World League Proposal to shake up the Rugby calendar

First topic message reminder :

I was surprised that there wasn't a thread on this already. I'd like to hear people's thoughts on the subject so I'm posting this one. If there's already a thread on the subject that I missed then mods, please delete or merge this one.

This week there are meetings in LA between union heads to discuss plans to host an annual world competition in international rugby. According to different sources either the 6 nations will act as a pool stage for the knock out rounds or there will be three pools of three nations followed by a semi final and final. The motivation behind this is to bring in more income for struggling SH unions. It is the idea of Pichot and inspired by the nations cup in soccer in Europe which effectively got rid of soccer friendlies and instead provided plenty of matches but all leading to a title.

Here is one recent article about this:
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/sport/2019/01/all-blacks-new-world-rugby-league-to-be-proposed.html

Since this competition would naturally involve more matches for the semi finalists and finalists at least it is going to increase the amount of matches international players compete in which brings up concerns for player welfare and clubs resistance. As is mentioned in the article it would turn the world cup into nothing special. Taking the 6 nations from free to air is I think a terrible idea as it's incredibly popular with people who are not really rugby fans, but tune in to it because it's an event and growing up with it builds up an emotional connection with people that would be lost. Since away fans would probably have vast distances to travel the atmosphere at the semis and final could be a bit flat.

However if rugby is in trouble in the SH then something must change to help them. Personally I think the unpredictability of the 6 nations make it exciting, and the predictability of the rugby championship is it's main problem. A world league might turn out to be just as predictable. So solving little. But maybe I'm wrong here and people in Australia for example will get really excited about this and attendances will increase? How do you think the internationals should be changed to increase it's popularity down south and make more money?

Poorfour wrote:The rugby world divides into roughly four parts:
1- The 6 Nations - got money.

Do all the Six Nations have money though?

How many are subsidized by others?

None receive direct payments to the others bar the compensation deals for the younger players if there is a swap of allegiance. Obviously if say Italy weren't in the 6 nations they'd receive far less money as they'd be in a lower standard comp with less sponsorship etc that goes with it.

All the 6 Nations are self funding. I think Argentina are the only T1 nation who get WR help which was to fund the Jags. Lions helped out Australia and New Zealand (though their new TV deal might have fixed that).

Russia is self funding also. Canada is in trouble while the USA union has been having issues mainly because the area is so big and the heartlands are spread out around the country.

...And New Zealand demand payment before they will play the 6N teams in the NH.

Poorfour wrote:The rugby world divides into roughly four parts:
1- The 6 Nations - got money
2- The RC - got talent and brand, need money
3- The wealthy Tier 2 unions (Japan [for now], USA, Canada etc) - got potential to be big money, need games with the top tier
4- The poorer Tier 2 unions (Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Georgia) - perpetually need money, need games with the top tier.

The situation is worse than that:
1 - The Six Nations money comes mainly from the TV audiences of just two countries.
2 - Only two of the RC teams are top quality in playing terms. World Rugby rankings would put Australia in fifth place if they were included in the 6N and Argentina would be 6th above only Italy.
3 - I do not believe that USA have potential to be a big money country. The long established American sports seem pretty safe from competition to me. Even soccer has never really made much impact especially the men's game (if soccer can be ever be considered a man's game!)
4 - Agreed

The reality is that much of the money comes from two countries and even in those countries rugby finances are pretty perilous. Pretty much all the top players in the world play in just four professional competitions.

A scheme to grow the game worldwide by diverting funds and fixtures to deserving areas is more likely to just kill it off financially in the strongest countries.

We are still waiting to hear of the RC going to 6 teams as they were so eager to do just last year when the world league was being discussed. They aren't going to because the RC wants the 6 Nations which is why they only play them at home and away as they have been for years.

The 6Ns on the other hand have invited Japan and Fiji because that is what they do, they play nearly everyone who takes part in WCs.

Currently there are 4 regular international competitions with the 4th by far the weakest.  They are the 6N, RC and B6N.  The 4th is the American 6N which has to biggest gap between teams and some not taking it seriously.  Argentina have been the strongest team though it is a B/C team.  The Pacific Cup has been a joke as they don't play at full strenght nor do the teams all play each other.

Europe is the only region with a strong regional structure that allows teams to move up and down.  While people may claim that the 6 Nations has a glass ceiling both France and Italy went up once strong enough.

Georgia for all their huff have failed to beat italy and the closest they have come to beating a 6N side was Ireland in the 2007 WC.  Italy on the other hand had beaten all but England in the 90s as well as having decent results in the WCs up until 1999 backing up the idea that if Italy had been added at the start of professionalism to the 6N they might not have been constantly 5 years behind the Celtic Nations.

If the RC were serious about countering the 6Ns they would be building up their alliances rather than ripping them part.

Fiji seems to be firmly aligned with the 6N and the AI invite is just another example of the friendship.  Japan with their SR experince and their regular games against 6Ns home and away may move them over into their sphere too.  Their professional league also puts their interest more in line with the French and English rather than the NZRU/RA and when SANZAAR talk about the player drain they firmly consider Japan as part of the problem.

Following on from the current Cold War going on in SANZAAR you can't see Argentina being to happy with it.  Their players are all heading North because NZ want to do their own thing and who cares about agreements or the sacrifices Argentina had to make to form the Jags and get their best players back home.

I can't understand why SANZAAR aren't knocking down WR's door to help fund T2 competitions to feed into the RC.  Until they do that they can't compete politically with Europe who have the money and teams to give them regular test. The 6N can offer any T2 side 5/6 tests a year with Summer and AI games because they have to extra teams, RC can't (won't).

Samoa and Tonga are starting to have more players based in Europe and with Fiji being seduced it will have a knock on effect on them.  The USA and Canada get regular games against the 6Ns and also have massive ties to the 6N unions.

In the presidential vote it was a shootout between the 6Ns and RC
3 vote Unions was 6 v 4 for the 6Ns
2 vote Unions Japan voted for 6Ns
1 vote Unions was 4 v 3 for RC, the interesting thing was Georgia and Rominia sided with the RC while Fiji and Samoa sided with 6N
Regions was 3.5 v 2.5 to RC

There are six teams in Europe that are tier one, only four in the SH, how do you propose they establish more available slots?

There are more test matches available in Europe in the Autumn, at least 6x3, whereas in June 4x3

That is an extra 6 international fixtures available in the north. Easy to accommodate Fiji etc, otherwise there will be weekends where the tier one nations in Europe won’t have fixtures.

Seems to me your opinion is biased, knocking the SH tier one nations is easy when you don’t consider all the facts.

Old Man wrote:There are six teams in Europe that are tier one, only four in the SH, how do you propose they establish more available slots?

There are more test matches available in Europe in the Autumn, at least 6x3, whereas in June 4x3

That is an extra 6 international fixtures available in the north. Easy to accommodate Fiji etc, otherwise there will be weekends where the tier one nations in Europe won’t have fixtures.

Seems to me your opinion is biased, knocking the SH tier one nations is easy when you don’t consider all the facts.

Plan under the World League (WL) was to bring the RC up to 6 teams.  If the WL had been approved then probably Fiji and Japan would have been playing in the RC this year (if it happens).  The RC could have gone with 6 teams but have refused to do it implying it can only happen under a WL.

With Argentina's players heading back North it means that the work to get their players aligned with the other RC countries has all now been undone.

The RC can do what they want but if they don't build their support and mend broken bridges they will lose the countries that should be aligned with them.  Fiji is probably lost and seems like Samoa and Tonga are going too.  Japan seems to be the next on the list for being aligned to the 6Ns.  With Fiji, Samoa and Japan in the 6N sphere then the 6N would have 23 of the 51 votes.  Add in that due to 7s the 6N also controls the Europe Region vote which leaves them one vote away from control.

I haven't seen or heard anything to show that SANZAAR have learned anything from the last election. It could be argued that Pinochet got the North Amercian vote due to him organising and driving the American 6 Nations. When was the last time the USA played a test match against a RC nation which wasn't the WC warm ups or at the WC..

My point on the 6 teams is that the 6 Nations can offer 4 T2 unions 3 tests a year for their vote.  The RC has done nothing to imply that they would play a T2 nation without being paid lots of money.  A half eaten sandwitch is better than none when you are hungry.

World League is still on with Beaumont though. Its about sharing the opportunities not blocking them off.

To be honest I'm looking forward to this whether it's a stop-gap solution or whether it's looking to progress the international calendar. We've always said rugby needs a shake-up. Look at how much Argentina have benefitted from being allowed in (and subsequently dropped but hey ho).

It's just a shame how geographically distant Japan and Fiji are. If they do end up joining the 6Ns we would probably have to have a hosting nation each year, which is akin to a world tournament anyway much like the one proposed, which in my opinion would risk diluting the significance of the world cup further.

I can empathise with SANZAAR to an extent because they really are limited by Geography. It'd be like saying we should have the USA/Argentina in the 6Ns because we're only a 7/8 hour flight away and border the same ocean...

Anyway, it'll be great to see Fiji get a run out under VC, I'm sure they can shake things up again. Japan are always a pleasure to watch.

Brendan wrote:

Old Man wrote:There are six teams in Europe that are tier one, only four in the SH, how do you propose they establish more available slots?

There are more test matches available in Europe in the Autumn, at least 6x3, whereas in June 4x3

That is an extra 6 international fixtures available in the north. Easy to accommodate Fiji etc, otherwise there will be weekends where the tier one nations in Europe won’t have fixtures.

Seems to me your opinion is biased, knocking the SH tier one nations is easy when you don’t consider all the facts.

Plan under the World League (WL) was to bring the RC up to 6 teams.  If the WL had been approved then probably Fiji and Japan would have been playing in the RC this year (if it happens).  The RC could have gone with 6 teams but have refused to do it implying it can only happen under a WL.

With Argentina's players heading back North it means that the work to get their players aligned with the other RC countries has all now been undone.

The RC can do what they want but if they don't build their support and mend broken bridges they will lose the countries that should be aligned with them.  Fiji is probably lost and seems like Samoa and Tonga are going too.  Japan seems to be the next on the list for being aligned to the 6Ns.  With Fiji, Samoa and Japan in the 6N sphere then the 6N would have 23 of the 51 votes.  Add in that due to 7s the 6N also controls the Europe Region vote which leaves them one vote away from control.

I haven't seen or heard anything to show that SANZAAR have learned anything from the last election.  It could be argued that Pinochet got the North Amercian vote due to him organising and driving the American 6 Nations.  When was the last time the USA played a test match against a RC nation which wasn't the WC warm ups or at the WC..

My point on the 6 teams is that the 6 Nations can offer 4 T2 unions 3 tests a year for their vote.  The RC has done nothing to imply that they would play a T2 nation without being paid lots of money.  A half eaten sandwitch is better than none when you are hungry.

You are talking about future potential, current situation is different. NZ is attempting a pacifica team for next year if travel is allowed, South Africa was the ones getting Argentina to Super Rugby and the driving force to get them to RC, ask around, the relationship between SARU and rugby Argentina is very strong. Have always been.

Australia has had the Fijian Drua in their domestic comp for a few years now, Drua even won the tournament a few years ago.

Summising that SA, OZ and NZ have done nothing is simply untrue. We don’t even know whether there will be an RC this year, so your judgment is premature

Worth remembering that finances are firmly in favour of the home team as well. If unions are adamant that that's the right thing to do then realistically there needs to be far more tours to fiji rather than the odd AI game.

The two 6 Nations that don't tour the 4 RC countries usually Italy and another tour the T2.  Normally one goes West to the USA and Canada while the other goes East to Japan and the PIs.  The PIs also have the Pacific cup so not always available.

So we continue to wait for england et al to do a proper tour of fiji etc. As I said good that they have the games this year but it doesnt really start to answer properly a proper spread of games and money.

I will wait and see if a Pacific SR team gets off the ground.  While in theory it's good I'm not sure it would even be as strong as the Force or Rebels.  If it is stacked with PI qualified players and is based in Aukland and run by ex-ABs then that is a completely different story and will just be a 6th NZ team pretending to be a PI team.

The Dura where included in the Australian league with the funding of WR and due to RA needing more teams.  I hope that the RA solution is to include the PIs and I know Twiggy had teams from Fiji and Samoa in his Rapid Rugby.

SA off their own back have include teams from neighbouring unions and that Argentina has helped out with the SALR and 6N America.  They understand that building up their neighbours helps them.

But when it comes to internationals which is the money driver of international rugby the 4 RC nations don't play T2 sides in full tests except before WCs.

SA sent a presidents team to Georgia back in the 2000s along with Ireland at a WR tournament.

Until the RC go up to 6 teams on their own I don't think the 6N has any obligation to discuss terms of any World League.

Just for the record I would like to see WR bring in a fee system for hosting teams.  Something like
T2 v T2 €X
T2 v T1 €1.5x
T1 v T2 €2x
T1 v T1 €2.5x
T2 v T3 €0.5x

This though won't happen as NZRU would have to get the same rate as everyone else.  The current system where who you play determines what you pay means that the B6Ns get no T1 games (except Georgia).  USA gets lots of games against T1 compared to Uraguary even though simillar standard.

WR seem happy to fund non-European rugby but not all rugby.  WR have done nothing to support the league Russia is backing nor the Spainish league.  Russia and not WR are help the Asians run more meaningful regional games.

Of the Top 20 teams it's Uruguay and the Europeans who WR couldn't care about setting up T1 games for. I can see Georgia starting to get more games against 6N sides but I can't say the same for other T2 side with the RC teams.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So we continue to wait for england et al to do a proper tour of fiji etc. As I said good that they have the games this year but it doesnt really start to answer properly a proper spread of games and money.

England were going to Japan, Scotland, Italy and I think Wales have all played there recently. Just seems that the 6Ns are meant to play all the T2 teams home and away while the RC don't have the same standard held to them.

There should be a fair spread on all teams touring. Pretending the nh have a good record of touring doesnt help the discussion.

Last WC cycle
Ireland
2016 Canada (H)
2017 USA (A), Japan (Ax2), Fiji (H)
2018 USA (H)

Scotland
2016 Japan (Ax2) Georgia (H)
2017 Fiji (A) Samoa (H)
2018 USA (A) Canada (A) Fiji (H)

Wales
2016 Japan (H)
2017 Tonga (a) Samoa (a) Georgia (h)
2018 Tonga (h)

England
2016 Fiji (h)
2017 Samoa (h)
2018 Japan (h)

France
2016 Samoa (h)
2017 Japan (h)
2018 Fiji (h)

Italy
2016 USA (a) Canada (a) Tonga (h)
2017 Fiji (a) Fiji (h)
2018 Japan (a x2) Georgia (h)

Total by 6N 33 or 11 per year
Fiji 7 (2 in Fiji)
Japan 9 (6 in Japan)
Other 17 (7 in T2)

NZ
2016 - None
2017 - Samoa (h)
2018 - Japan (a)

Oz
2016 - None
2017 - Fiji (h), Japan (a)
2018 - None

SA
2016 - None
2017 - None
2018 - None

Argentina
2016 - None
2017 - Georgia (h)
2018 - None

RC total 5 2 per year
Japan 2 (in Japan)
Fiji 1
Other 2

Lions years are great for T2 it appears

Wow. Every 4 years when theres.nonone else to play england tour Argentina. Wow. Brilliant. When was the last tour by england to fiji or samoa. When was Irelands last tour? There you have the need for a world league as left to their own devices the nh aren doing squat.

SA played a warm up match vs Japan in 2019

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wow. Every 4 years when theres.nonone else to play england tour Argentina. Wow. Brilliant. When was the last tour by england to fiji or samoa. When was Irelands last tour? There you have the need for a world league as left to their own devices the nh aren doing squat.

Did you even look at the list.  England and France while only playing 3 games against T2 nations still played more games than any SH team.  Ireland toured Japan in 2017 aswell as a game against the USA.  People go on about games in the PIs by T1 nations. Fiji had 2, Samoa and Tonga 1 each all by the NH.

I'm not sure if you are trying to wum me because any World League over the last WC cycle would have resulted in 5 T2 countries not getting T1 team games they got.  These would be USA, Canada, Georgia, Samoa & Tonga. It would have been 17 less games and 7 less in these T2 nations.

Also under the WL the last WC cycle would of seen Japan having 1.5 less games against 6N teams and 2 less at home.  Fiji would of had 0.5 games more and 2 more at home.
So under the WL the 6N would have played 18 less games against T2 sides or 6 per year. These missing games would then be played against T1 sides.

On the other hand the RC would have played the RC nations 6 games less for each year (18 over 3 years) and have to play Fiji and Japan 11 and 10 more times respectively between them over the 3 years.  Samoa & Georgia would not have had their 1 game each.
Under the WL the RC would have to play 19 more times against T2 teams (Fiji & Japan) While playing 18 games less among themselves.

So to be clear a world league would see Fiji get 0.5 games more over 3 years while Japan and all other T2 nations would have lost out when it comes to games against 6N teams. The RC would have to trade games among themselves for games against Japan and Fiji.

All the T2 in division 2 (Everyone except Fiji & Japan) would lose out on 17 6N games plus the games that Japan and Fiji play against them which could be as high as 30 games over the 3 years.

So tell me again how the 6N are the problem.  Even their worse Unions of England and France are better than any of the RC teams

Old Man wrote:SA played a warm up match vs Japan in 2019

I didn't include 2019 as under the WL format it would be the 3 years between WCs. The warm ups would still happen which usually results in the 4 RC teams playing 1 T2 nation as part of the warm up.

Yeah I looked at the list. The NH teams are a problem. They don't want to share money from home games and dont visit smaller nations enough for this to be a balanced way forward.despite the choice of japan coming here this year over a Georgia it's the starting point of the way things should go. Theres no need for england to be playing australia every year we need to be properly touring places to share the wealth. And we need a better way at sharing home gates.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I looked at the list. The NH teams are a problem. They don't want to share money from home games and dont visit smaller nations enough for this to be a balanced way forward.despite the choice of japan coming here this year over a Georgia it's the starting point of the way things should go. Theres no need for england to be playing australia every year we need to be properly touring places to share the wealth. And we need a better way at sharing home gates.

Sharing money from home games is unenforceable. If sharing gates why not TV and costs.
Do visiting teams get a portion of season/series ticket seat income. The 6N countries have the highest costs of maintain their stadia can these be shared out too.

Other than England and France the other 6N unions get around the same as the the RC why should they give money over when they only make the same income.

If you single out England and France because they are bigger countries and only have them share, then it isn't fair either.

Unless WR want to take the entire funds off every union and then redistribute it back fairly to the unions they can but expect the SRU/FIR to see an increase while NZRU see a decrease. Also WR would probably lose controll aswell.

In my above post I did make an error.

Japan and Fiji would play 18 times each against the 6Ns and 12 times each against the RC
6N would have to play Japan 9 times more and Fiji 11 times more. So all the games currently being played against T2 would have to be against these two nations.

Good idea I agree tv rights should be shared. That along with a better distribution of games should be WR s aim.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good idea I agree tv rights should be shared. That along with a better distribution of games should be WR s aim.

Look forward for the IRFU to share in the big NZRU deal so.

WR isn't fit for purpose but very few governing bodies are.

They did miss a trick not getting Pichot. Maybe Beaumont will have a fruitful second term.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They did miss a trick not getting Pichot. Maybe Beaumont will have a fruitful second term.

Pinochet made promises he knew he couldn't deliver but would be able to be blamed on someone else. He blamed the African union for his loss but he still would have lost by 1.

The 6N and RC are closed shops that will only open if and when the competitions choose.

WR needs to focus on things they can fix.

U20s tournament
With only 12 teams in the top tier only two non T1 nations can get in. Georgia is also firmly there leaving the yoyo team be the be the other T2. (This year did see Scotland fall out but think they will be back and Fiji/Japan will yoyo). Second tier is demoted team, host and 6 regional champions. This means only one of Samoa or Tonga can get in same with USA/Canada while only one of Spain/Portugal/Romania/Russia can get in.
U20s needs to be 16 teams for top division and 12 for second division. WR can do this and all the T2s will get meanful games at underage.

WR can help organise a proper T2 regional competition for Nambia, Japan, Hong Kong and the PIs. Currently their tournaments do not provide the standard needed.

WR with the backing of the RC can change the voting system to where each team in the 3 regional T2 leagues get a vote for WR. T2 teams would then have a decent block to give their voice. 6Ns only hold 18 votes so easily achievable.

Instead WR only want to focus on T1 finances which they can't control. And persist under both candidates to ringfence T1 and remove tests from all but 2 T2 teams going forward.

WR could do alot they just choose not to and Pichot would have made little difference including saving the Jags

WR won’t change the voting system, giving more weight to votes outside the tier one nations means they will lose control of the votes and thus revenue.

Well theres a another thing that is wrong. The massive weighting to traditional teams as well. Yiu never know beamont may well do some good this time around.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I looked at the list. The NH teams are a problem. They don't want to share money from home games and dont visit smaller nations enough for this to be a balanced way forward.despite the choice of japan coming here this year over a Georgia it's the starting point of the way things should go. Theres no need for england to be playing australia every year we need to be properly touring places to share the wealth. And we need a better way at sharing home gates.

The NH should give their wealth to other rugby nations so those rugby nations can beat the NH nations. Makes sense.

Maybe the answer is a "fixed fee" for visiting teams:
As a T1 host team, when you host a T1 team (assuming crowds are back) the visitors get £500,000 per game and their costs in the host country paid, a T2 team (to allow for smaller gates/lower ticket prices) gets £250,000 and costs.
A T2 host team, when you host a T1 team, visitors get a third of the gate and no costs, T2 visiting teams get a third of the gate plus costs.
So for example New Zealand would make £2.5 million from a five test tour of the NH and Scotland would get £1.5 million for a three test summer tour of Australia.

profitius wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I looked at the list. The NH teams are a problem. They don't want to share money from home games and dont visit smaller nations enough for this to be a balanced way forward.despite the choice of japan coming here this year over a Georgia it's the starting point of the way things should go. Theres no need for england to be playing australia every year we need to be properly touring places to share the wealth. And we need a better way at sharing home gates.

The NH should give their wealth to other rugby nations so those rugby nations can beat the NH nations. Makes sense.

Well to be fair they are beating them now, so doubt money is going to make a difference.

As for the money, I think a fair fee such as what LI is suggesting is an equitable solution. Although if you play three matches away in Europe and three at home, it really is just shuffling money around, as nobody really gain anything.

I'm pretty sure visiting teams alread get some form of fee.

You can't go down the route of share gates or the T2 teams themselves wouldnt want home games.

If England visit Fiji then the ticket revenue compared to what Fiji would get if they visit England would be tiny!

It still comes down to team agreeing to accept games (home and away) with the T2 nations. Scotland leads the way with this but we're arguably closer to a T2 team than a T1 team. We've visited Fiji, Samoa and Georgia recently and also hosted them. Its about time the "bigger" teams like the world Champs and NZ did thier bit and visited and hosted these nations

In 2013 SA invited Scotland, Italy and Samoa for a mini tournament, where everyone played everyone, at the time I thought that was a great idea, still do.

However we haven’t done it since.

tigertattie wrote:I'm pretty sure visiting teams alread get some form of fee.

You can't go down the route of share gates or the T2 teams themselves wouldnt want home games.

If England visit Fiji then the ticket revenue compared to what Fiji would get if they visit England would be tiny!

It still comes down to team agreeing to accept games (home and away) with the T2 nations. Scotland leads the way with this but we're arguably closer to a T2 team than a T1 team. We've visited Fiji, Samoa and Georgia recently and also hosted them. Its about time the "bigger" teams like the world Champs and NZ did thier bit and visited and hosted these nations

As per my previous post the years 16-18 The number of T2 teams played by nations is as follows
(Number of extra games the union would play against  T2 - Fiji & Japan that the union would have to play)
South Africa 0 (6)
Argentina 1 (5)
Australia 2 (4)
New Zealand 2 (4)
England 3 (3)
France 3 (3)
Wales 5 (1)
Ireland 6 (0)
Italy 8 (-2)
Scotland 8 (-2)

Under a WL Japan and Fiji would get added to T1 and no other T2 nations would get T1 games.  Scotland and Italy would get bigger games to increase their income NZ, Oz and SA would see small attendances and so smaller income.  It is debatable if England would lose anything as their fans love seeing England.

The RC would have to give up home games against each other for games against Japan, Fiji and Italy.  Not sure how that would  help the RC finances.

Old Man wrote:In 2013 SA invited Scotland, Italy and Samoa for a mini tournament, where everyone played everyone, at the time I thought that was a great idea, still do.

However we haven’t done it since.

Thats exactly the kind of thing thats needed.

Most of the 6Ns sides welcome touring teams in the autumn where we see Japan, Samoa, Fiji, etc coming over and they tend to play at least two games against the 6Ns sides. Unfortuantely the trend is moving more and more to seeing Wales, Ireland and England playing more than one test against SA, Oz or NZ and only plying one against the T2 sides.

NZ though are more and more only coming over and playing France or England. I think you may need to go back to that 2013 tournament Bilt to see SA playing a game against a T2 side out of the world cup (or pre WC warm up). Seven years without a game against T2 sides is shameful! You then need to go back to 2007 where SA played Samoa and Nambia and even they were world cup warm ups.

Yeah, can’t give you an answer on that

Profitus, nh at the very least should be touring appropriately so that wealth is shared yes.

Noting the challenges above at Fiji not having the size of stadia to benefit fully, if there were a 2 or 3 match tour 1 at their actual home and then potentially the use of another stadium but the home funds going to them could be put on the table.

Old Man wrote:In 2013 SA invited Scotland, Italy and Samoa for a mini tournament, where everyone played everyone, at the time I thought that was a great idea, still do.

However we haven’t done it since.

It was a great tournament. Would be good to see that again. 2013 was a Lions year (Australia) so might SA and other nations do similar in a Lions year? In 2021 Aus, NZ, Arg should be encouraged to do similar and invite japan, the islanders, maybe Georgia.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Old Man wrote:In 2013 SA invited Scotland, Italy and Samoa for a mini tournament, where everyone played everyone, at the time I thought that was a great idea, still do.

However we haven’t done it since.

It was a great tournament. Would be good to see that again. 2013 was a Lions year (Australia) so might SA and other nations do similar in a Lions year? In 2021 Aus, NZ, Arg should be encouraged to do similar and invite japan, the islanders, maybe Georgia.

I would love to see that.

Would it help if there were less tours between the T1s - SA, NZ and Australia don't all need to come up every year and play everyone - would it be better to have just one or two come up and free up space for another T2 side - priced sensibly Wales V Japan would sell out like Wales V NZ does - maybe you could do a link where if you attend the T2 game you get to queue jump for the T1 tickets ?

Would it help if there were less tours between the T1s - SA, NZ and Australia don't all need to come up every year and play everyone - would it be better to have just one or two come up and free up space for another T2 side - priced sensibly Wales V Japan would sell out like Wales V NZ does - maybe you could do a link where if you attend the T2 game you get to queue jump for the T1 tickets ?

If you think about it logically, there should not be an issue in the Autumn window.

Six teams in the Six nations, x three weekends = 18 matches.
Four teams in the RC, x three weekends =12 matches.

Thus leaving 6 matches available for tier two.

The question is June?

How do you accommodate the reverse?


you could make one match available per RC team tier two, then the Nh only does a two test series.

The alternative is Japan gets tier one status which add another team to the RC. Thus additional three tests available in June

Irish Londoner wrote:Maybe the answer is a "fixed fee" for visiting teams:
As a T1 host team, when you host a T1 team (assuming crowds are back) the visitors get £500,000 per game and their costs in the host country paid, a T2 team (to allow for smaller gates/lower ticket prices) gets £250,000 and costs.
A T2 host team, when you host a T1 team, visitors get a third of the gate and no costs, T2 visiting teams get a third of the gate plus costs.
So for example New Zealand would make £2.5 million from a five test tour of the NH and Scotland would get £1.5 million for a three test summer tour of Australia.

I cannot see how this solution would satisfy the Tier 1 SH teams. Assuming NZ say host five matches against NH teams in a year and Play five away they will pay £2.5m and receive the same amount which is a somewhat pointless exercise. What is needed is a solution which:

1. Gives the SH some share of the larger earnings from the NH games
   
2. Gives the NH a benefit from their investment in stadiums and does not give the SH half of that benefit.
   
   

Wouldn't really tick the box for the Tier 2 as above the vast majority of home games profit goes to the home side. Needs a better touring schedule. they really do have a great chance to capitalise on a rubbish covid situation by pressing the rest switch.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/30/seven-week-test-window-likely-to-persist-world-rugbys-new-plan

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/30/seven-week-test-window-likely-to-persist-world-rugbys-new-plan

If they go with a 7 week window will it be the summer and AI combined. If so it's a bad idea.
It would mean fly out on the Monday from NH to SH, play three games, fly back after the last game to come back to the NH. Not good for players or fans.

The plus side would be you could still watch league games in the evenings of the SH stint.