sounds like something positive from the French and sounds like the Irish and British might be a bit selfish and short sighted. Having said that theres no details on what the French want.

HammerofThunor wrote:And, of course, thinking that International rugby is the main priority doesn't mean that domestic rugby is unimportant (the Irish system is an example of such), thinking that International rugby (or the money it raises) is vital to supporting pro-rugby in a country does not mean domestic rugby is unimportant.

Way too much on here people are labelled at the extremes, if you don't think 'this' you must think 'that'. If you don't want unions controlling every aspect of the game you must want international rugby to fail and have domestic rugby like football. If you want union control you must not care about domestic rugby and just want it as a feeder to the international game. It's all nonsense. Don't me wrong there are some people with (IMO) ridiculous views (I'm still hoping they're on the WUM) but the vast majority have slightly differing viewpoints.

More common sense!  Good stuff.  Would be great if everyone would have the same thing for breakfast which you ate today.  

I think it is easier for people to simply adopt the us v. them, club or country, my country right v. your country wrong, positions.  People then do not have to put in the effort to actually think about the big picture.  Intellectually lazy, really.  I am sure there are some people who do think the big picture and still come down in accordance with one side or another.  But I would presume most thinking people are somewhere in the middle but struggle to find their voice when concepts are not so simple and not easy to verbalise in short paragraphs or sound bites.  A sad microcosm of the larger world.

Thank you for the feedback on the FIRA proposal. Unfortunately I read in another thread that this is now headed up by a Frenchman so now I'm not so optimistic that this is a selfless suggestion by the FFR. It could in fact give them more power.

I wonder if there's some way that the IRB could step in and try to sort this out for the good of the game. Pro rugby could go down the toilet in a few of the 6 nations in no time at all. If they could use the power that they have to force countries into some solution it would be great. Honestly at this stage I don't care anymore how many teams or who gets what, I'm worried that the pro game could collapse.

Without doubt the reason the French want FIRA involved is because they'll end up better off.

Edit: the question is whether the IRB want the FIRA involved because it's best for European rugby or because it's better for French rugby. FIRA involvement is the 'right' thing to do but it may end up with things worse off for the 6 nations unions. Hopefully it will be relatively worse off as it's better for other European unions.

I think FIRA getting involved in this would be the wrong pathway. I think we should get FIRA involved in the autumn tests- if even half of the Six Nations played a test against an up coming European nation in their home stadium every autumn that would be a massive step forward. Extend the window by a week to accommodate it if need be.

But I do think we should have FIRA organising a qualifying tournament for the second-tier of Europe. I think thats realistic and will provide better teams to the Amlin than we currently have.

I've suggested this before and the main downside is these games would likely replace the games played by the likes of Fiji and Samoa. But we used to have autumn tests against Romania and Georgia etc.

It was only through playing tests against Italy that we realised their results merited inclusion in the Six Nations. How can we tell if the Six Nations closed shop can be opened if we don't play the prospective candidates for expansion?

The guarantee has to be given though, that there can be no relegation from the Six Nations. Any change in format should come on the back of notable test success and not risk ending professional rugby in Scotland or Italy.

One good suggestion I've seen elsewhere is that all test nations in the 6N/4N should be obliged to play one home test and one away test against a team who isn't in that group of 10 Tier 1 sides.

I would rather see 2 tests against New Zealand and a test against Samoa than 3 tests against the ABs.

I like what the IRB are already doing with the Nations cup. Teams of a similar standard playing each other in a 6 nations style tournament that is growing each year.

I'd like to see a European version of the Churchill cup where 6 nations B sides take on lower ranked European nations in a competition that could move venues each year. I don't know how feasible this would be or how the standards would match up though.

Notch wrote:One good suggestion I've seen elsewhere is that all test nations in the 6N/4N should be obliged to play one home test and one away test against a team who isn't in that group of 10 Tier 1 sides.

I would rather see 2 tests against New Zealand and a test against Samoa than 3 tests against the ABs.

Good suggestion - but the senior nations would be very unwilling to gve up their money-spinning games against big teams, so I could only see it being agreed if thye could find two extra weeks in the schedule.

There's also a question of competition. It wouldn't be much good England or New Zealand playing, say, Uruguay or Japan, where you know there's a mismatch. There's more value in top tier teams playing, say, the Pacific Island teams, but the payoff would have to be those teams playing the next tier down. Those games aren't likely to make money, so the big question is how to generate enough cash that it can be funded centrally. From RWC profits, perhaps?

Notch wrote:The guarantee has to be given though, that there can be no relegation from the Six Nations. Any change in format should come on the back of notable test success and not risk ending professional rugby in Scotland or Italy.

They it won't be the Six Nations, it will have to be the Seven or Eight Nations. For that, you'll need a bigger international window and there's no room in the calendar.

I believe that the interest driver for rugby in all countries is the International game and that preparing seedbeds of the club game depends on healthy competition at the the top level. Ironically England and France really ought to be applauded rather than lambasted for providing opportunities for the development and other T1 nations who tend their own patches help only themselves and their xenophobic self-interests.

To that end (international development), I believe that the national domestic elite leagues would be better cut to 8-10 teams and in Europe, the 6Ns should be ended and replaced by annual 4-team home and away competitions with the removal of artificial ceilings installed to maintain the current cosy cartels.

Only by open, organic growth can rugby hope to prosper.

I won't happen of course, because vested interests in European Unions will fight tooth and nail to maintain the comfort of a nice, warm security blanket.

So the Russias, Georgias, the Spanish, etc. will remain with their noses pressed to the sweet shops looking enviously inside.
Even if some of those kids have numbers working abroad, their clubs and countries will be denied progression because of the selfishness of the 1st World nations.

A familiar theme.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Notch wrote:The guarantee has to be given though, that there can be no relegation from the Six Nations. Any change in format should come on the back of notable test success and not risk ending professional rugby in Scotland or Italy.

They it won't be the Six Nations, it will have to be the Seven or Eight Nations. For that, you'll need a bigger international window and there's no room in the calendar.

Why is professional rugby so sacrosanct Notch? Football thrives internationally by being an open sport. If professional rugby is not viable in Scotland, Italy (and arguably Wales) why not just accept it and move on (even if it may be considered backwards as a consquence of ill-considered, poor past decisions)?

Portnoy, you're guilty of looking at football and thinking it's the worlds biggest sport because it's the best run. It was always the biggest game anyway.

Another sport to look at is American football. Which is a similar type of game to rugby. And was once a minority game in America, far behind baseball. Now it's grown to be the biggest and most lucrative game in America and is even getting more popular over here. And it's done it all as a closed shop with collective TV rights bargaining, equally shared revenues and no relegation.

So when you say the only hope of growing rugby is to be run like soccer, it's a valid opinion, but not a particularly convincing argument.

Feckless Rogue wrote:Portnoy, you're guilty of looking at football and thinking it's the worlds biggest sport because it's the best run. It was always the biggest game anyway.

Another sport to look at is American football. Which is a similar type of game to rugby. And was once a minority game in America, far behind baseball. Now it's grown to be the biggest and most lucrative game in America and is even getting more popular over here. And it's done it all as a closed shop with collective TV rights bargaining, equally shared revenues and no relegation.

So when you say the only hope of growing rugby is to be run like soccer, it's a valid opinion, but not a particularly convincing argument.

I think that someone is misreading what I said or reading between the lines of what I said or as per putting words in my mouth.
Or maybe you are just running one post (an opinion) with another (picking up on a comment from Notch).

I think that you are being unfair. Football is a much simpler game than rugby in that all it fundamentally requires is a round ball and an open area. It is always going to be more popular as it is infinitely more democratic (only running is more so).

Please read my two posts separately and not sequentially. The first was relating to generally restrictive practices within World rugby and the second about why professional rugby implicitly has to be the only valid model - the 1872(?) cup for instance will be fortunate if aggregates attendance figures of >20000 in a caption area of ~2m+. For a local derby. I'm not convinced that a semi-pro model is not better there.

I cant believe some people think that NFL could even ever be compared to football.

Rugby in fact is a much bigger global game.

Forget about the insular world in america.

BTW I am actually an NFL fan. But lets not delude ourselves and try and state its run better than football. That is nonsense.

And yes stating that rugby can learn from football is also the most convincing argument on planet earth. It certainly isn't the only way. But i have never ever heard anyone ever say its the only way!

Likewise lets not delude ourselves Rugby can use soccer as a template

Equally inappropriate

No but we can learn a thing or two from football.

As we could from the NFL BUT neither are models for how the game needs to be developed

the problem is we dont have a model. any model will be better than none.