No prospect of eastern Europe joining in 6 Nations

First topic message reminder :

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-2016-no-prospect-of-eastern-europe-joining-in-best-tournament-a6840196.html#commentsDiv

Way to crush all hope for other nations in Europe. Whats the point in even developing rugby in other European countries?

aucklandlaurie wrote: It would make things a lot simpler if Georgia and Romania just went and  played the Pacific Islanders.

Georgia are touring the PIs this summer.

aucklandlaurie wrote: It would make things a lot simpler if Georgia and Romania just went and  played the Pacific Islanders.

Probably does help Georgia and Romania a bit, as the Pacific Islands are generally stronger than them. Doesn't really help the islands though, and I don't imagine for one minute that it's even remotely feasible, and therefore dependent on substantial World Rugby funding. The point is, in rugby more than most other sports, your standards are determined largely by the level of opposition you meet most regularly. If you want an expanded 6 Nations in the future, or even a promotion-relegation system that would combine the 6 Nations and ENC into one pan-European competition, then the only way to get the likes of Georgia and Romania up to speed is by giving them regular exposure to that standard of competition first. The 5 Nations appeared to recognize that with Italy from about the mid-80s on, and provided them with regular exposure to 5 Nations rugby prior to the 2000 expansion.

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: It would make things a lot simpler if Georgia and Romania just went and  played the Pacific Islanders.

Probably does help Georgia and Romania a bit, as the Pacific Islands are generally stronger than them. Doesn't really help the islands though, and I don't imagine for one minute that it's even remotely feasible, and therefore dependent on substantial World Rugby funding. The point is, in rugby more than most other sports, your standards are determined largely by the level of opposition you meet most regularly. If you want an expanded 6 Nations in the future, or even a promotion-relegation system that would combine the 6 Nations and ENC into one pan-European competition, then the only way to get the likes of Georgia and Romania up to speed is by giving them regular exposure to that standard of competition first. The 5 Nations appeared to recognize that with Italy from about the mid- on, and provided them with regular exposure to 5 Nations rugby prior to the 2000 expansion.

If Georgia travelling the PI's is not feasible, then why are they touring there this year?

dependent on substantial World Rugby funding

You should've kept reading. Are you implying Georgia travelling to the other side of the world to play the Pacific Islands in tiny stadiums is going to be a huge money spinner??

Rowanbi wrote:dependent on substantial World Rugby funding

You should've kept reading. Are you implying Georgia travelling to the other side of the world to play the Pacific Islands in tiny stadiums is going to be a huge money spinner??

Yet Tier 1 teams travelling to Georgia is?

Could be. They just got 55K to a test with Romania. & they also get huge TV ratings for big games, apparently. So it would certainly be ridiculous to suggest that Western European tier 1 nations popping over to Eastern Europe to play in front of scores of thousands of fans and millions of TV viewers would in any way be comparable to Eastern European tier 2 teams travelling to the other side of the planet to play island nations in tiny stadiums.

Which leads me to the conclusion you are just arguing for the sake of it now...

Tv wouldn't be big ratings here I wouldn't have thought. More interest in England NZ for instance than Englands reserves vs Georgia. Money then lost for the touring SH sides. And still the issue of whether the big clubs would like the Georgian players they have having more fixtures and how that would play out.

Rowanbi wrote:dependent on substantial World Rugby funding

You should've kept reading. Are you implying Georgia travelling to the other side of the world to play the Pacific Islands in tiny stadiums is going to be a huge money spinner??

Is World rugby funding the tour then?

Rowanbi wrote:Could be. They just got 55K to a test with Romania. & they also get huge TV ratings for big games, apparently. So it would certainly be ridiculous to suggest that Western European tier 1 nations popping over to Easter Europe to play in front of scores of thousands of fans and millions of TV viewers would in any way be comparable to Eastern European tier 2 teams travelling to the other side of the planet to play island nations in tiny stadiums.

Which leads me to the conclusion you are just arguing for the sake of it now...

Or maybe I just have a better grasp of the bigger picture?

You keep quoting the number of fans Georgia got for the Romania game but how much did they pay to get in?
TV ratings actually matter little in isolation, the demographics and segmentation of the audience is important to its value. 50 working class pensioners have less value in these terms than one middle class man aged 19-35 or twenty teenagers

You see the average wage in the UK is over 40 times that in Georgia and its an even bigger disparity when you compare it to just London so the amounts that can be earned from a game at Twickenham and one in Georgia would have a huge difference. This impacts on tv revenue too as Georgia isn't that valuable to marketers and advertisers compared to the Western markets so the games wont draw huge money in comparison to UK, French markets etc.

In reality World Rugby need to be doing more to generate income for themselves, they are too reliant on too few nations and streams of income for a global sports body. If they were to grow this it would help grow the game through partnerships and having more to invest.

Tv wouldn't be big ratings here I wouldn't have thought. More interest in England NZ for instance than Englands reserves vs Georgia.

Where is here and who's talking about reserves?

Is World rugby funding the tour then?

Apparently.

You see the average wage in the UK is over 40 times that in Georgia and its an even bigger disparity when you compare it to just London so the amounts that can be earned from a game at Twickenham and one in Georgia would have a huge difference. This impacts on tv revenue too as Georgia isn't that valuable to marketers and advertisers compared to the Western markets so the games wont draw huge money in comparison to UK, French markets etc.

Gee, thanks for enlightening me about this, Mr Big Picture.

Doesn't mean that a sell-out game in Georgia couldn't make a profit though, which is all I was actually talking about.

they are too reliant on too few nations

& you would ensure it remains this way by stifling the game's international development and shooting yourself squarely in the foot

Rowanbi wrote:Tv wouldn't be big ratings here I wouldn't have thought. More interest in England NZ for instance than Englands reserves vs Georgia.

Where is here and who's talking about reserves?

Is World rugby funding the tour then?

Apparently.

You see the average wage in the UK is over 40 times that in Georgia and its an even bigger disparity when you compare it to just London so the amounts that can be earned from a game at Twickenham and one in Georgia would have a huge difference. This impacts on tv revenue too as Georgia isn't that valuable to marketers and advertisers compared to the Western markets so the games wont draw huge money in comparison to UK, French markets etc.

Gee, thanks for enlightening me about this, Mr Big Picture.

Doesn't mean that a sell-out game in Georgia couldn't make a profit though, which is all I was actually talking about.

they are too reliant on too few nations

& you would ensure it remains this way by stifling the game's international development and shooting yourself squarely in the foot

Comparitively high ratings. You live in Britain now?

If England played Georgia we would use it to test reserves. Still no reply on how you think clubs would react to this either and if you think it would adversely affect Georgia rather than help.

It might make a profit but is that profit worthwhile to the tier 1 team playing there, I would guess it wouldn't be when they could just play another tier 1 team instead. England for instance would not be sending their strongest team to play instead it would a developmental side that would then make the whole exercise a bit pointless.

Expanding the international game is all well and good but it's still a business, Italy were added because they provide a monetary incentive that Georgia and Romania do not.

It might make a profit but is that profit worthwhile to the tier 1 team playing there, I would guess it wouldn't be when they could just play another tier 1 team instead

Again, that's a myopic, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot approach. Such fixtures would be an investment in the future and if tier 1 teams just want to carry on playing each other again and again ad infinitum they would be intentionally stifling the game's international development. This may well be the case, because half of international rugby's eight foundation members are small nations which might well struggle to survive in any truly global sport. Big fish in a little pond . . .

That isn't even an argument, if the tier 1 teams don't regularly play each other then they don't survive and if they don't survive the whole international game falls apart. Rugby is not football, it doesn't have the money coming in from sponsorship or TV to survive without the best regularly playing the best, you might see it as stifling but it's a necessary evil of international rugby.

Who's suggesting the tier 1 teams shouldn't be playing each other regularly? Why is imagining that I am implying something which I am clearly not implying such a common tactic here? Really, what are you guys so afraid of. If you want to keep the pond nice and small, ignore the up-and-comers between World Cups (when you actually need them), and thereby prevent rugby from ever becoming a truly global game, fine. But to me you sound exactly like the opponents of a rugby World Cup, professional rugby and other hugely successful innovations before they actually came about.

Who's suggesting the tier 1 teams shouldn't be playing each other regularly? Why is imagining that I am implying something which I am clearly not implying such a common tactic here? Really, what are you guys so afraid of. If you want to keep the pond nice and small, ignore the up-and-comers between World Cups (when you actually need them), and thereby prevent rugby from ever becoming a truly global game, fine. But to me you sound exactly like the opponents of a rugby World Cup, professional rugby and other hugely successful innovations before they actually came about.

Rowanbi wrote:

You see the average wage in the UK is over 40 times that in Georgia and its an even bigger disparity when you compare it to just London so the amounts that can be earned from a game at Twickenham and one in Georgia would have a huge difference. This impacts on tv revenue too as Georgia isn't that valuable to marketers and advertisers compared to the Western markets so the games wont draw huge money in comparison to UK, French markets etc.

Gee, thanks for enlightening me about this, Mr Big Picture.

Doesn't mean that a sell-out game in Georgia couldn't make a profit though, which is all I was actually talking about.

they are too reliant on too few nations

& you would ensure it remains this way by stifling the game's international development and shooting yourself squarely in the foot

Not shooting myself in the foot, apparently Im not allowed to talk about my suggestions again yet here you are saying Im for stifling international development you cant have it both ways.

This is especially true as your constantly repeated suggestions would decrease the size of the pie to be shared around because it doesnt matter if a game in Georgia makes a profit because surely you know it wouldnt generate the income for a Tier 1 nation as as a game against a fellow Tier 1 nation?

You just ignore any pitfalls.

Rowanbi wrote:Who's suggesting the tier 1 teams shouldn't be playing each other regularly? Why is imagining that I am implying something which I am clearly not implying such a common tactic here? Really, what are you guys so afraid of. If you want to keep the pond nice and small, ignore the up-and-comers between World Cups (when you actually need them), and thereby prevent rugby from ever becoming a truly global game, fine. But to me you sound exactly like the opponents of a rugby World Cup, professional rugby and other hugely successful innovations before they actually came about.

Dont think anyone is afraaid of anything, apart from reality.

The reality of the top players not being able to play every week of the year, just so that they can say that they have met the demands of Rowan.

Th reality that teams have to accumulate the revenue from playing other tier 1 teams so that they have the cashflow to play tier 2 games.

apparently Im not allowed to talk about my suggestions

Talking about them and repeating them over and over and over are two very different thing. You need to learn to agree to disagree sometimes and move on.

This is especially true as your constantly repeated suggestions would decrease the size of the pie to be shared around because it doesnt matter if a game in Georgia makes a profit because surely you know it wouldnt generate the income for a Tier 1 nation as as a game against a fellow Tier 1 nation?

Right, so you're view is the tier 2 nations should be shut out in between World Cups (when we actually need them), so that tier 1 nations can make absolutely as much money as is absolutely possible at absolutely every opportunity. Once again, that's not my view.

You just ignore any pitfalls.

Got tired of answering the same points time and time again, more like it.

The reality of the top players not being able to play every week of the year,

Once again, this ignored what I had written and implies that I have been implying something which I clearly haven't been implying at all. This strategy suggests to me that you are indeed afraid. You're afraid of innovative ideas and you're afraid of change.

, just so that they can say that they have met the demands of Rowan.

A juvenile response to someone who is simply endeavouring to make constructive suggestions on a chat board in relation to the topic at hand - simply because you happen to think differently.

Th reality that teams have to accumulate the revenue from playing other tier 1 teams so that they have the cashflow to play tier 2 games.



& just how long did it take you to create this little fantasy world in which I have suggested otherwise?

Rowanbi wrote:apparently Im not allowed to talk about my suggestions

Talking about them and repeating them over and over and over are two very different thing. You need to learn to agree to disagree sometimes and move on.

This is especially true as your constantly repeated suggestions would decrease the size of the pie to be shared around because it doesnt matter if a game in Georgia makes a profit because surely you know it wouldnt generate the income for a Tier 1 nation as as a game against a fellow Tier 1 nation?

Right, so you're view is the tier 2 nations should be shut out in between World Cups (when we actually need them), so that tier 1 nations can make absolutely as much money as is absolutely possible at absolutely every opportunity. Once again, that's not my view.

You just ignore any pitfalls.

Got tired of answering the same points time and time again, more like it.

The reality of the top players not being able to play every week of the year,

Once again, this ignored what I had written and implies that I have been implying something which I clearly haven't been implying at all. This strategy suggests to me that you are indeed afraid. You're afraid of innovative ideas and you're afraid of change.

, just so that they can say that they have met the demands of Rowan.

A juvenile response to someone who is simply endeavouring to make constructive suggestions on a chat board in relation to the topic at hand - simply because you happen to think differently.

Th reality that teams have to accumulate the revenue from playing other tier 1 teams so that they have the cashflow to play tier 2 games.



& just how long did it take you to create this little fantasy world in which I have suggested otherwise?

You never answered. You like pie in the sky and ignore reality.

Rowanbi wrote:apparently Im not allowed to talk about my suggestions

Talking about them and repeating them over and over and over are two very different thing. You need to learn to agree to disagree sometimes and move on.

This is especially true as your constantly repeated suggestions would decrease the size of the pie to be shared around because it doesnt matter if a game in Georgia makes a profit because surely you know it wouldnt generate the income for a Tier 1 nation as as a game against a fellow Tier 1 nation?

Right, so you're view is the tier 2 nations should be shut out in between World Cups (when we actually need them), so that tier 1 nations can make absolutely as much money as is absolutely possible at absolutely every opportunity. Once again, that's not my view.

You just ignore any pitfalls.

Got tired of answering the same points time and time again, more like it.

The reality of the top players not being able to play every week of the year,

Once again, this ignored what I had written and implies that I have been implying something which I clearly haven't been implying at all. This strategy suggests to me that you are indeed afraid. You're afraid of innovative ideas and you're afraid of change.

, just so that they can say that they have met the demands of Rowan.

A juvenile response to someone who is simply endeavouring to make constructive suggestions on a chat board in relation to the topic at hand - simply because you happen to think differently.

Th reality that teams have to accumulate the revenue from playing other tier 1 teams so that they have the cashflow to play tier 2 games.



& just how long did it take you to create this little fantasy world in which I have suggested otherwise?

Things need repeating because you misrepresent peoples ideas and opinions as I have never said that Tier 2 nations should be shut out, Id tell you you mine but Im not allowed to repeat them and as you are aware of them the misrepresentation must be deliberate. Maybe the fact that you cant deal with yours not holding up to scrutiny, maybe you should follow your own advice and move on

Year 5
Argentina v Canada, USA (Americas 6 Nations)
SA v Namibia (annual Jan Ellis Cup fixture)
NZ v Fiji
Japan v Australia
Ireland v Georgia
Wales v Romania
Spain v Italy
Russia v Scotland
Georgia v France
Romania v England

Year 6
Argentina v Canada, USA
Namibia v SA
NZ v Tonga
Australia v Samoa
England v Georgia
WAles v Romania
Russia v Ireland
Portugal v Italy
Romania v Scotland
Georgia v France

Rowanbi wrote:apparently Im not allowed to talk about my suggestions

Talking about them and repeating them over and over and over are two very different thing. You need to learn to agree to disagree sometimes and move on.

This is especially true as your constantly repeated suggestions would decrease the size of the pie to be shared around because it doesnt matter if a game in Georgia makes a profit because surely you know it wouldnt generate the income for a Tier 1 nation as as a game against a fellow Tier 1 nation?

Right, so you're view is the tier 2 nations should be shut out in between World Cups (when we actually need them), so that tier 1 nations can make absolutely as much money as is absolutely possible at absolutely every opportunity. Once again, that's not my view.

You just ignore any pitfalls.

Got tired of answering the same points time and time again, more like it.

The reality of the top players not being able to play every week of the year,

Once again, this ignored what I had written and implies that I have been implying something which I clearly haven't been implying at all. This strategy suggests to me that you are indeed afraid. You're afraid of innovative ideas and you're afraid of change.

, just so that they can say that they have met the demands of Rowan.

A juvenile response to someone who is simply endeavouring to make constructive suggestions on a chat board in relation to the topic at hand - simply because you happen to think differently.

Th reality that teams have to accumulate the revenue from playing other tier 1 teams so that they have the cashflow to play tier 2 games.



& just how long did it take you to create this little fantasy world in which I have suggested otherwise?

Just let you into a little secret Rowan, I actually dont take any of you posts seriously, and the above responses are an example as to why. and I doubt that I'm alone.

Rowanbi wrote:Year 5
Argentina v Canada, USA (Americas 6 Nations)
SA v Namibia (annual Jan Ellis Cup fixture)
NZ v Fiji
Japan v Australia
Ireland v Georgia
Wales v Romania
Spain v Italy
Russia v Scotland
Georgia v France
Romania v England

Year 6
Argentina v Canada, USA
Namibia v SA
NZ v Tonga
Australia v Samoa
England v Georgia
WAles v Romania
Russia v Ireland
Portugal v Italy
Romania v Scotland
Georgia v France

Cloud cuckoo land.

I actually dont take any of you posts seriously

Which is why you keep responding, right?

& this really is a high-powered UN summit meeting to discuss the very future of mankind - rather than just a chat board where people are presumably free to exchange and discuss ideas about a game...

Once again, I really have to wonder what you're so afraid of

I'm guessing a New Zealander has a lot to be afraid of when it comes to Rugby Union, any new team would just be more cannon fodder for there B team to beat, as they would for England, Wales and Ireland.

Year 7
Argentina v Canada, USA (Americas 6 Nations)
SA v Namibia (annual Jan Ellis Cup fixture)
Australia v Fiji
Japan v NZ
Wales v Romania
Ireland v Georgia
Russia v Italy
Georgia v France
Romania v England
Scotland v Georgia

Year 8
Argentina v Canada, USA
Namibia v SA
NZ v Samoa
Australia v Tonga
Scotland v Romania
Wales v Georgia
Russia v France
Portugal v Italy
Georgia v England
Romania v Ireland

Rowanbi wrote: I actually dont take any of you posts seriously

Which is why you keep responding, right?

& this really is a high-powered UN summit meeting to discuss the very future of mankind - rather than just a chat board where people are presumably free to exchange and discuss ideas about a game...

Once again, I really have to wonder what you're so afraid of

Well then you're just going to have to wonder harder, I want to see a far better effort from you Rowan.

Year 9
Argentina v Canada, USA (Americas 6 Nations)
SA v Namibia (annual Jan Ellis Cup fixture)
NZ v Fiji
Japan v Australia
England v Georgia
Scotland v Romania
Italy v Spain
Russia v Wales
Georgia v Ireland
Romania v France

Year 10
Argentina v Canada, USA
Namibia v SA
NZ v Samoa
Australia v Tonga
France v Georgia
Wales v Romania
Ireland v Russia
Portugal v Italy
Romania v England
Georgia v Wales

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm guessing a New Zealander has a lot to be afraid of when it comes to Rugby Union, any new team would just be more cannon fodder for there B team to beat, as they would for England, Wales and Ireland.

truth be told we could probably send the Maoris up there, they'd beat both Georgia and Romania, and in the long run no one would be any better off. well apart from those in the travel and hospitality industries.

Is this the same set of pie in the sky fixtures for the womens and u20s?

You think the clubs will like this or pressure retirements or not pick up players?

Where will the money needed now come from?

What sort of team do the tier 1 sides put out because they won't be playing they're first XV that's for sure.

I think you need to write a letter to the Georgian Rugby Union and tell them to forget about joining the 6 Nations or even getting a few more tests against top opposition because the clubs might not like it and there is absolutely no room anywhere on any tier 1 nation's schedule for this and never ever will be. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear this. & then they and the rest of the tier 2 and 3 nations might just say, 'Screw these selfish, short-sighted, self-absorbed bast'ds, let's go set up our own international rugby organization.'

Rowanbi wrote:I think you need to write a letter to the Georgian Rugby Union and tell them to forget about joining the 6 Nations or even getting a few more tests against top opposition because the clubs might not like it and there is absolutely no room anywhere on any tier 1 nation's schedule for this and never ever will be. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear this. & then they and the rest of the tier 2 and 3 nations might just say, 'Screw these selfish, short-sighted, self-absorbed bast'ds, let's go set up our own international rugby organization.'  

That will work won't it.

It would destroy World Rugby's showpiece event and biggest money-spinner - which actually requires the nations you want to shut out the rest of the time - just so that the tier 1 teams can make absolutely as much money as is absolutely possible by playing each other absolutely as often as they can, thereby stifling the development of international rugby.

Rowanbi wrote:No, it would destroy World Rugby's showpiece event and biggest money-spinner - which actually requires the nations you want to shut out the rest of the time - so that the tier 1 teams can make absolutely as much money as is absolutely possible by playing each other absolutely as often as they can, thereby stifling the development of international rugby and ensuring the World Cup remains a lopsided farce.

This is where you're being childish, nobody wants to shut out the lower teams but it's a simple case of economics, most of the unions don't make money they merely break even which doesn't really fit into your point of view so you ignore it.

It wouldn't destroy the World cup at all without Romania or Georgia, all they would be doing is destroying themselves, it would be of absolutely no benefit to them at all.

Rowanbi wrote:It would destroy World Rugby's showpiece event and biggest money-spinner - which actually requires the nations you want to shut out the rest of the time - just so that the tier 1 teams can make absolutely as much money as is absolutely possible by playing each other absolutely as often as they can, thereby stifling the development of international rugby.

Yeah that'll be it, its amazing that no one thought of this earlier.

nobody wants to shut out the lower teams but it's a simple case of economics, most of the unions don't make money they merely break even which doesn't really fit into your point of view so you ignore it.

You just contradicted yourself.


It wouldn't destroy the World cup at all without Romania or Georgia, all they would be doing is destroying themselves, it would be of absolutely no benefit to them at all.



So you missed the part about 'the rest of the tier 2 and 3 nations.'  & that would certainly destroy the World Cup. & you clearly do not understand the concept of protest.

Meanwhile, a good definition of juvenile arrogance is suggesting the World Cup doesn't need Georgia and Romania. Maybe the international rugby community doesn't need Britain. The Home Unions suck, they're perennial cannon-fodder for the All Blacks, and they've done their best to hold the game back in terms of its international development.

So is this proposed development for the womens teams as well?

Do you think the clubs not liking it could lead to an adverse effect. Wouldn't a better set of B team fixtures be better than pretending England etc would sent full strength sides?

In what way did I just contradict myself?

You simply don't have a clue about what you're talking about, what exactly do the tier 2 and 3 nations do; Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Japan, USA, Namibia and Canada wouldn't be joining your brilliantly devised breakaway. International Rugby does in fact need Britain though, their absence would destroy the World Cup, the absence of Romania and Georgia would be a mere inconvenience.

So is this proposed development for the womens teams as well?


No, but it could be. I don't know much about those teams.

Wouldn't a better set of B team fixtures be better than pretending England etc would sent full strength sides?

No, then the tier 2 teams would just use them as training runs as well. The Nations Cup & Tbilisi Cup tournaments have showed us this mistake. Only test matches will be taken seriously by all concerned, and therefore draw the crowds and TV viewing audiences required to make them feasible.

In what way did I just contradict myself?

You said you didn't want to shut Georgia & Romania out then made a lot of piddling excuses about why they should be shut out

the absence of Romania and Georgia would be a mere inconvenience.


It would destroy the credibility of the World Cup and deprive it of one of the game's rising starts - and there aren't too many of those, for obvious reasons. Needless to add, it would destroy the tournament for Eastern European fans.

You don't know much about the mens teams either. You just not bothered about the women?

But tier 1 teams wouldn't send their 1st teams so would devalue caps. So you don't think its feasible anymore.

And could clubs lead to an adverse effect?

Instead of repeating the same phrases ad nauseum you need step back, read what is being said and let your brain engage with your fingers before typing. Nobody wants to shut the minnows out, the money simply isn't there for the expansion you seem so determined for, at this moment in time it is not a possibility. These are not piddling excuses (not bowing to your inferior knowledge of the game more like) but the reality of world Rugby, it is not a game flush with money.

The only thing it would destroy is Georgia as a rising star, the Rugby World cup would survive with 16 teams quite comfortably as long as the 6 nations, the rugby championship four, Japan and the Pacific Islanders were in it I doubt anyone would blink an eye lid. That is not an ideal situation but it's reality.

You're living in a fantasy world, if England played Georgia or Romania they would not put out their strongest XV, your whole argument rests on them doing the very thing they wouldn't do.

Rowan if you removed all the emotion, sacasm and name calling out of your posts you may well realise that Hammer didnt contradict himself at all.

You don't know much about the mens teams either.

I know more about men's rugby than you've had time to learn, little man.

Tier 1 teams might just send their 1st teams for a single fixture per season as part of a program that were implemented by the World Rugby organization in order to realize its self-proclaimed objective of globalizing the sport. How would you know what they would do?

Laurie, if you removed all the emotion, saRcasm and name-calling out of your posts you may well realise that Hammer indeed contradicted himself.[/b]

Rowanbi wrote:You don't know much about the mens teams either.

I know more about men's rugby than you've had time to learn, little man.[/b]

That would be why your four year proposal has completely ignored the four yearly five week British and Irish Lions tour then.

Really? Doesn't come across. You not bothered about the womens game?

Tier 1 teams would send their reserves get the easy win and wait for the big games. Why on earth would you send your 1st team to Georgia etc in the middle of the ais Autumn Internations btw as I know you didn't know of these til a few weeks ago (big rugby fan you are!).

Could these games lead clubs to create an unintended adverse affect?