Club vs Country? NH vs SH? Seismic change?

First topic message reminder :

Big meeting in the next 24 hours

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48348250

Personally, i hope this initiative never gets off the ground.

Grassroots support and participation are the genesis of quality rugby players. Australia are lacking so should the rest of the world bail them out financially so they can recruit from Aus League? Hell no IMO.

Taylorman wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Have the Saders said they won’t release Reece? He should have plenty of time to join them in any case as they wrap up soon. I thought he was trying for the ABs?

Why would the saders say that they won't release him? That would look incredibly bad on the club. He is trying for the ABs because his move to Europe fell through and this is a way of securing his rugby future. There's very little job security for foreign players in the SH.

Because thats what LTs article link inferred. Havent heard anything about Reece indicating he wanted to play for Fiji, though havent followed it closely.

Who doesn't want to represent their country?

Perhaps ask the plethora of players that go north every year, either to prematurely end their test careers or before they start. You can probably find one by just walking down the street, there’s that many.

I'm sure they would love to represent their nations but choose financial and job security, just like Reece.

Do rugby players down South really get paid so little that they can all moan about financial and job security?

I'll bet that they get paid decently enough in terms of other careers down there. I mean would they really be classed as poor or skint?

Of course many people always want more money if they can get it but that's a different topic.

I just think this concept of financial and job 'security' is a little overdone when talking of the divide between north and south.

Around £30k salary for a non-test Super Rugby player in NZ, I think I read. That’s very low.

ebop wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

ebop wrote:French clubs are cancer

“Steve Jackson, who'll coach Samoa at the World Cup, says he's already had players at French clubs tell him they've had to make themselves unavailable.”

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/113489285/samoa-tonga-players-pressured-by-french-clubs-to-miss-rugby-world-cup

They really are in an awful situation, with SH clubs pressuring players to not play for their national teams for fear of terminating their contracts and French clubs not releasing players, it's amazing how well the PIs still do. It would be nice to see world rugby take action and punish clubs.

Yeah, those NH clubs are a disgrace, not just France. Did you ever produce a source that says SH clubs are pressuring players to not play in the RWC? Still waiting.....tick tock

Don't tar everyone with the same brush - Irish teams do not block NIQ players from playing for other countries

Ulster have 1 NIQ on the books this year and he has been told is selected he goes with the clubs blessing

geoff999rugby wrote:

ebop wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

ebop wrote:French clubs are cancer

“Steve Jackson, who'll coach Samoa at the World Cup, says he's already had players at French clubs tell him they've had to make themselves unavailable.”

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/113489285/samoa-tonga-players-pressured-by-french-clubs-to-miss-rugby-world-cup

They really are in an awful situation, with SH clubs pressuring players to not play for their national teams for fear of terminating their contracts and French clubs not releasing players, it's amazing how well the PIs still do. It would be nice to see world rugby take action and punish clubs.

Yeah, those NH clubs are a disgrace, not just France. Did you ever produce a source that says SH clubs are pressuring players to not play in the RWC? Still waiting.....tick tock

Don't tar everyone with the same brush - Irish teams do not block NIQ players from playing for other countries

Ulster have 1 NIQ on the books this year and he has been told is selected he goes with the clubs blessing

I think he was referring to Fiji/Tonga/Samoa players. Of which, as the Tier 2 countries fans complain, there are 0 in Ireland.

There are only Fiji 6, Ton 3, Sam 2 across the whole of the PRO14. Vast majority are in France - 68, 22, 19 and less in England - 16, 12, 11.

Huge numbers though from such a small population base, PIs easily the best rugby players on a per capital basis.

A total of less than 1.5 million has 100 pros in europe, many more in japan, and more again either born or of ethnic origin in NZ and oz.

Tis a massive pity not every single player will not be available at the worlds biggest stage, the greed of the clubs, all clubs, accounting for that as well.

Even if such players were in Ireland they would be allowed to go to the WC.
It has always been the case of the Irish provinces not blocking their NIE's international careers

geoff999rugby wrote:Even if such players were in Ireland they would be allowed to go to the WC.
It has always been the case of the Irish provinces not blocking their NIE's international careers

Probably a part of that is the very system that operates in Ireland... Union control, not private ownership.

World Rugby have abandoned plans for the World League after they failed to get unanimous approval from the 10 6Ns/4Ns countries.

FFS...World Rugby was trying to do a deal with Sepp Blatter's nephew...

"World Rugby was hoping to counter via a “game-changing” deal with Infront, the Swiss-based marketing agency backed by the Hong Kong-based parent company Wanda Sports and run by Philippe Blatter, nephew of the former Fifa president Sepp Blatter."

LondonTiger wrote:World Rugby have abandoned plans for the World League after they failed to get unanimous approval from the 10 6Ns/4Ns countries.

Yeah, heard that earlier. Finally, a good news story from Rugby Union Officialdom.

..... My happiness will of course not last. Money is a drug that doesn't release its hold until death. They'll try something new or to rebrand the idea as something new and throw it on the table when moods seem more buoyant. Maybe midway through the WC.

quinsforever wrote:FFS...World Rugby was trying to do a deal with Sepp Blatter's nephew...

"World Rugby was hoping to counter via a “game-changing” deal with Infront, the Swiss-based marketing agency backed by the Hong Kong-based parent company Wanda Sports and run by Philippe Blatter, nephew of the former Fifa president Sepp Blatter."

Well, as they say in all the best Youtube videos these days, "you couldn't make this stuff up".

TBF they were gonna go to Platini but he was busy

It's getting hot for some folks, and this time it ain't the scorching Qatar sun.

I see SANZAR are having a good whine about how the north has rejected this opportunity to "grow the game". (give them more money)

I wonder who put a spanner in the works?  From the bits I've been hearing on and off (and to be honest it's not been high on my agenda of things to keep an eye on) it seemed RFU were widely in agreement with the new way?  Thought IRFU also mumbled some positives along the way?  Was it a blanket rejection by Six Nations unions in the end?

Maybe it wasn't so much based on the premise as much as the fear of public relations fallout from the FIFAish feel to it all?

carpet baboon wrote:I see SANZAR are having a good whine about how the north has rejected this opportunity to "grow the game". (give them more money)

Probably because they realise the rugby championship just doesnt quite hit the mark.

Pretty sure France would be against anything that upsets the current status quo. Usually youd expect the RFU to be in kahootz with them on that but they had signalled an interest in this ( and lets not forget they'd nearly managed to bankrupt themselves through poor financial control and have had to make big cut backs). The smaller NH Unions might also have had concerns about how they could be gradually squeezed out by the global league. 
Its almost certainly going to be the NH anyway as they have a self sustaining system. 

Ultimately though an opportunity has been lost here to tidy up some issues and help the SH get a more sustainable model that doesnt reduce involve so many air miles lost possibly because they tried to do too much at once. Rugby seems to move very slowly on these things.

I prefer a slower route.  This induced 'panic' model of let's get something going quick or rugby is going to die in the SH! Or other such fear stoking headlines....
I simply don't believe that guff but virtually always, when ambitious money people (givers or hopers) want to get these projects going, they go all out with their horror stories about what's going to happen if you all don't sign on the dotted line.

No, all this is is interest groups both currently within and outside World Rugby wanting to create processes, competitions, global admin lines that will make them money.  It's a seemingly endless dream of endless financial growth.  It never dies.  It won't be killed off.  This will be approached again.

But slower is better.  There are too many risks of corrupt background promises and winks and nods when these New Ways are put on a fast track train.  It just screams danger when organisations try to move fast so that detail might be ignored in the rush of air in your face.

Scotland and Italy no doubt kyboshed it because they are perennial 6N no-hopers that fear relegation. Is there a more irrelevant nation that plays in a top tier competition than Italy? They should be thrown under the bus at the expense of PI nations that actually love the game.

Right but a midway would be nice. I mean at some point they did manage to get round a table and agree to play a national representative competition between the four home nations. 
As Ive said the issue here really seems to have been too much change at once. 

Would you not agree that as well as the financial growth aspect there are also real structural issues with the current calendar ( including the tension between club and country in the various unions) that need addressing? Are we really content that things couldnt be done better form a sporting and player welfare perspective?

ebop wrote:Scotland and Italy no doubt kyboshed it because they are perennial 6N no-hopers that fear relegation. Is there a more irrelevant nation that plays in a top tier competition than Italy? They should be thrown under the bus at the expense of PI nations that actually love the game.

Wales?

NZ Herald article says....

“It is thought that the Six Nations sides, in particular Italy and Scotland, had issues with the relegation side of the equation. Without it, the Pacific nations would have been locked out”.

ebop wrote:NZ Herald article says....

“It is thought that the Six Nations sides, in particular Italy and Scotland, had issues with the relegation side of the equation. Without it, the Pacific nations would have been locked out”.

It's their right to think of their own slice of the pie.  After all, everyone else is, whether they admit it or not.

Risk is risk, but Turkeys still wouldn't vote for Christmas...... if they had a vote.

The eternal problem with Relegation is that it simply IS much more easy to fall through that trapdoor and not come up again WHEN you are of a certain size.  Large Nations, like France, England, SA, USA and yep, even Australia have more bouncebackability because of population size, economically larger structures, more ready cash to make the changes needed to get back up.

Italy isn't a small Nation but its attachment to Rugby is small.  Many Italians don't even think of rugby, yep.  But the Italians that do ..... well, they do.  So they'll fight their corner.

SecretFly wrote:I wonder who put a spanner in the works?  From the bits I've been hearing on and off (and to be honest it's not been high on my agenda of things to keep an eye on) it seemed RFU were widely in agreement with the new way?  Thought IRFU also mumbled some positives along the way?  Was it a blanket rejection by Six Nations unions in the end?

Maybe it wasn't so much based on the premise as much as the fear of public relations fallout from the FIFAish feel to it all?

Italy would have been against it - relegation from the 6Ns would kill pro rugby in Italy

ebop wrote:NZ Herald article says....

“It is thought that the Six Nations sides, in particular Italy and Scotland, had issues with the relegation side of the equation. Without it, the Pacific nations would have been locked out”.

At the moment the Pacific Nations are locked out of SANZAR anyway - if the SANZAR countries want to expand to include them that would be great, just like the NH sides taking in Romania, Georgia and so on. The point is that the Tier 2 sides have to be added to the competitions rather than an established side losing out.

ebop wrote:NZ Herald article says....

“It is thought that the Six Nations sides, in particular Italy and Scotland, had issues with the relegation side of the equation. Without it, the Pacific nations would have been locked out”.

6Ns relegation has no impact on the PAcific Nations sides, it would only affect European sides. It was a major issue for some of the sides but only alongside the reduction in income that the Nations League was offering the 6Ns team.

LondonTiger wrote:

ebop wrote:NZ Herald article says....

“It is thought that the Six Nations sides, in particular Italy and Scotland, had issues with the relegation side of the equation. Without it, the Pacific nations would have been locked out”.

6Ns relegation has no impact on the PAcific Nations sides, it would only affect European sides. It was a major issue for some of the sides but only alongside the reduction in income that the Nations League was offering the 6Ns team.

One could be cynical and say that it sounds like a formula for "Sorry lads we (SANZAR) would love to have had more games with you but because the Scots and Italians don't want relegation in the NH competition we can't", as though the two things are related.

Irish Londoner wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

ebop wrote:NZ Herald article says....

“It is thought that the Six Nations sides, in particular Italy and Scotland, had issues with the relegation side of the equation. Without it, the Pacific nations would have been locked out”.

6Ns relegation has no impact on the PAcific Nations sides, it would only affect European sides. It was a major issue for some of the sides but only alongside the reduction in income that the Nations League was offering the 6Ns team.

One could be cynical and say that it sounds like a formula for "Sorry lads we (SANZAR) would love to have had more games with you but because the Scots and Italians don't want relegation in the NH competition we can't", as though the two things are related.

They are when the two things are part of a complete package which was an all in for all or nothing changes deal. 
Yes SANZAR could just go play Samoa and the Cook Islands tomorrow anyway but this plan was to make it economically and logistically viable for everyone and help protect the players. 

Its no shock that Italy didnt like the deal and focused on their on narrow desire to stay in the 6 nations of course and seems niave that people bothered to go this far with trying to push this deal. 

But there are things that need to be addressed and could be improved in the global game if everyone were on board. More games between SANZAR and Pislands is a bot of a side issue to the whole thing really so noone should be trying to paint this SANZAR looking to help out their neighbours ( or cynics trying to paint as them pretending to do that knowing it would fail).  
Relegation from the 6 nations though is an obvious sticking point on the deal. If Italy keep falling back then there could be a push to boot them from the top table in Europe straight up, but that wont be easy with so many contracts and bodies needing to act in concert. As much as ebops a troll he has a point that they have become dead weight on the NH game and if theyre stopping changes that everyone else wants on a veto. Its not like they bring much in terms of audience or cash to the table.

Gooseberry wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

ebop wrote:NZ Herald article says....

“It is thought that the Six Nations sides, in particular Italy and Scotland, had issues with the relegation side of the equation. Without it, the Pacific nations would have been locked out”.

6Ns relegation has no impact on the PAcific Nations sides, it would only affect European sides. It was a major issue for some of the sides but only alongside the reduction in income that the Nations League was offering the 6Ns team.

One could be cynical and say that it sounds like a formula for "Sorry lads we (SANZAR) would love to have had more games with you but because the Scots and Italians don't want relegation in the NH competition we can't", as though the two things are related.

They are when the two things are part of a complete package which was an all in for all or nothing changes deal. 
Yes SANZAR could just go play Samoa and the Cook Islands tomorrow anyway but this plan was to make it economically and logistically viable for everyone and help protect the players. 

Its no shock that Italy didnt like the deal and focused on their on narrow desire to stay in the 6 nations of course and seems niave that people bothered to go this far with trying to push this deal. 

But there are things that need to be addressed and could be improved in the global game if everyone were on board. More games between SANZAR and Pislands is a bot of a side issue to the whole thing really so noone should be trying to paint this SANZAR looking to help out their neighbours ( or cynics trying to paint as them pretending to do that knowing it would fail).  
Relegation from the 6 nations though is an obvious sticking point on the deal. If Italy keep falling back then there could be a push to boot them from the top table in Europe straight up, but that wont be easy with so many contracts and bodies needing to act in concert. As much as ebops a troll he has a point that they have become dead weight on the NH game and if theyre stopping changes that everyone else wants on a veto. Its not like they bring much in terms of audience or cash to the table.

Why does what happens in the NH affect the ability of the SANZAR sides to play games against the Pacificas? Relegation from the 6Ns does not stop that, nor does it affect the finances of the SH teams. Italy are going to be in 6Ns for the foreseeable future, given that they are now almost part of the furniture and there are no other NH sides who would improve the competition by replacing them. Also as pointed out other members of the 6Ns club may feel the same as Italy - Scottish rugby would undoubtedly suffer very badly if they lost the revenue from the 6Ns - probably only France and England could financially ride out a season in a "second division" and you would also have the spectacle of SANZAR sides still wanting a D2 side to come on tour to boost their domestic finances whilst ignoring Italy.

There's no appetite for a global season in the NH if it means moving to summer rugby to accommodate SH rugby and there's even less appetite for losing the 6Ns, which generates a huge amount of money and interest, even among non-rugby fans and replacing it with what looked like an endless cycle of sub RWC games at the expense of the traditional rivalries mostly for the financial benefit of the big SANZAR countries, who let's not forget were the ones that pushed the whole professional game in the first place.

But let's not blame Italy alone for the presence of an inescapable truth.  NZ and other SH nations say - and it's true, not denying it - that they suffer under the influence of the economic powerhouse of the NH (namely Europe). Europe has the massive potential audiences that drag in the massive sponsorships and massive TV deals...and with that financial furnace under them, they then increasingly get to pick select players from the SH nurseries that just can't compete on funding.

All true, no point in denying that truth.  I not only don't deny it, I've often made their case for them, that player drain is a real issue for them.  Europe is a magnet and Europe can often appear very smug in discussing the consequences - it's a global market economy.  Live with it or.................

But the point that should also be noted is that smaller traditional rugby Nations in Europe also have a similar problem - and they are even closer to the furnace.  Their players can drain away too for the bigger salaries on offer.  They fight for best coaches, also a fight based on economic might.  For now, it's just about holding itself together.  Programs and philosophies and inducements throughout the smaller Nations have allowed them to compete for now.

But it would be foolish of Welsh, Irish and Scottish Unions not to have the same relegation concerns as Italy.  It's not just an issue Italy has to consider.  All the smaller Nations have to fully comprehend how their systems and resources might dismantle with relegation.  Players become even less inclined to stay.  High value coaches would hardly be encouraged to stay either.  Indeed, they'd probably have relegation clauses written into their contracts.  
It would be very difficult to go back up if you hit a bad period over two or three seasons.  Even one season of relegation might kill off he tools you'd require to get back up.

Again, very easy for onlookers to say:"so what?  Market forces.  You're just too small a Nation to be in the top anyway, probably always were.  We have to let bigger Nations in.  Bigger audience, bigger earning potential".
So even appealing to history and tradition would get a derisory smirk of apathy.

For rugby lovers in those Nations though..... tragedy.

ebop wrote:Scotland and Italy no doubt kyboshed it because they are perennial 6N no-hopers that fear relegation. Is there a more irrelevant nation that plays in a top tier competition than Italy? They should be thrown under the bus at the expense of PI nations that actually love the game.

I mean, canni argue with your assessment of where Scotland and Italy stand in regards to the world stage. Scotland have struggled to adapt to professionalism (something pushed by the SANZAR) but have only recently come to terms with out.

Financially the SRU was an omnishambles in the late 90s, early 00s, but have recently managed to turn it around. For the SRU to turn round and suggest "aye we'd be willing to risk annual income to ensure NZ, OZ and SA can continue to function in the professional era" would be roundly seen as nonsense by all tiers of scottish rugby, grass roots to professionalism, everyone i've chatted to says its a mental idea and we'd prefer to make sure our model is sustainable over the next few years with an eye to increasing our depth of professional players.

Ebop, i assume you are a New Zealander, where does NZ lose out currently? If the professional game in NZ was looking increasingly tenuous would you want tosign up to a new competition that has been pushed through relatively quickly with minimal feasibility/sustainability studies undertaken with a massive risk to NZ finances if, worst came to worst, NZ was relegated and lost the massive income that comes from sponsors/tv rights?

SecretFly wrote:But let's not blame Italy alone for the presence of an inescapable truth.  NZ and other SH nations say - and it's true, not denying it - that they suffer under the influence of the economic powerhouse of the NH (namely Europe). Europe has the massive potential audiences that drag in the massive sponsorships and massive TV deals...and with that financial furnace under them, they then increasingly get to pick select players from the SH nurseries that just can't compete on funding.

All true, no point in denying that truth.  I not only don't deny it, I've often made their case for them, that player drain is a real issue for them.  Europe is a magnet and Europe can often appear very smug in discussing the consequences - it's a global market economy.  Live with it or.................

But the point that should also be noted is that smaller traditional rugby Nations in Europe also have a similar problem - and they are even closer to the furnace.  Their players can drain away too for the bigger salaries on offer.  They fight for best coaches, also a fight based on economic might.  For now, it's just about holding itself together.  Programs and philosophies and inducements throughout the smaller Nations have allowed them to compete for now.

But it would be foolish of Welsh, Irish and Scottish Unions not to have the same relegation concerns as Italy.  It's not just an issue Italy has to consider.  All the smaller Nations have to fully comprehend how their systems and resources might dismantle with relegation.  Players become even less inclined to stay.  High value coaches would hardly be encouraged to stay either.  Indeed, they'd probably have relegation clauses written into their contracts.  
It would be very difficult to go back up if you hit a bad period over two or three seasons.  Even one season of relegation might kill off he tools you'd require to get back up.

Again, very easy for onlookers to say:"so what?  Market forces.  You're just too small a Nation to be in the top anyway, probably always were.  We have to let bigger Nations in.  Bigger audience, bigger earning potential".
So even appealing to history and tradition would get a derisory smirk of apathy.

For rugby lovers in those Nations though..... tragedy.

i think i've just reiterated most of your post, agree entirely with this though - smaller nations/unions are more susceptible to market forces

No problems, Tramp, I think I reiterated some of London Irish's

Some of the issues:
1. Relegation by some countries.
2. Objection of clubs (in England and France) who have nothing to gain from the competition.
3. Players - too much rugby.
4. Diminish the World Cup with having a yearly competition and affect the income of World Rugby which would affect the development of the game.

SecretFly wrote:No problems, Tramp, I think I reiterated some of London Irish's

I said it back in 1946, no one was listening though...

Sniff.

I was! But it was in another bodily incarnation. Unfortunately though, it was also another fly. And you swatted me firmly between my compound eyes just as you finished your sentence.

I think the 6N should look to build rugby in Europe as that is were the money and players are. I'm not sure how but surely they need to look at bring up some of the current Nations. They don't need to give them a share in the 6 Nations but give them things to improve.

I would like to see the Champions Cup put back to 24 team. I would then like to get representative teams from the B6N added into the Challange.

The biggest reason NH teams were reluctant to sign up to the concept is that the lower tier is not sufficiently developed enough as a competition. Getting relegated would mean financial ruin. English club rugby has a similar problem.

Tramptastic wrote:

ebop wrote:Scotland and Italy no doubt kyboshed it because they are perennial 6N no-hopers that fear relegation. Is there a more irrelevant nation that plays in a top tier competition than Italy? They should be thrown under the bus at the expense of PI nations that actually love the game.

I mean, canni argue with your assessment of where Scotland and Italy stand in regards to the world stage. Scotland have struggled to adapt to professionalism (something pushed by the SANZAR) but have only recently come to terms with out.

Financially the SRU was an omnishambles in the late 90s, early 00s, but have recently managed to turn it around. For the SRU to turn round and suggest "aye we'd be willing to risk annual income to ensure NZ, OZ and SA can continue to function in the professional era" would be roundly seen as nonsense by all tiers of scottish rugby, grass roots to professionalism, everyone i've chatted to says its a mental idea and we'd prefer to make sure our model is sustainable over the next few years with an eye to increasing our depth of professional players.

Ebop, i assume you are a New Zealander, where does NZ lose out currently? If the professional game in NZ was looking increasingly tenuous would you want tosign up to a new competition that has been pushed through relatively quickly with minimal feasibility/sustainability studies undertaken with a massive risk to NZ finances if, worst came to worst, NZ was relegated and lost the massive income that comes from sponsors/tv rights?

Good points. High risk times indeed, and I think fear of the unknown may have been the real catalyst behind the declining of the new setup.

Rugby Fan wrote:The biggest reason NH teams were reluctant to sign up to the concept is that the lower tier is not sufficiently developed enough as a competition. Getting relegated would mean financial ruin. English club rugby has a similar problem.

Yes for a start no one is going to bother playing for England, or NZ etc in a second div comp. They’ll go elsewhere for money and will only bother returning should their replacements get them back up.
Easy to throw around the word relegation and promotion as a normal part of a process but the financial impact on some makes the proposal untenable. England playing for a year vs sides no better than Georgia for example would be laughable.

Taylorman wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:

ebop wrote:Scotland and Italy no doubt kyboshed it because they are perennial 6N no-hopers that fear relegation. Is there a more irrelevant nation that plays in a top tier competition than Italy? They should be thrown under the bus at the expense of PI nations that actually love the game.

I mean, canni argue with your assessment of where Scotland and Italy stand in regards to the world stage. Scotland have struggled to adapt to professionalism (something pushed by the SANZAR) but have only recently come to terms with out.

Financially the SRU was an omnishambles in the late 90s, early 00s, but have recently managed to turn it around. For the SRU to turn round and suggest "aye we'd be willing to risk annual income to ensure NZ, OZ and SA can continue to function in the professional era" would be roundly seen as nonsense by all tiers of scottish rugby, grass roots to professionalism, everyone i've chatted to says its a mental idea and we'd prefer to make sure our model is sustainable over the next few years with an eye to increasing our depth of professional players.

Ebop, i assume you are a New Zealander, where does NZ lose out currently? If the professional game in NZ was looking increasingly tenuous would you want tosign up to a new competition that has been pushed through relatively quickly with minimal feasibility/sustainability studies undertaken with a massive risk to NZ finances if, worst came to worst, NZ was relegated and lost the massive income that comes from sponsors/tv rights?

Good points. High risk times indeed, and I think fear of the unknown may have been the real catalyst behind the declining of the new setup.

I can't believe people still call out Italy when they play such a crucial roll in giving tier 2 nations proper test matches every year. Do you know how many rugby league fans would kill to have a few "Italy's" in their shambles of an international scene. The relegation thing is a complete no go, we need to expand on what we have, not potentially ruin rugby in a major nation.

Brendan wrote:I think the 6N should look to build rugby in Europe as that is were the money and players are.  I'm not sure how but surely they need to look at bring up some of the current Nations.  They don't need to give them a share in the 6 Nations but give them things to improve.

I would like to see the Champions Cup put back to 24 team.  I would then like to get representative teams from the B6N added into the Challange.

Weren't we meant to have a Tier 3 European club competition by now? What's the go with that?

Both the Champions Cup and the Challenge Cup have 20 teams, you could at least start by expanding the Challenge Cup in steps of 4 until you got to 32? You'd get progressively weaker pools, but you'd have to do more each time to qualify (fewer "best second place" options).

My preferred option at an international level (and I've said it before) would be to try and bill the European Nations Cup as equivalent to the Six Nations, not its Division 2. No-one would buy it at first, but if you had the winners play-off for the European Cup each year, then the status of the competition would rise, especially the first time the Nations Cup winner upset the Six Nations winner.

robbo277 wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think the 6N should look to build rugby in Europe as that is were the money and players are.  I'm not sure how but surely they need to look at bring up some of the current Nations.  They don't need to give them a share in the 6 Nations but give them things to improve.

I would like to see the Champions Cup put back to 24 team.  I would then like to get representative teams from the B6N added into the Challange.

Weren't we meant to have a Tier 3 European club competition by now? What's the go with that?

Both the Champions Cup and the Challenge Cup have 20 teams, you could at least start by expanding the Challenge Cup in steps of 4 until you got to 32? You'd get progressively weaker pools, but you'd have to do more each time to qualify (fewer "best second place" options).

My preferred option at an international level (and I've said it before) would be to try and bill the European Nations Cup as equivalent to the Six Nations, not its Division 2. No-one would buy it at first, but if you had the winners play-off for the European Cup each year, then the status of the competition would rise, especially the first time the Nations Cup winner upset the Six Nations winner.

There is a tier 3 competition called the continental shield, that's where the likes of Calvisano, Ensei, Krasny Yar etc gain qualification to the CC. There was a farcical situation with a German club last year however when they earned qualification but couldn't enter because they had the same owner as State Francais.

Sevu Reece named in AB extended squad.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Sevu Reece named in AB extended squad.

Well I guess that ends Fiji's hopes of him joining them. Chances were always low as playing for Fiji would probably have been the end of his Super Rugby career.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Brendan wrote:I think the 6N should look to build rugby in Europe as that is were the money and players are.  I'm not sure how but surely they need to look at bring up some of the current Nations.  They don't need to give them a share in the 6 Nations but give them things to improve.

I would like to see the Champions Cup put back to 24 team.  I would then like to get representative teams from the B6N added into the Challange.

Weren't we meant to have a Tier 3 European club competition by now? What's the go with that?

Both the Champions Cup and the Challenge Cup have 20 teams, you could at least start by expanding the Challenge Cup in steps of 4 until you got to 32? You'd get progressively weaker pools, but you'd have to do more each time to qualify (fewer "best second place" options).

My preferred option at an international level (and I've said it before) would be to try and bill the European Nations Cup as equivalent to the Six Nations, not its Division 2. No-one would buy it at first, but if you had the winners play-off for the European Cup each year, then the status of the competition would rise, especially the first time the Nations Cup winner upset the Six Nations winner.

There is a tier 3 competition called the continental shield, that's where the likes of Calvisano, Ensei, Krasny Yar etc gain qualification to the CC. There was a farcical situation with a German club last year however when they earned qualification but couldn't enter because they had the same owner as State Francais.  

Good to know they've set it up then, don't really hear much about it though. Thanks for the info.

I know they have a similar rule to that in football and I understand not wanting two teams in the same competition, but I don't understand why they couldn't let them play Tier 3 and just block them qualifying for the CC if they made it though.

LondonTiger wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Sevu Reece named in AB extended squad.

Well I guess that ends Fiji's hopes of him joining them. Chances were always low as playing for Fiji would probably have been the end of his Super Rugby career.

Kind of makes a mockery of Kiwi claims that they don't import players. Other overseas born players in the NZ squad:

Nepo Eti Laulala - Samoa
Ofa Tu'ungafasi - Tonga
Shannon Frizell - Tonga
Vaea Fifita - Tonga

Some of these guys were in their late teens when they were offered scholarships or rugby contracts, hmmmmm.

All of these players were kids when they came to NZ and stayed in NZ after finishing school. It’s different to the likes of Ireland that import fully fledged ‘adult’ professional rugby players that are developed in other countries and then cap them. That’s the definition of cynical. Can’t beat em....buy em, lol

ebop wrote:All of these players were kids when they came to NZ and stayed in NZ after finishing school. It’s different to the likes of Ireland that import fully fledged ‘adult’ professional rugby players that are developed in other countries and then cap them. That’s the definition of cynical. Can’t beat em....buy em, lol

Not true.

NZ are no different. If anything its more questionable poaching teenagers.