Nations championship draws nearer

Well there is a meeting today in Dublin to discuss the future of a global championship. Would this ruin the 6N and world cup ? I think they are going to discuss how everybody are supposed to play each other, apparently though there is going to be a backing of 5 billion big ones for this from sports giants Infront.

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

What are everyone's thoughts on this ?

Sorry LD but I amended your title to remove a typo that was making my eyes bleed.

The morning press seemed to believe that the World Nations Championship may be killed at the meeting today, in part because of the number of different offers available to the 6Ns from a variety of "investors". While the £5bn deal sounds a lot, it is over a number of years and would replace all TV rights for the international game. World Rugby say everyone will be at least £10m a year better off - however the deals available to 6Ns are worth much more than that.

Arguably 6Ns countries could be accused of greed and not caring about the future of the game but they are not the only stakeholders upset by these plans. I wonder who is meant to benefit. 6Ns sides - nope. 4Ns sides - yes. Tier 2 countries - no because the new plan keeps the league at 10 sides for a few years and prevents relegation for 10 years (I believe). The players - no. Fans - no.

If it dies 6Ns will be blamed for being greedy. However this scheme seems like a wealth push on behalf of the SH teams that rather than helping the game expand would do the opposite and reduce the impact of the World Cup. I hope it is voted down.

So you reckon it's a money grab by the SH nations LT ?

LordDowlais wrote:So you reckon it's a money grab by the SH nations LT ?

I don't know. Pichot says it is about expanding the game and making International Rugby more attractive. Yet I cannot see how either of those are achieved by the latest proposals. The clearest result from this new tournament would appear to be a lot more money for SANZAR sides - but maybe I am misunderstanding.

Am I allowed to say this is a money grab from Arg, Aus, Nz and SA?

Because this is exactly what it is!

Now, do not get me wrong, I feel that the money needs to be spread out a bit more but by spread, I mean spread to everyone and not just handing some extra cash to the 4 unions mentioned above.

The initial thoughts are to have a "league" of 10 which basically says the Rugby Championship wants to be part of the 6Ns and get all the trpapings of such involvement. Another idea is to increase this to 12 to allow 2 of the "smaller" nations to join in.

That is not spreading the wealth which would need to go out to 51 (yes thats right, 51) member unions of world rugby!!!

The 6Ns sides get their money from the 6Ns championship which has been built up for decades, especially since the professional era. SA, NZ, Arg and Aus should have plenty viewing audiences to market thier own compitition to in this day and age. They should not be coming to the North to ask for a share in the spoils.

The romantic idea of developing rugby globally is magic, but this approach isnt going to do that!

Fiji and Samoa are part of todays meeting

https://twitter.com/BillBeaumont/status/1131141264735428608

Seems they may adjust the proposals to include the two.

It would overlook some serious governance issues that are yet to be addressed within both Unions, not to mention the inability of the unions to retain their players or have them available because they have 'retired' to play in Europe.

That's before you get to the player welfare issues

Unless all the issues are dealt with that are hampering the game, it just a case of chucking cash out there hoping for the best but really you've just kicked the can down the road

marty2086 wrote:Fiji and Samoa are part of todays meeting

https://twitter.com/BillBeaumont/status/1131141264735428608

Seems they may adjust the proposals to include the two.

It would overlook some serious governance issues that are yet to be addressed within both Unions, not to mention the inability of the unions to retain their players or have them available because they have 'retired' to play in Europe.

That's before you get to the player welfare issues

Unless all the issues are dealt with that are hampering the game, it just a case of chucking cash out there hoping for the best but really you've just kicked the can down the road

Two corrupt scumb4gs that will be easily payed off by world rugby. These guys have no interest in what's best for Fiji and Samoa. The Fijian defence coach just resigned or was sacked due to Fiji already spending their world cup budget. Shambles.

I agree with much of what tigertattie says. I do think there needs to be a bit more money given to the visiting sides to be more equitable but as he says that need s to be a shared thing across more teams. We need to see less of a 3 of the big 4 then a Fiji but perhaps 2 of them and more opportunities to the minnows. This proposal may mean a closed shop.

How about a second tier vs Saxons level championship with the majority of the money after direct costs going to the 2nd tier nation. The Pacific Island nations, USA, Canada, Georgia and the like would be able to compete at that level without to many embarrassing score lines, games to be played when the lesser cups are played when premier league sides rest most of their 1st XV anyway.

The Saxons would get a crowd of 40K at HQ, I suspect the Welsh XV would do similar, not sure about the other nations. It has probably been discussed before, but hey I am getting old and my memory is going.

Cool, more money for the SH. Fair enough, we support just about every team on the planet (for the bucks of course)

You may even start to pay some players enough so they don't leave and you can stop complaining so much!

Naah, no fun in that. Someone puts up a rack off SH item and you get an honest response. No complaining here. Typical NH arrogance. They want SH rugby but only served up how it suits them. All players must play for THEIR sides.

And anyway, is visiting our own players really ‘visiting’? Or just catching up with all too familiar faces?

And players can decide which is their side. Unions can't simply dictate that a player must play for them. They're not slaves.

So, current talk is that 6Ns are refusing to sign up to the Nations League but will offer a share of AI revenues to visitors. SANZAR unwilling to accept this unless they get a bigger share than Tier 2 countries.

I like the 6ns proposal. The bigger 'share should only be reflected if the attendance is bigger/the home union decides to increase ticket prices (which of course they do anyway).

LondonTiger wrote:So, current talk is that 6Ns are refusing to sign up to the Nations League but will offer a share of AI revenues to visitors. SANZAR unwilling to accept this unless they get a bigger share than Tier 2 countries.

Do we get an equal share then when we tour to their countries ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And players can decide which is their side. Unions can't simply dictate that a player must play for them. They're not slaves.

Really? So Aki, Anscombe and many others can choose to play for the ABs? Hmmm, wonder why they didnt then. No, money talks. If you think Anscombe chose to ‘play for Wales’ due to an ‘informed’ decision rather than the bucks up for grabs then ok then. Not slaves? No. But they certainly are the modern sporting professional version of it.

Slaves were bought in cheaply to do the work land owners were too fat and lazy to do themselves.

Same with NH rugby.

So anscombe chose to play for Wales due to the money...but that's not an informed decision? I don't think you've thought this through.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So anscombe chose to play for Wales due to the money...but that's not an informed decision? I don't think you've thought this through.

Yeah I did, there was no decision. There was no option for the ABs despite you thinking there was,and money determined which level he would play after that. He had little choice. Wales was the only place for max money and a possible test match. No brainer. No need to think. Money talks.

Nothing wrong with that. It’s that Wales, and others, are so desperate to win at club and test level they need to resort to so many wanna be Welshmen, Englishmen etc.

Taylorman, even for me that is pushing it, no country is squeaky clean when it comes to capping foreign talent if it is available, the AB have a tradition of it, as have just about every other country. As you said, money talks, especially to the rather poor PI nations players.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Taylorman, even for me that is pushing it, no country is squeaky clean when it comes to capping foreign talent if it is available, the AB have a tradition of it, as have just about every other country. As you said, money talks, especially to the rather poor PI nations players.

Perhaps, but theres a difference between the odd player movement and an avalanche. Our rugby is both the AB, PI's, Oz and the NH club (and that now includes japan) Production line. Oh, chuck in the NRL as well.

Shouldnt you be angry with NZ for not doing more to keep players then with the countries who recieve them? Sort your house out then throw stones

England and France let the filthy rich club owners do the heavy lifting by paying players above market value whilst making mega-million dollar losses (!!!) each year. Then the players get top ups from the unions for every international game played. So people are saying we (NZR) just needs to ‘pay our players more’? Why, so our union can go bankrupt, don’t think so. England and France fans should just be happy their sugardaddies don’t mind throwing money down the drain and paying over the odds for players resulting in financial loss after loss after loss. What kind of crap business operation is that!

yappysnap wrote:Shouldnt you be angry with NZ for not doing more to keep players then with the countries who recieve them? Sort your house out then throw stones

We’ve always had our house sorted. Shows in the results. What we can’t do is conjure up 200 million lazy fat fans to but a ticket to our matches.

You're getting confused and arguing different things across different threads Taylor. And if the reason anscombe chose to play up north was money it was still his choice.i get you're annoyed the nz doesn't pay enough but there are more reasons than rugby for that.

Meeting has closed with no agreement on the Nations League. World Rugby plan to meet again next month to try and push this through.

One thing that was agreed was an increase in the maximum insurance for players injured on international duty. This means that clubs will now release their foreign players to WC training camps as soon as they have completed their mandated rest period. Prior to this foreign players (primarily in England and France but not exclusively) would not have been released until the mandatory WC window at the end of August.

1 Good thing at least then.

Taylorman wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Shouldnt you be angry with NZ for not doing more to keep players then with the countries who recieve them? Sort your house out then throw stones

We’ve always had our house sorted. Shows in the results. What we can’t do is conjure up 200 million lazy fat fans to but a ticket to our matches.

For someone from a country that is built on immigration by people looking for a better life, you seem very cross about people leaving it to do the same......

ebop wrote:England and France let the filthy rich club owners do the heavy lifting by paying players above market value whilst making mega-million dollar losses (!!!) each year. Then the players get top ups from the unions for every international game played. So people are saying we (NZR) just needs to ‘pay our players more’? Why, so our union can go bankrupt, don’t think so. England and France fans should just be happy their sugardaddies don’t mind throwing money down the drain and paying over the odds for players resulting in financial loss after loss after loss. What kind of crap business operation is that!

Above market value?

Market value is being used out of context here, seems though the problem is that NZs setup is putting them at a disadvantage. The NZRU pay the contracts rather than focusing on a core group and relying on the franchises to pay the players

They must be paying the players too much because all the English clubs bar one or two lose money year on year. If a business does that too often it goes out of business right?

ebop wrote:They must be paying the players too much because all the English clubs bar one or two lose money year on year. If a business does that too often it goes out of business right?

No because it depends on the business model

We’re dealing with the swinging dik business model with the English clubs where money is a triviality obviously

No the model where you invest money in an attempt to create a more self sustaining model ala Toulon

Toulon would slip into oblivion like they have in the past if that psycho French owner was hit by a bus and couldn’t tip his millions down the drain on the flashiest foreign rugby star.

Always a balance and it's the choice clubs regions etc take. Clubs in sh can make the same choices.
There isn't one correct way of doing things.

ebop wrote:Toulon would slip into oblivion like they have in the past if that psycho French owner was hit by a bus and couldn’t tip his millions down the drain on the flashiest foreign rugby star.

Except Toulon have been sustaining themselves for a few years now

No 7&1/2 wrote:Always a balance and it's the choice clubs regions etc take. Clubs in sh can make the same choices.
There isn't one correct way of doing things.

Spot on but choosing a model then complaining about someone elses is moronic, NZRU choose to shoulder the burden of paying all contracts if that is hurting the franchises that means it isn't working

To be fair ebop and Taylor haven't chosen this themselves. It does sound like they support it however. In my mind they need to take a breath weigh the pros and cons. They can't affect what clubs elsewhere do.

ebop wrote:Toulon would slip into oblivion like they have in the past if that psycho French owner was hit by a bus and couldn’t tip his millions down the drain on the flashiest foreign rugby star.

Hoping for someone's death over them signing a rugby player for their club is definitely a sign of rational thinking

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair ebop and Taylor haven't chosen this themselves. It does sound like they support it however. In my mind they need to take a breath weigh the pros and cons. They can't affect what clubs elsewhere do.

I meant the union, they've done plenty of complaining and are the biggest proponents of this change to be able to sustain their current model. Which is ironic because it would almost seem that the NZRU will go bust if things don't change

BamBam wrote:

ebop wrote:Toulon would slip into oblivion like they have in the past if that psycho French owner was hit by a bus and couldn’t tip his millions down the drain on the flashiest foreign rugby star.

Hoping for someone's death over them signing a rugby player for their club is definitely a sign of rational thinking

Savea the bus, he’d run him over

Ah I understand Marty. Personally I'm on the side of the fence who thinks that sharing of profits from tickets should be up for discussion.

It should be fair and equitable and across the board. There’d be smart minds out there that could develop an algorithm that rewarded nations for investing in infrastructure and not penalise them for doing so by forcing them to hand over all the profits. But the status quo of home team gets it all doesn’t seem right. Especially when Samoa plays England at twickers and gets zilch bar a token gesture after a media blow up and they never return the favour by playing in Apia.

ebop wrote:It should be fair and equitable and across the board. There’d be smart minds out there that could develop an algorithm that rewarded nations for investing in infrastructure and not penalise them for doing so by forcing them to hand over all the profits. But the status quo of home team gets it all doesn’t seem right. Especially when Samoa plays England at twickers and gets zilch bar a token gesture after a media blow up.

By that logic then shouldn't the visiting team also shoulder some of the costs? Why is it that the home union is taking the risk of paying out mostly huge sums to stage a game and risking a loss but the visiting team isn't?

And I think that's the discussion that needs to happen Marty. Complicated area with many facets.

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:It should be fair and equitable and across the board. There’d be smart minds out there that could develop an algorithm that rewarded nations for investing in infrastructure and not penalise them for doing so by forcing them to hand over all the profits. But the status quo of home team gets it all doesn’t seem right. Especially when Samoa plays England at twickers and gets zilch bar a token gesture after a media blow up.

By that logic then shouldn't the visiting team also shoulder some of the costs? Why is it that the home union is taking the risk of paying out mostly huge sums to stage a game and risking a loss but the visiting team isn't?

Because many rugby teams have never set foot in the Pacific Islands, Romania, Georgia etc....for example. These teams are paraded around like circus acts and get their meals paid for. Besides, I imagine most games ‘make’ money because the accountants wouldn’t let it happen otherwise.

And if that's the case ebop the status quo will remain.

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:It should be fair and equitable and across the board. There’d be smart minds out there that could develop an algorithm that rewarded nations for investing in infrastructure and not penalise them for doing so by forcing them to hand over all the profits. But the status quo of home team gets it all doesn’t seem right. Especially when Samoa plays England at twickers and gets zilch bar a token gesture after a media blow up.

By that logic then shouldn't the visiting team also shoulder some of the costs? Why is it that the home union is taking the risk of paying out mostly huge sums to stage a game and risking a loss but the visiting team isn't?

Because many rugby teams have never set foot in the Pacific Islands, Romania, Georgia etc....for example. These teams are paraded around like circus acts and get their meals paid for. Besides, I imagine most games ‘make’ money because the accountants wouldn’t let it happen otherwise.

Seems you've none gone off on a tangent

So home nations should invest money, pay for the games to be staged including staff, insurance, vendors but visiting teams invest nothing into that and reap the rewards of someones elses investment? What's fair and equitable in that?

Because Fiji, Samoa, Tonga play at Twickers and make England money and are handed out meal vouchers in return. But does England play in Fiji, Samoa, Tonga to return the favour (to make those unions some money) and get fed kava and taro. Do you honestly not see the discrepancy marty?

ebop wrote:Because Fiji, Samoa, Tonga play at Twickers and make England money and are handed out meal vouchers in return. But does England play in Fiji, Sampa, Tonga to return the favour (to make those unions some money) and get fed kava and taro. Do you honestly not see the discrepancy marty?

Are Samoa forced to play England?