Bill Beaumont's idea to move the Six Nations to April?

World Rugby wants a streamlined global season to safeguard players against injury from being overworked through sheer number of games.

I think we are all in favour of this and having been wanting a global season for years.

However,
Six Nations chief executive John Feehan has previously branded the tournament's February-March slot "non-negotiable".

And I can understand both sides.

I think a global calendar is the most important thing for Rugby going forward.

But on the 6 nations, its easy to say it should be moved, but we have think a little bit more about that and why they are reluctant to move it.

The time of year its at does not conflict with any other sports so it is the main draw, for TV and hence sponsors get great coverage.
For the cities involved and their economy, Feb/Mar is normally a slow time of year them. Shopping, pubs and hotels all benefit by having a big influx of people during their the slowest part of the season for them. I don't think this effects London and Paris much, but for Cardiff, Edinburgh and Dublin, this is a real boost to the local businesses in the area.

If moved to April or the summer in will leave a black hole in the budgets of these areas, and overall bring in less money.


However in the long run I think this is a small price to pay to have a fully linked up rugby calendar and player welfare.

What knock on effect will it bring to the leagues though, and would they be happy to change?

After all May is now the time used for European finals (at the request of the French) will they have to be moved again?
The French League season is very long, how will it need changed and will the French clubs be happy to move it?

You could also argue that playing the big games a little later should mean better playing conditions and a better/ more reliable product if you want to start converting more of the masses.

I'm a fan of the idea a few are suggesting of having a break from rugby through most of December and January. It would allow the players some recovery time but vitally for the game in many parts of the country would also prevent the pitches from getting ruined when the weather is at it's worst.

- Start the season on the first weekend in September and play through to the first weekend in December - 14 weekends to play matches in.

- Have a complete break from rugby running from after that first weekend in December through to the middle of January - a 6 week break for the players to recover and vitally the pitches to recover rather than get destroyed

- Start the season up again in mid January and run through to the end of the season as currently seen

I honestly feel that the above would lead to a much better quality of club rugby as well as being much better for player welfare.

Anything they try and do is not dissimilar to re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

There is simply too much rugby to fit in. Too many international matches and too many club matches.

I really cannot see how moving the 6Ns to April achieves the aim of better co-ordinating North and South schedules.

LondonTiger wrote:I really cannot see how moving the 6Ns to April achieves the aim of better co-ordinating North and South schedules.

If the Northern season moves back entirely by a month, tours to the NH from the SH will be pretty much at the start of our season and our tours down there will move back a month and come at the end of the Super Rugby season instead of interrupting it.

Bill said there needs to be compromise. What are the SH compromising on? The only suggestions I've seen involve the NH moving the 6N & the summer Internationals to suit the SH.

broadlandboy wrote:Bill said there needs to be compromise. What are the SH compromising on? The only suggestions I've seen involve the NH moving the 6N & the summer Internationals to suit the SH.

To put it another way; why shouldn't we do it?

The only drawback is arguably TV rights- I don't see April/early May being a big change in terms of value. We get the Six Nations on drier, harder pitches. We get the climax of the club season moved into late spring/early summer which means more of the season played in better weather.

If there was no suggestion that the SH need this change, it's still a good idea for the NH.

In truth...it's getting a little depressing.  Too many things now in the world are in flux or are about to go into flux.

EU exit. (it won't let us type B-R-E-X-I-T?)  
Europe's security in a face of a biblical sized migration of lost souls.  
Middle East as always in constant flux,
The European Cup messed around with leaving lingering sourness
and now lots of talk about how much International is going to potentially change, with more changes to the residency rules and shifts to the 6N, and the development of a 'Global Season'

.... oh and Trump hopefully getting into the White House and painting in Blue and Red
...and the f**king Eurovision letting Australia take our rightful place in the finals!!!

Anyway, and seriously, sometimes I wish the bastards - World Rugby, European Rugby, SANZAR whoever - sometimes I wish they'd just stop the positioning and pre-talking and interviews and speculations and intrigues and just get on with it.  Go into a dark room somewhere, well away from the media, and come out with something we have to live with whether we like it or not.
After all, that's what most of us feels most of the time.  

I can now feel this new show about the Global Season dragging on and on for a year or two, creating yet more distractions from the actual game being played on the field.

I don't think I've ever lived through such a seemingly unsettled time in my entire life - nothing seems to be just chugging away contentedly.

All that other stuff is rather more important than a bit of rugby.

You'd think so but no, it isn't - not in the mind of the power shifters and shakers in serious, serious sport.

Anyway, that wasn't my point.  The other stuff should be more important.  The less important stuff seems to get as much media though.  
Everything on the planet all of a sudden seems to want change and negotiations.... and that's not even talking about the SH, with China and Japan not exactly playing best buddies at the moment, or the Brazilian Impeachment - right on the eve of the Olympics.

It's the mood of unrest - in all things.  In all things and not just politics - all around the Globe.

Well, we're approaching a period of disaster as a species. It's going to be like this for a while.

There are clear issues with how the season is run.  Playing pro 12 games during the international window, mismatch of seasons for tours / NH / SH internationals, no proper rest period for international players etc.

Beaumont has shown willingness to look at this from a global standpoint and for all his faults I think he is an honest broker and could well lead rugby to a more sensible season.  good on him for grasping this nettle early on when he still has the goodwill to push thru sensible changes

I think I am going to reserve judgement until I see what is being planned.

I am very attached to the 6N in its current slot. It is something to look forward to at that time of year and in April and May there may well be other conflicting interests on my time. I would be very loath to give up that spot.

Unless internationals and club games are played on the same weekend sometimes, I just don't see how they would fit them all in either. Do they expect the international players to play a full season of 30 odd games and then be fresh for international rugby at the end of it.

There s clearly a lot of it that I don't understand yet but I am going to need to be convinced that they are offering us better than what we now have.

Notch wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I really cannot see how moving the 6Ns to April achieves the aim of better co-ordinating North and South schedules.

If the Northern season moves back entirely by a month, tours to the NH from the SH will be pretty much at the start of our season and our tours down there will move back a month and come at the end of the Super Rugby season instead of interrupting it.

I did not realise that shifting the entire calendar back a month was being discussed. Not sure I would like the season not starting till October.

I think our starting point should be how many games we want elite players taking part in during a season, and how much of a break should they get between seasons.

The EPS agreement puts a 32 match limit on England players but it's calculated by minutes, so you can end up turning out in more than 32 fixtures. Christian Day of the RPA says "That number is completely arbitrary in our eyes...Someone’s stuck a finger in the air and come up with it. I don’t know where it’s come from, and I don’t think anyone does"

That calculation makes it a bit of a nonsense anyway, since you usually have to train the same for a match whether you start or come off the bench.

You also have to wonder how appropriate it is to have one limit for all positions. According to Alex Corbisiero “I would say 25 games of around 60 minutes each is right for a prop”. When you consider that England usually have a dozen or more Tests, that wouldn't leave a lot of club matches for a regular international starter.

I'm not particularly sympathetic to the view of club owners who might want to undermine the importance of Test rugby but I do think that the competitions below internationals need more consistency and certainty to build support.

So, if we want our stars to commit to a heavy schedule of internationals, then we need to figure out what kind of competition structures can be put in place to maximize support, revenue, player development & welfare underneath them.

Totally agree, and the league structure isn't capable of doing this. 22 games in a season is way too much to start with.

Personally speaking I hate the idea. January and February are pretty dark and miserable months and the Six Nations is such a pick up for me in this period. If it moves to April I will be very disappointed.

Rugby Fan wrote:
So, if we want our stars to commit to a heavy schedule of internationals, then we need to figure out what kind of competition structures can be put in place to maximize support, revenue, player development & welfare underneath them.

I do not want that bold bit. We play far too many international games.

Notch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Bill said there needs to be compromise. What are the SH compromising on? The only suggestions I've seen involve the NH moving the 6N & the summer Internationals to suit the SH.

To put it another way; why shouldn't we do it?

The only drawback is arguably TV rights- I don't see April/early May being a big change in terms of value. We get the Six Nations on drier, harder pitches. We get the climax of the club season moved into late spring/early summer which means more of the season played in better weather.

If there was no suggestion that the SH need this change, it's still a good idea for the NH.

So the most successful rugby tournament on the Planet should be changed because it doesn't suit the SH teams?

There is a reason the 6N is so successful - the time of year when it is run. It gets people who know nothing about rugby along for the occasion, because they have nothing better to do.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Notch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Bill said there needs to be compromise. What are the SH compromising on? The only suggestions I've seen involve the NH moving the 6N & the summer Internationals to suit the SH.

To put it another way; why shouldn't we do it?

The only drawback is arguably TV rights- I don't see April/early May being a big change in terms of value. We get the Six Nations on drier, harder pitches. We get the climax of the club season moved into late spring/early summer which means more of the season played in better weather.

If there was no suggestion that the SH need this change, it's still a good idea for the NH.

So the most successful rugby tournament on the Planet should be changed because it doesn't suit the SH teams?

There is a reason the 6N is so successful - the time of year when it is run. It gets people who know nothing about rugby along for the occasion, because they have nothing better to do.

TGA Is filling the stadia all that important?

The Great Aukster wrote:So the most successful rugby tournament on the Planet should be changed because it doesn't suit the SH teams?

Not as far as I'm concerned, no. As far as I'm concerned the Six Nations should be changed so it is played in generally better weather and the SH demands and the negotiations over a global calendar are just a beautiful coincidence. This is something I argued for before any of that came about.

You can call the Six Nations the most successful rugby tournament on the Planet. But the quality of the rugby played across the board in the early stages is all too often simply not good enough, and it's only in the final few rounds as the weather improves and combinations begin to gel that it becomes really good to watch. So we need two things; 1) A different time slot and 2) Less club games so coaches can have a proper preparation window with their players, like a mini pre-season.

If SH pressure leads to the first of those happening I'll be delighted. The second is still a long, long way off.

Quite right Notch, the quality of play on the field is paramount.

Once this is compromised for just high volumes of games/tests then the code will stop growing, sponsors will become less interested and massive damage to the game will occur.

What about starting it a couple of weeks later and playing it in one block of 5 weeks - no gaps - finishing on the same date as now? That's not a lot different from the later stages of a World Cup where teams are playing weekly.
There probably are too many internationals - limit AI's to 3 games max. Limit summer tours (except Lions) to 3 games max.
There are too many club games also. Get rid of LV. Limit European cup to 16 teams - 2 X teams from each 6N country plus finalists from previous years Challenge cup and representative teams from countries finishing 1st and 2nd in 'B' 6 Nations league - probably Georgia and Romania or Russia. 4 groups - top of each to semis. 8 X games max. A proper 'European' cup in other words.
Get rid of league play-offs or limit it to a final only between top two teams.
Limit on the amount of club games any player can participate in to 24 - including sub appearances.

You could even limit the main Euro comp to 2 teams from each league to make ir fair
DD.

king_carlos wrote:I'm a fan of the idea a few are suggesting of having a break from rugby through most of December and January. It would allow the players some recovery time but vitally for the game in many parts of the country would also prevent the pitches from getting ruined when the weather is at it's worst.

- Start the season on the first weekend in September and play through to the first weekend in December - 14 weekends to play matches in.

- Have a complete break from rugby running from after that first weekend in December through to the middle of January - a 6 week break for the players to recover and vitally the pitches to recover rather than get destroyed

- Start the season up again in mid January and run through to the end of the season as currently seen

What would the effect of a six week break in the winter, coupled with a (?) 6 week break in the summer, have on training? There wouldn't really be a pre-season any more.

If the aim is to protect player welfare, then just limit how many hours players are allowed to play.

If you do want a break in December, you'll miss the "Big Match", which is one of the good things about the season, with 75,000 fans getting some mod winter cheer.

If the aim is to get more TV viewers for 6 Nations matches, award bonus points and play it on decent pitches.

Notch wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:So the most successful rugby tournament on the Planet should be changed because it doesn't suit the SH teams?

Not as far as I'm concerned, no. As far as I'm concerned the Six Nations should be changed so it is played in generally better weather and the SH demands and the negotiations over a global calendar are just a beautiful coincidence. This is something I argued for before any of that came about.

You can call the Six Nations the most successful rugby tournament on the Planet. But the quality of the rugby played across the board in the early stages is all too often simply not good enough, and it's only in the final few rounds as the weather improves and combinations begin to gel that it becomes really good to watch. So we need two things; 1) A different time slot and 2) Less club games so coaches can have a proper preparation window with their players, like a mini pre-season.

If SH pressure leads to the first of those happening I'll be delighted. The second is still a long, long way off.

Much is made about the weather, as thought one style of the game is preferable to another. Maybe the whole thing should just revert to League or glorified sevens with more tries, fewer stoppages, and played on a 4G pitch with the roof closed? Rugby used to pride itself as a game for all shapes and sizes and also suitable for (nearly) all conditions. Different weather conditions pose different challenges and the fact that the 6N currently has that variety is something to be celebrated rather than shunned. The character building element of the game - enduring sheeting rain with muck to the eyeballs, is just as important as the high tempo jinking easier on hard tracks. Rugby is a warrior sport and spectators like to see guys getting down and dirty with the occasional fracas thrown in for good measure. Where is the evidence to suggest that moving the 6N would make it a more rewarding experience?

I would contend that the quality of the rugby at the start of the 6N tournament has more to do with teams being rusty rather than the weather. The 6N has no problem getting crowds, sponsorship and TV coverage, so the quality on show isn't putting people off. If the weather is really having a negative effect on the appeal of rugby then it is those games that aren't currently drawing the crowds that need to move.

If the NH teams need to play more rugby in faster conditions to be competitive at the RWC then they should move the Autumn Internationals earlier to the start of October and play at exactly the right time of year.

The really big question here is whether there is enough money from tv revenue and the RFU's coffers to compensate the clubs for dropping games, and whether the tv companies will continue to pay enough if the fixtures are moved around.

To put it another way, the AP clubs are just edging towards profitability, so I imagine the regions/provinces/clubs in the Pro12 aren't in a dissimilar position. Reducing the number of games reduces the amount of revenue and might be enough to tip them back into the red if there's nothing to compensate. If that isn't tv and union cash, it's going to have to come from the fans... how much extra would you be prepared to pay?

This isn't going to be easy and there will be compromises along the way...

It would probably improve the NH's chances of competing with the SH if they played a slightly more direct game linked to warmer conditions. Its not to say that its always warm in the rugby season in the SH, but its rarely with frozen, glove wearing time nor a mud fest.
It develops different types of players and allows you to do things on a pitch you can't in cold and wet conditions.

Can't see how it will hurt the NH to be honest. Not like the results can get that much worse which I would say is worse than its ever been compared and this is going back 30 years +.

If I want to watch a mud wrestle I can go watch a local club. I want to see the NH teams catch up to the SH and if that means shifting the 6N to get the international sides playing more running rugby in decent weather then so be it.

It's not good for the game to have Aus/NZ/SA continue to dominate the sport.

mid_gen wrote:If I want to watch a mud wrestle I can go watch a local club. I want to see the NH teams catch up to the SH and if that means shifting the 6N to get the international sides playing more running rugby in decent weather then so be it.

Exactly. And about rustiness this is why I believe we need warm-up games for the Six Nations, or a longer training period, or both.

Frankly moving the Six Nations forward a month is far less radical than what I would like to see in terms of restructuring the calendar but at least it's a start!

No 7&1/2 wrote:You could even limit the main Euro comp to 2 teams from each league to make ir fair
DD.

That would be silly - you would only have a maximum representation from 4 countries that way. I thought the idea was to expand the game to more countries not contract it even more.

No it was to limit games, but again simple point sometimes missed is the main euro comp is between 3 leagues not the Pro 12 and a couple of other teams. 2 from each seems fair and no countries are involved.

7 1/2 - you keep on saying that even tho its not true and you have been told this over and over again. the euro cup is arranged between 6 unions

No 7&1/2 wrote:No it was to limit games, but again simple point sometimes missed is the main euro comp is between 3 leagues not the Pro 12 and a couple of other teams. 2 from each seems fair and no countries are involved.

The only fair system of merit that would also put so much pressure on teams - in all Leagues - to perform - is for the European Top competition to be decided on top 18 teams to come from best end of season results across all three Leagues - top points, most tries, most bonus points. Add them all up and top 18 are chosen.
That means that fans and teams alike would be forced to keep an eye on other leagues through the year and up their game if certain teams seemed to be pulling away. Of course Top14 would have to curtail their League to 12 to make the balance more fair.

That's less games for Top14 teams and shorter season. No Nation is guaranteed any auto places.

It's bloomin' perfect! I must ring Blatter and see if he wants to back me in my take-over bid.

3 leagues you mean tj. I was also told the new format is boring for too many same league games as well but that was also misleading.

Personally I won't mind seeing the second tier cup being done away with, and just enter every team in a home and away knock out comp (maybe stagger where teams enter based on League position)
not sure if it would create more or less games but it would be interesting.

I'd love to see a proper knock out cup league formats are favoured these days for the guarantee (almost) of the big games at the end.

mid_gen wrote:If I want to watch a mud wrestle I can go watch a local club. I want to see the NH teams catch up to the SH and if that means shifting the 6N to get the international sides playing more running rugby in decent weather then so be it.

It's not good for the game to have Aus/NZ/SA continue to dominate the sport.

How are the NH teams going to practice all this hard ground rugby when their players at clubs are having a mud wrestle - perhaps they should relax the residency rules to recruit more SH players? Where is the evidence that shifting the 6N will make one iota of difference to the gap between the NH and SH?

I agree that it's not good for a small number of teams to dominate the sport, but shifting the 6N to suit the SH calendar will help copper fasten that while knocking the NH season out of synch. There are far more pressing reasons than the timing of the 6N that should be addressed before throwing out a tournament that is in rude health and really doesn't need any tinkering.

The Great Aukster wrote:

mid_gen wrote:If I want to watch a mud wrestle I can go watch a local club. I want to see the NH teams catch up to the SH and if that means shifting the 6N to get the international sides playing more running rugby in decent weather then so be it.

It's not good for the game to have Aus/NZ/SA continue to dominate the sport.

How are the NH teams going to practice all this hard ground rugby when their players at clubs are having a mud wrestle - perhaps they should relax the residency rules to recruit more SH players? Where is the evidence that shifting the 6N will make one iota of difference to the gap between the NH and SH?

I agree that it's not good for a small number of teams to dominate the sport, but shifting the 6N to suit the SH calendar will help copper fasten that while knocking the NH season out of synch. There are far more pressing reasons than the timing of the 6N that should be addressed before throwing out a tournament that is in rude health and really doesn't need any tinkering.

Not playing in Dec-Jan would be a good start.

Is December/January actually the wettest months? I think in recent years, the wettest months tended to fall well after January. This might be a blip year in that sense - but I can remember heavy rains in this here period we're in right now.

The Great Aukster wrote:

mid_gen wrote:If I want to watch a mud wrestle I can go watch a local club. I want to see the NH teams catch up to the SH and if that means shifting the 6N to get the international sides playing more running rugby in decent weather then so be it.

It's not good for the game to have Aus/NZ/SA continue to dominate the sport.

How are the NH teams going to practice all this hard ground rugby when their players at clubs are having a mud wrestle - perhaps they should relax the residency rules to recruit more SH players? Where is the evidence that shifting the 6N will make one iota of difference to the gap between the NH and SH?

I agree that it's not good for a small number of teams to dominate the sport, but shifting the 6N to suit the SH calendar will help copper fasten that while knocking the NH season out of synch. There are far more pressing reasons than the timing of the 6N that should be addressed before throwing out a tournament that is in rude health and really doesn't need any tinkering.

Rude health? The last tournament was awful and I say that as an England fan. Moving the dates is just one thing, bonus points and relegation would be great but unlikely.

Apart from the 2003 blip from England, world rugby hasn't changed in two decades. NH still lack basic skills and play direct boring rugby with 'tense' kicking dominated test matches. Then every summer/autumn and WC they get their asses handed to them by SA NZ and Aus. I'm tired of it personally, something has to change to get our international teams to a level where they can make the WC a decent contest.

You a England fan mid?

Here's the crux of the problem:

Number of games for an English player assuming they win everything (might be out by a game or two):

Aviva 24
LV= 6
6 Nations 5
Autumn 4
Summer 3
Europe 8
Total 50

Number of weekends in a year 52.

Number of free weekends assuming no clashes: 2


Even if you take out the LV= cup you still only have 8 free weekends!

Arranging any season based on the current volume of fixtures is going to be madness.

screamingaddabs wrote:Here's the crux of the problem:

Number of games for an English player assuming they win everything (might be out by a game or two):

Aviva        24
LV=        6
6 Nations 5
Autumn 4
Summer 3
Europe 8
Total         50

Number of weekends in a year 52.

Number of free weekends assuming no clashes: 2


Even if you take out the LV= cup you still only have 8 free weekends!

Arranging any season based on the current volume of fixtures is going to be madness.

Yes.  There simply has to be Less - not more - rugby - period.  And let the crowing club/regional/Provincial owners and big business interests (broadcasting and sponsors) moan all they like.  
Rugby simply can't mimic football - and I genuinely think most rugby fans realise this and accept it.  It's a much more brutal sport, the energy levels required to compete at top level mean the efforts needed to keep fit for the following week's game don't bare comparison to football.

Ever more greedy 'interested parties' need to be firmly told to get back in their box and accept the limitations that the game presents by it's very nature as a highly attritional sport.

Notch wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Bill said there needs to be compromise. What are the SH compromising on? The only suggestions I've seen involve the NH moving the 6N & the summer Internationals to suit the SH.

To put it another way; why shouldn't we do it?

The only drawback is arguably TV rights- I don't see April/early May being a big change in terms of value. We get the Six Nations on drier, harder pitches. We get the climax of the club season moved into late spring/early summer which means more of the season played in better weather.

If there was no suggestion that the SH need this change, it's still a good idea for the NH.

Because we CAN'T?
I would of thought that was a good enough reason.  The RFU and WRU did a feasibility study a few years ago and were told NO by nearly all the clubs.  The major issue being that many rugby clubs play on council owned grounds and the councils won't allow them to play on the grounds unless it's between September and April.  I remember a few years ago Kenfig Hill were not allowed to play a pre-season warm up game on the last week of August at home because of this.  Many rugby clubs have to share their grounds with other sports teams such as cricket.   That's THE reason why after many years we still haven't moved our season.  Summer rugby is a fantastic theory, but even asking the players who actually participate in the game have said it would massively effect the game as many have other things to do on the weekends in the summer, it would hugely effect participation rates.  Summer rugby isn't really an option for the NH.

As for the 6 Nations? I would enjoy seeing it move to the end of the season, and not split the club season up. The international players could do the 6 Nations, then go on tour.

screamingaddabs wrote:Here's the crux of the problem:

Number of games for an English player assuming they win everything (might be out by a game or two):

Aviva        24
LV=        6
6 Nations 5
Autumn 4
Summer 3
Europe 8
Total         50

Number of weekends in a year 52.

Number of free weekends assuming no clashes: 2


Even if you take out the LV= cup you still only have 8 free weekends!

Arranging any season based on the current volume of fixtures is going to be madness.

That's a bit of an overstatement as the LV= is explicitly designed to give non-internationals game time while the AIs and 6Ns are on, so we can't double count, and there are usually a couple of league games during the 6N - but the point is still correct that an International player has a very heavy workload and it needs to reduce.

That's one reason why I lean towards a dual contract situation that would give the unions control over the international squad for extended periods but would give the clubs enough money to hire a decent player to cover.

SH need us more than we need them from a finance side of things. Surely that swings some arguments in our favour ?

Poorfour, I prefer the system we have now. Effectively the same as dual contracts but it changes every year. Otherwise you would be tied into a player for 2-4 years when they may be replaced by a newcomer or just lose form.

HammerofThunor wrote:Poorfour, I prefer the system we have now.  Effectively the same as dual contracts but it changes every year.  Otherwise you would be tied into a player for 2-4 years when they may be replaced by a newcomer or just lose form.

I'm not talking about 2-4 year RFU contracts; the EPS would be selected the same way it is today and probably contracted annually, but the player and club compensation would be enough to allow the RFU to have significantly more control over when the EPS player would play.

I think we need to reduce the number of games for all players to be honest, not just internationals. An upper-middling club player could be good enough to play almost every game of the club season, which is still a lot of rugby.

We need some scientific studies to work out exactly how many games is reasonable. I would estimate that the number of games a player should play should really be 25 or fewer, but that's just a guess. That would hopefully mean fewer injuries and so full strength teams more often, and fewer players retiring in their twenties.

The only way I can think of doing that is some sort of conference system for the premiership to reduce the games there.