Crusaders vs Saracens Hemisphere Cup match cancelled.

http://www.espnscrum.com/newzealand/rugby/story/266541.html

The Hemisphere's Cup match between the Crusaders and Saracens that was set to be played in New Orleans in August has been cancelled. The organisers of the match, RugbyLaw in the USA, have contacted both sides with the decision to cancel the game.

I suppose there was always a risk of this, once USA Rugby refused to sanction the Leicester match.

What has the Leicester game got to do with it?

More like they were not selling any tickets to the game!

Sin é wrote:What has the Leicester game got to do with it?

Everything.

RugbyLaw arranged both matches.

It would be different than the Leicester game as both teams are union registered, and USA Rugby, I think, had said that the game would go ahead as long as there was no issue with the ground.
Did Rugby Law promote the game?

Munchkin wrote:Did RugbyLaw promote the game?

They set up both matches.

Thanks, Rugby Fan. It's a bit of a mess. I think clubs should stay well clear of RugbyLaw/NRFL now. Just a waste of time.

If you get a chance have a look at the comments the top man at NRFL/RugbyLaw has made on social media and as yourself if this is the type of organisation you want running the pro game in America. 

They had a top down structure with no interest in grassroots rugby and very little interest in actual rugby players. Their social media was/is a joke, announcing a combine and then no updates for months. Announcing games and then no updates for months. 

USA Rugby are by no means ideal, as we've seen with the PRP and ARP but keeping RugbyLaw from promoting rugby in the US is a the right one in my eyes.

I read Robertson's comments. At first I thought it must be a parody account. Just like the NRFL, he isn't to be taking seriously.

Is that this twitter? Because some of it is hilarious. Reminds me of the guy on Mad Men trying to promote Jai alai.

https://twitter.com/rugbylawmn

https://twitter.com/TheNRFL

Sure, you don't need specialist rugby players (sorry, RuVX players!) NFL players with no prior experience of the game will instantly and seamlessly make the transition to a new sport... and 30000+ people will turn up to watch every game right away!

Notch wrote:Is that this twitter? Because some of it is hilarious. Reminds me of the guy on Mad Men trying to promote Jai alai.

https://twitter.com/rugbylawmn

https://twitter.com/TheNRFL

Sure, you don't need specialist rugby players (sorry, RuVX players!) NFL players with no prior experience of the game will instantly and seamlessly make the transition to a new sport... and 30000+ people will turn up to watch every game right away!

they seem to have Eddy O'Sullivan on board, that's then them sorted

Given how flaky some of these pronouncements from RugbyLaw and NRFL have been, I'd be keen to know why Leicester, Saracens and the Crusaders all felt sufficiently confident to do a deal with them.

I haven't seen any comment from Saracens so far, but both Leicester and the Crusaders have not accepted any blame for this outcome, despite the fact they whatever due diligence they performed was inadequate.

This is another Robertson comment:



"FaustSeptember 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM
Mac Robertson here - Co-Head of RugbyLaw and NRFL. First, we have no interest in emulating MLS. A 20,000 capacity stadium focus will cost you decades in development - USA is the land where if a sport succeeds the attendance is 30,000 plus. Not bravado, just how the financing works out. MLS is locking itself into failure or a one off niche special events advertiser.
There is a chance that RU XV doesn't make it in the USA, so be it. But we, of course, think it will.
We think the current move by most in USA RU XV to the MLS house thesis is because to date they share the same product quality, if not less, than MLS.
In the age of Pele, soccer sold out Giants Stadium in NYC. Nuff said.
RugbyLaw has no need to do anything with any timing but to not launch until we can field a team that can take on anyone in the world. We think based on all that we have learned to date it will be Summer of 2014.
American and Canadians are the best and most educated sports fans in the world. And we are shooting for all of them. A product or ways and means that pleases only the very narrow and small rugby demographics now is not sufficient. Happily by presenting the world's best rugby we will not only develop a North American fan base of which almost all don't know rugby at all now, but will satisfy the current North American rugby community. That quality of play that we feel is vital is the core difference between our strategy and all others. We have no interest nor will we be party to "developmental rugby". "   -    http://t.co/pCyIlQW2yu

Why on earth is O'Sullivan mixing with these people? Although their claim was back in 2014, so maybe nothing in it.

O'Sullivan is now in France, his stint in the USA is over, so I'd be surprised if he is still involved. Still- if you have a guy who is willing to throw money at a big dream there will be plenty of people willing to pocket his money and tell him he's a visionary. The litmus test is when people are willing to pay to watch rugby in the numbers he's suggesting.

I mean, 30000 regular attendees for a club game for a newly established team right off the bat is an insane goal. Melbourne Rebels averaged under 12000 this year as a 'new' team that has been around for a few years, and while Union in Australia is not their most popular sport, it is on the radar of the average Aussie sports fan and gets plenty of press coverage. In the USA? It's laughable.

In the age of Pele, soccer sold out Giants Stadium in NYC. Nuff said.

Yep, the NASL sold out the Giants Stadium in a once off. But actually their league only averaged around 13000 at that time overall and some teams less than 5000 per game. Seven years after that match, the league went out of business altogether. 'Nuff said

There's being positive and then there's not facing reality!

I thought maybe O'Sullivan was acting in an advisory role, but even then he should stay well away from these people. They're completely deluded.

O'Sullivan knows about rugby in the USA and I can see how his input might be a help in setting up a professional league. Just not with these guys.

" but to not launch until we can field a team that can take on anyone in the world."

So this team that was to play Leicester was ready to take on any other team in the world? Good grief....

I like the fact he says that Americans and canadians are the most educated in the world and almost all don't know rugby at all.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I like the fact he says that Americans and canadians are the most educated in the world and almost all don't know rugby at all.

I was thinking that, and also that if they are amongst the most educated in sports then no doubt they will know that RugbyLaw/NRFL is more than a little flaky.

To be fair, and to their credit, a few of the USA fans are challenging the likes of Robertson. In fact from what I have read I would say most. This latest fiasco won't have encouraged rugby fans in the States to trust them any more than they do now, which I would think isn't much at all.

Rather than helping rugby grow in the States, these guys are probably setting it back.

My worry is that they've scared sponsors away from the game. When and if USA Rugby decided to try and create a unified professional league people may not want to invest due to the disaster that is the NRFL.

I think maybe the established nations should come back to the USA in around a decade to see if they're any closer to being ready for rugby.

With luck, Sin é will have got over Saracens dumping Munster out of the RCC by then too

It would make you question Robertson's claim that investors were ready to invest $billions into the NRFL. Certainly any broadcasters/sponsors looking at the recent cancellations won't have been impressed, but USA Rugby probably gain credit for distancing themselves from RugbyLaw/NRFL. Not that this latest fiasco isn't damaging. Most of those with a passing interest in rugby probably won't know that USA Rugby aren't responsible for making rugby union in the USA a laughing stock.

Let's be honest - this game was always going to be tough to market and sell tickets for - simply because the best players from each team will be prepping up for the RWC.

Not convinced they would have got many interested even without a RWC being so close. There's an argument that with a RWC just around the corner there should have been more interest.

It's a horlics. RugbyLaw/NRFL is not to be trusted.

I seem to be at odds with the rugby Unionists(not political)in thinking USARugby has put back a US pro league, potentially indefinately, by not working with Rugbylaw/NRFL. By wanting to maintain ownership of the pro teams USARugby want to own completely a very small pie rather than work with  Rugbylaw/NRFL & have a small bit of a much larger pie which would be bigger than their wholely owned pie. I can not see how USARugby could come up with the money to run at least 6 pro teams & can not see Americans investing in something owned by USARugby. Rugbylaw/NRFL seemed to want a similar agreement that PRL/RFU have (& NFL teams have with the NFL) in that they would run the Pro league off field(league size, salary cap, media rights etc), leaving USARugby to run the on pitch side(player reg,refs, discipline etc) & the International & amateur side. NRFL's plan was for the pro teams to be based at NFL teams giving a potential fan base to start. Played out of the NFL season it would give US contact sports fans something to follow out of NFL season. Cost of a rugby team would be peanuts to a NFL team but make use of resources out of season & give NFL TV something to fill air time out of season. So while Rugbylaw/NRFL are not perfect they had some good ideas & USARugby should have done more to work with them.
All IMSVHO of course.

Sure, but that arrangement relies on NRFL being a sustainable presence with the US Rugby landscape just as the PRL are and the LNR are in England and France. If they are what they look like on the surface, an organisation with ridiculously unrealistic goals that may well not exist in five years, why partner with them?

Even if you ignore some of the much more optimistic goals these NRFL guys have- like getting attendances from the off that would be cause for major celebration for many leading clubs in countries where rugby is already a major sport, and assuming that athletes who don't make it in NFL will be able to not just learn a new sport but become 'world class' at it in a very short span of time- even if you ignore that, if the NFL teams are running it, then how will they see it? As a feeder system for developing talent? A diversion? An experiment that could be canned at any moment?

If the reason USA Rugby is not willing to pair up to them is because the want to start small and build something sustainable and not be at the mercy of NFL teams pulling the plug, it's hard to argue with them.

It isn't USA Rugby that has put rugby in the USA in reverse. The responsibility for that lies at the feet of the incompetent RugbyLaw/NRFL.
Why would USA Rugby want to work with RugbyLaw/NRFL(The same NRFL that doesn't want to work with USA Rugby)? The guys running it are clueless, and really don't have the sport of rugby at heart. They're in it for themselves, I believe.
After having witnessed the war between club and union over the euro competition, I'm sure USA Rugby will be very wary of who they jump into bed with. RugbyLaw/NRFL make terrible partners.
It would be great to see a professional league really take off in the USA, but not at any price.

The potential is there http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/nyregion/brownsvilles-unlikely-rugby-dynasty.html?smid=tw-nytimes
What is needed is a job at the end. I have heard it said that USARugby is an "old boys club". Unless USARugby get their finger out & are willing to give up ownership of the pro teams I can not see rugby growing in America.
USARugby should be looking to grow the game not maintain 100% ownership.

Which is fair enough, but the money for a league isn't there. NRFL claim that there are investors willing to throw $billions at the league, but who on earth would be willing to invest a cent into anything RugbyLaw/NRFL runs? It would be madness.

It has been said that USA Rugby has been poorly run by an old boys club, but apparently this is changing. I don't know how true that is.

Running a pro teem would costs peanuts to a NFL team but make use of resources out of season & give them some thing new to put on NFLTV out of Season. Rugby is not going to compete with NFL in America but it could have a very good life living off the scraps.

That's missing the point. Who would be willing to invest billions into a league run by RugbyLaw?
You don't know that rugby won't compete with NFL in the long term, and I would be surprised if some at the top of NFL believed that rugby would never pose a threat. If NRFL clubs were owned by NFL clubs, the NFL clubs could more or less dictate how popular the league becomes. NRFL clubs being owned by NFL clubs would also project a poor image. That would mean NRFL clubs would simply be added entertainment provided by the real thing. Something to  do during the off season.

Cyril wrote:I think maybe the established nations should come back to the USA in around a decade to see if they're any closer to being ready for rugby.

With luck, Sin é will have got over Saracens dumping Munster out of the RCC by then too

It was Clermont who dumped Munster out of the RCC as they beat us home and away.

Munster won their home game v Saracens.

It doesn't matter what motives RugbyLaw has (always funny how people are so apt at knowing motivations in others). They could be doing it out of frustrations around poor work by USAR. They could be doing it to line their pockets. It's irrelevant. They refuse to join USAR who are recognised by the IRB as governing rugby in the US. That's it. End of story. It's clearly not got to the point there is anyone else willing to facedown that to challenge the current IRB rulings (as I understand it a bit part revolves around the control of TV contracts). So we're done. The issue will come if they DO set up they're own isolated league, that's gets going. Then there would be someone for rebel European clubs to join with to make money. But we're a long LONG way from anything like that.

It isn't the motivation so much. It's how they do business, and it's how inept they (RugbyLaw/NRFL) have shown themselves to be, and how antagonistic they have been toward USA Rugby. The governing body. I couldn't care less who runs it. I do care that whoever runs it does so responsibly and does so while maintaining a good working relationship with USA Rugby - The governing body.

To be honest, I don't know the background. Nor am I familiar with how they behave over in America. Perhaps that's normal for them. It's not as professional as I would expect certainly. But that, in itself, doesn't concern me. The issue is they're not willing to abid by IRB regulations so they're out of it.

I think how RugbyLaw has behaved is appalling, and I think it does matter. Their behaviour is a poor reflection on rugby in the USA, and it could have an adverse effect on the growth of rugby in that country. It appears toxic and not something that investors would be willing to pump money into. That's the perception I have been forming over the last few days.
I don't know if USA Rugby could be doing more to promote rugby within the USA. They are decades behind in development, and I would think that's down to the big sports like Football, Baseball, basketball all being huge and swamping out any potential competition. It isn't so long ago that rugby became professional, and maybe it is unrealistic to expect the USA to catch up with the rest of us as quickly as some seem to be suggesting. It will take more than simply throwing money at a professional league, like investing heavily in grassroots, and development. RugbyLaw/NRFL has no interest in development. For me, that says it all really.

Fair enough. I haven't really got far enough to care how RugbyLaw run. They could be the best run organisation in the world. Even rivalling the IRFU (). But without playing by IRB/USAR rules it doesn't matter (to me)

It could be said that RFU/PRL don't play by IRB rules!

Munchkin wrote:I don't know if USA Rugby could be doing more to promote rugby within the USA. They are decades behind in development, and I would think that's down to the big sports like Football, Baseball, basketball all being huge and swamping out any potential competition. It isn't so long ago that rugby became professional, and maybe it is unrealistic to expect the USA to catch up with the rest of us as quickly as some seem to be suggesting. It will take more than simply throwing money at a professional league, like investing heavily in grassroots, and development. RugbyLaw/NRFL has no interest in development. For me, that says it all really.

I played for NYC rugby a couple of years ago and got to know some of the people on the organization side, and wasn't really impressed in their vision. The geography involved means that travel budgets for a true national league need to be higher then a european league would have,

As ever though, the promise is the huge amount of outstanding athletes the NFL discards who could turn to rugby - something like 2% of college level football players (ie pro/semi-pro) go on to play NFL. But obviously there are only certain, less technical positions that players can make such a late swap to, ie mostly in the backs. The lads I played with in NYC who were actual americans were either:

1. Former NFL/NHL players - amazing athletes, had the technical ability of a drunk rhino when it came to break down work, scrum, line-out
2. people who played rugby in US colleges - solid technical abilities, but tended to be smaller, ie they were too small for grid-iron in college and found rugby.

Further I have dragged many sports-mad americans to pubs to watch rugby over the years, have patiently explained the broad outline of the rules etc, and while no-one hated it, they all prefferred the very long, multi-stoppage style of US sports. maybe if the scrum becomes a large enough mess, we can slow rugby down enough for american tastes

broadlandboy wrote:It could be said that RFU/PRL don't play by IRB rules!

Yes they do.

Jeez,
Spent a lot of time on the phone with Rugby people all over America today. For some reason, maybe my fine English accent, perhaps, people here think I know something. Just follow me into an Operating Theatre and you will quickly find out how little I know. But the points being made are generally these:
USA Rugby couldn't score in a cat house with a fist full of fifties.
RugbyLaw are mostly a few Rugby die-hards who think chucking some $$$ at a problem will fix it.
USA Rugby are not configured or staffed for growth. NOt the right people and not visionary enough.
Offers for a linkage between USA Rugby and the NFL is the ultimate logic-check and intelligence test. Let them do the heavy lifting and go along for the ride - understanding there may be compromises made a long the way (ie. adverts at the end of the first quarter).
People truly believe Rugby is ready fro a pro league. There is enough interest in the hot areas to make a go of it. Don't worry about the areas of low interest for now. If it kicks in, the other areas will come for the ride.
Rugby needs to solicit real Rugby folk as backers for each club/.franchise. Investors will never be in it for the long haul.

Just a few points from today only. Agree with each and every one of them.

The Sarries-Crusaders match was always doomed. Playing an unfamiliar sport in a non-Rugby city with undermanned teams as a bout of arrogance or foolishness. Probably the interest from the locals was very low.

I wonder how many fans the USA Eagles-Wallabies match draws? 30,000 will be a good number, I think.

Doc, World Rugby has opened the possibility of quaters with the water break in the U20's being taken around the 20 min mark of each half. Like the fact that it is not a set time but at refs discretion.

That's happened before in the U20 hasn't it? Didn't it happen on the Lions tour recently? Perhaps the game in Honk Kong?

Good to here RugbyLaw aren't just money grabbing (but then Craig and Wray are both big rugby fans so...)

Great catch about the water breaks at U20s. Usually approximately the 20 minute mark, but at the closest logical break in play. It's actually fairly common in America at senior and junior levels when the weather is about+80°F (27°C for you Euro types). Referees discretion. And frankly, a good player health and safety measure. So why not make a few $$$, £££, or €€€, whilst we are at it?

wolfball wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I don't know if USA Rugby could be doing more to promote rugby within the USA. They are decades behind in development, and I would think that's down to the big sports like Football, Baseball, basketball all being huge and swamping out any potential competition. It isn't so long ago that rugby became professional, and maybe it is unrealistic to expect the USA to catch up with the rest of us as quickly as some seem to be suggesting. It will take more than simply throwing money at a professional league, like investing heavily in grassroots, and development. RugbyLaw/NRFL has no interest in development. For me, that says it all really.

I played for NYC rugby a couple of years ago and got to know some of the people on the organization side, and wasn't really impressed in their vision. The geography involved means that travel budgets for a true national league need to be higher then a european league would have,

As ever though, the promise is the huge amount of outstanding athletes the NFL discards who could turn to rugby - something like 2% of college level football players (ie pro/semi-pro) go on to play NFL. But obviously there are only certain, less technical positions that players can make such a late swap to, ie mostly in the backs. The lads I played with in NYC who were actual americans were either:

1. Former NFL/NHL players - amazing athletes, had the technical ability of a drunk rhino when it came to break down work, scrum, line-out
2. people who played rugby in US colleges - solid technical abilities, but tended to be smaller, ie they were too small for grid-iron in college and found rugby.

Further I have dragged many sports-mad americans to pubs to watch rugby over the years, have patiently explained the broad outline of the rules etc, and while no-one hated it, they all prefferred the very long, multi-stoppage style of US sports. maybe if the scrum becomes a large enough mess, we can slow rugby down enough for american tastes

So USA Rugby lacking in vision. You would think World rugby could step in with support in one form or another. Surely it would be in their interests to do so?
I get it that the American public are loyal to their national sports. I tried following "grid-iron" for a while, but it bored me to tears. If it was a sport I was encouraged to take an interest in when I was a kid then I would probably love it. Small as the current support base is for rugby in the USA, I guess that's were most of the focus has to be when trying to grow the game.
I don't want rugby slowed down any more than it already is with constant referrals to the TMO, who then can take an age to make a decision that only one set of fans will agree with.

P.s I liked the image of drunk rhinos in the scrum or hitting rucks. Then an image of Nick Williams can to mind, and I didn't like it anymore

..........a touchdo.............................. I mean a Try!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................................

Now before we get to the conversioniser, that will be taken by top specialist Bradley Spitzenzeiner, who is on his way to the game right now from his hotel, a word from our sponsors............ be back in five.

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think maybe the established nations should come back to the USA in around a decade to see if they're any closer to being ready for rugby.

With luck, Sin é will have got over Saracens dumping Munster out of the RCC by then too

It was Clermont who dumped Munster out of the RCC as they beat us home and away.

Munster won their home game v Saracens.

Fair point. I'd say both Clermont and Sarries dumped Munster out of the RCC. Sarries wiped the floor with Munster at home.

Cyril wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think maybe the established nations should come back to the USA in around a decade to see if they're any closer to being ready for rugby.

With luck, Sin é will have got over Saracens dumping Munster out of the RCC by then too

It was Clermont who dumped Munster out of the RCC as they beat us home and away.

Munster won their home game v Saracens.

Fair point. I'd say both Clermont and Sarries dumped Munster out of the RCC. Sarries wiped the floor with Munster at home.

I suppose it is a big consolation prize for both Sarries & Clermont to actually beat a team that has won the Heineken Cup (twice)!

Out of curiosity, how many of the players had actually won the cup? I mean it was, what? 7 years ago since you last won it. 9 since the first time.

HammerofThunor wrote:Out of curiosity, how many of the players had actually won the cup? I mean it was, what? 7 years ago since you last won it. 9 since the first time.

POC, DOC, Billy Holland, D Ryan, Keith Earls, Denis Hurley (Tomas O'Leary is coming back next season - he has won it twice).