Pichot's Tilt at Power - Rugby's Future

First topic message reminder :

Agustin Pichot has announced he's running for World Rugby Chairman. Unfortunately the only in-depth article I could find with relative ease was in the Mail, so apologies for that. With the lull in rugby now, it seems a sensible time to discuss what Pichot's bid means and rugby's future generally.

Daily Mail wrote:Pichot's six-point plan includes:

Addressing the challenges of COVID-19 as part of a wider alignment of the global playing calendar, creating a 'compelling narrative' for men and women in XVs and Sevens. Clubs, unions and private equity firms will be consulted about an annual tournament featuring 12 to 14 Tests per nation per year.
A democratic governance structure. A long-term goal of scrapping the weighted vote system that gives more power to wealthy nations, as well as revenue sharing.
A growing grassroots and youth game, including focus on developing emerging nations such as Brazil and Tunisia.
A safe and entertaining game, featuring a dedicated World Rugby Innovation Department to look at projects such as Hawkeye technology and a flagship rugby computer game.
Mandatory athletes' commissions to put players at the heart of decision making – with discussions about reducing wages to create sustainability.
A World Rugby management 'fit for purpose' – reviewing all internal structures to 'restore trust' in the governing body.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-8211135/Argentinian-great-Agustin-Pichot-promises-revolution-challenges-World-Rugbys-job.html


Look like he's pretty set on the Nations Cup idea and breaking up the traditional rugby structures. I think one of the things people outside the Six Nations don't understand is that we don't want to change it because we actually quite like it. Equally running to scrap the voting rights of the old rugby nations doesn't work when the old rugby nations collectively hold 27 out of 50 votes. Nonetheless it is time for things to change. For rugby's commercial stability it's important to expand into new economies, it's interesting that Pichot has earmarked Brazil and Tunisia for this. Personally I am of the opinion that several nations give far more to our game than they get in return; primarily the Pacific Islanders, and that rugby will be a far more exciting sport if we can harness some of the world's bigger economies to create genuine rugby powers but that should not come at the expense of what we already love about our game. I love the Six Nations, not just because of the rugby but what it constitutes beyond rugby. As a Scotland fan I know that in a good year we could win the tournament, as a realist I know that we will never win a 12 team Nations league. Rugby needs to learn the lesson that bigger does not always constitute better.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.rugbypass.com/news/new-zealand-rugby-launch-wide-ranging-super-rugby-review/

This article which is talking about the New Zealand review is very much about continuing Super Rugby,. Does mention all the teams licences are up at the end of the year

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-arranged-marriage-of-south-africa-new-zealand-australia-and-argentina-is-over

This one seems to be saying something in between.
The way I see it, there are 5 professional teams in New Zealand and four in Australia. Australia have a Fijian franchise that plays in its NRC. If that team became a Fiji led, general Pacific Islander side there is the capacity for a 10 team Pacific Competition that plays home and away.

Only problem is SA nor Japan would be in it so not much money

Wales have thrown their vote in with Old Bill, so the status quo will remain, glass ceilings and all.

Old Man wrote:Wales have thrown their vote in with Old Bill, so the status quo will remain, glass ceilings and all.

The turkeys are not going to vote for a Christmas party are they?

Regardless of whether Pichot's proposals would have worked - personally I don't think they would have - the NH sides would have told him to get on his bike, there might have been some sympathy for the thrust of what he proposed and Beaumont is a bit of an old stick in the mud isn't he?

However, as soon as the CV19 stuff happened the unions were always going to come down on the side of the status quo, the devil you know, the safe option or whatever you like to call it, trying to cope with a huge restructure to the game and cope with the CV19 issues was always going to be too a big leap of faith.

Good old Bill.

The world league thing looked awful.

I don’t think the world league would have worked, but a change is as good as a holiday, eh?

The nations league that Beaumont is backing?

Any nations league.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The nations league that Beaumont is backing?

Beaumont will float it safe in the knowledge that the NH sides will say no.

His job now if he gets in is to get it done. Will be interesting to see if he fails or not.

Lol.

I would love to be so naive, its almost like voting for a new government and expecting change!

Irish Londoner wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The nations league that Beaumont is backing?

Beaumont will float it safe in the knowledge that the NH sides will say no.

Of course they will say no, the home unions have no issues with selling tickets for games up here.

Now confirmed, Well done Bill on being re-elected.

Doubt anything will change though. Only real change I was hoping for was three test series rather than one off tests.

Well the first set of decisions will be covid related in relation to what happens with rearranging internationals and balancing that with club demands and the emergence of a new players union. Then for next year the nations league and letting players represent more than 1 country.

Some SH blazers are already saying that SH rugby will be dead in four years unless there is a change.

Already saying they need an "aligned season" but again demanding the NH change thier season to align with the SH

Aligned season would be great. Dont mind how we get there.

tigertattie wrote:Some SH blazers are already saying that SH rugby will be dead in four years unless there is a change.

Already saying they need an "aligned season" but again demanding the NH change thier season to align with the SH

New Zealand said as much, Australia is already in trouble, SARU is playing their cards close to their chest. The question is what is going to happen to Japan and Argentina.

Beaumont seems to have prmoised Fiji an in to the Rugby Championship.

Not entirely sure how he can make such promises, it did get him the Fijian vote though.

Old Man wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Some SH blazers are already saying that SH rugby will be dead in four years unless there is a change.

Already saying they need an "aligned season" but again demanding the NH change thier season to align with the SH

New Zealand said as much, Australia is already in trouble, SARU is playing their cards close to their chest. The question is what is going to happen to Japan and Argentina.

Beaumont seems to have prmoised Fiji an in to the Rugby Championship.

Not entirely sure how he can make such promises, it did get him the Fijian vote though.

The Rugby Championship were all for adding two nations until the Nations League fell apart. Fiji have been as good as Argentina for the last few years. The RC need matches which means more games in the RC which means more teams. It's one of the few things that SANZAAR can do straight away to improve revenue.

I like how Impey has said WR has done nothing about residency even though they brought in the 5 year rule. Allowing T1 players to play for T2 nations while great in theory only benefit Australia and NZ mainly. They are the two nations with the most players who are eligible for T2 nations (the PIs).

The thing that NZ aren't taking into account I think though is that right now any AB knows if they leave they don't get international matches. This would see alot of players (I think) leave NZ for big money to Europe knowing hey can still go to WCs. When NZ and AUS are struggling to keep players and have said they are in trouble why would the players of PI heritage wait around.

I do like how open NZ are now as to what they expected Pichot to do, and are now calling for those things to be done anyway.

We are yet to hear anything from NZ or AUS as to what they themselves are going to actually do. It seems like they believe they are being denied money that they feel they deserve.

The only thing that seems to have been floated is a Tasman league between NZ and AUS teams but I think this would make a bigger loss for each union unless wages were cut alot

What are wales ireland and Scotland doing bar boycotting the lions? Are they lining up matches against themselves?
Tbf the financial issues and covid are a great opportunity for wr to flex their muscles and push through changes now.

While I do like the two month block of internationals I do have questions about it.  I don't think the 6Ns would sign up to anything that would see attendance income split as it would result in losses for the 6N unions.

If it is a league over 8 weeks would we see 3 or 4 teams in each teir.  If that was the case I can't see any 6N team agree to that as even England or France could finish in T2 position.
It is fine for the SH teams to come to Europe and play 3 different teams as the distance would be small (Durban to Cape town or Perth to Sydney would be simmillar) but are WR thinking that the SH teams (excluding SA) will be able to fill stadiums when the number of traveling fans will reduce from the NH as they would have to pick which country (maybe two) they are going to fly to

For the 2018 series for Australia v Ireland (The SH country where there is the most Irish people by far) attendances were 46k, 29k and 44k.  If it was a once off and fans then had to go to NZ or SA I think 2-3k less fans might have gone (especially if those fans then have 3/4 home games to pay for as soon as they come back).

Again it sounds like a WC just played home and away instead of in one country.

If it was 2 tests against 2 countries home and away that might work.  So Ireland and Scotland play Argentina and SA.  2 games in Argentina, 2 games in SA (Scotland do opposite) and then 4 games at home.  It would be test tours, you would play each nation in the other hemisphere one year per 4 year cycle (4th is WC). Only downside is not many T2 games.  It could be done as the 12 teams who auto qualify for the next WC
NH, 6N
Rest of the World, RC, Fiji, Japan.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are wales ireland and Scotland doing bar boycotting the lions? Are they lining up matches against themselves?
Tbf the financial issues and covid are a great opportunity for wr to flex their muscles and push through changes now.

I think there would be demand for a 10 match 6Ns played annually. That would be one less international match than currently played.  Take in the reduced travel costs and larger attendances for teams like Italy I think they would be fine.  CVC makes more, and 6N would match their income.  It is easy enough to add replace the T2 games the 6N play in the AIs with Georgia (better than the USA, Samoa, Tonga who the 6Ns currently must play). You could add a second team (currently Portugal or Spain)

I think we have seen Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy play each other outside of the 6Ns and get good attendances.

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are wales ireland and Scotland doing bar boycotting the lions? Are they lining up matches against themselves?
Tbf the financial issues and covid are a great opportunity for wr to flex their muscles and push through changes now.

I think there would be demand for a 10 match 6Ns played annually. That would be one less international match than currently played.  Take in the reduced travel costs and larger attendances for teams like Italy I think they would be fine.  CVC makes more, and 6N would match their income.  It is easy enough to add replace the T2 games the 6N play in the AIs with Georgia (better than the USA, Samoa, Tonga who the 6Ns currently must play). You could add a second team (currently Portugal or Spain)

I think we have seen Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy play each other outside of the 6Ns and get good attendances.

In that scenario the six nations will only play the SH during RWC’s

Yes I remember the wales scotland game. I attended. Not sold out and reasonably cheap. A home and away 6 nations tournament does guarantee england winning a lot more though so swings and roundabouts. Not going to happen though and rugby still needs to change.

The obvious thing is to sell 6 nations rights to sky of course. Start paying unions more for developing players. The rfu are visionaries.

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are wales ireland and Scotland doing bar boycotting the lions? Are they lining up matches against themselves?
Tbf the financial issues and covid are a great opportunity for wr to flex their muscles and push through changes now.

I think there would be demand for a 10 match 6Ns played annually. That would be one less international match than currently played.  Take in the reduced travel costs and larger attendances for teams like Italy I think they would be fine.  CVC makes more, and 6N would match their income.  It is easy enough to add replace the T2 games the 6N play in the AIs with Georgia (better than the USA, Samoa, Tonga who the 6Ns currently must play). You could add a second team (currently Portugal or Spain)

I think we have seen Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy play each other outside of the 6Ns and get good attendances.

In that scenario the six nations will only play the SH during RWC’s

It would include Fiji & Japan

As opposed to the RC only playing 6N sides now (bar very few exceptions and odd WC warmup) while the 6N sides play nearly every T2 side between them except Urugary and Nambia (debatable if Nambia are still T2) nearly every year.

T2 realistically
Japan
Fiji
Samoa
Tonga
USA
Georgia
Urugary.

Brendan wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are wales ireland and Scotland doing bar boycotting the lions? Are they lining up matches against themselves?
Tbf the financial issues and covid are a great opportunity for wr to flex their muscles and push through changes now.

I think there would be demand for a 10 match 6Ns played annually. That would be one less international match than currently played.  Take in the reduced travel costs and larger attendances for teams like Italy I think they would be fine.  CVC makes more, and 6N would match their income.  It is easy enough to add replace the T2 games the 6N play in the AIs with Georgia (better than the USA, Samoa, Tonga who the 6Ns currently must play). You could add a second team (currently Portugal or Spain)

I think we have seen Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy play each other outside of the 6Ns and get good attendances.

In that scenario the six nations will only play the SH during RWC’s

It would include Fiji & Japan

As opposed to the RC only playing 6N sides now (bar very few exceptions and odd WC warmup) while the 6N sides play nearly every T2 side between them except Urugary and Nambia (debatable if Nambia are still T2) nearly every year.

T2 realistically
Japan
Fiji
Samoa
Tonga
USA
Georgia
Urugary.

What is happening now is irrelevant to the my point.

I am saying if six nations play double round there won't be any time in the calendar to play any rugby championship sides, they will only meet RC teams in the RWC.

Which is a Frak up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The obvious thing is to sell 6 nations rights to sky of course. Start paying unions more for developing players. The rfu are visionaries.

I doubt paying the Tonga and Samoa Unions for players born on their Islands would do anything for player development etc as it would go into the dodgy black hole both throes unions appear to be.  Paying players and the players funding PI players union, helping their village etc is better use of funds in my opinion.

In regards the 3N countries it would just mean players being taken once over a certain age e.g.. 23 as any pay for development would have to be up to a certain age as it is in soccer.

I can hardly see Australia paying Sarries for Skelton's development over the last few years where he has become a much better player.  And I also can't see Scotland paying NZ for a player who quailifed for them though parentage rule. Mata is a professional because of Scottish Rugby and what he has been given by the SRU through Edinburgh more than repays Fiji with his international displays.

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:What are wales ireland and Scotland doing bar boycotting the lions? Are they lining up matches against themselves?
Tbf the financial issues and covid are a great opportunity for wr to flex their muscles and push through changes now.

I think there would be demand for a 10 match 6Ns played annually. That would be one less international match than currently played.  Take in the reduced travel costs and larger attendances for teams like Italy I think they would be fine.  CVC makes more, and 6N would match their income.  It is easy enough to add replace the T2 games the 6N play in the AIs with Georgia (better than the USA, Samoa, Tonga who the 6Ns currently must play). You could add a second team (currently Portugal or Spain)

I think we have seen Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy play each other outside of the 6Ns and get good attendances.

In that scenario the six nations will only play the SH during RWC’s

It would include Fiji & Japan

As opposed to the RC only playing 6N sides now (bar very few exceptions and odd WC warmup) while the 6N sides play nearly every T2 side between them except Urugary and Nambia (debatable if Nambia are still T2) nearly every year.

T2 realistically
Japan
Fiji
Samoa
Tonga
USA
Georgia
Urugary.

What is happening now is irrelevant to the my point.

I am saying if six nations play double round there won't be any time in the calendar to play any rugby championship sides, they will only meet RC teams in the RWC.

Which is a Frak up.

7.5 point as I understood it was what if the SH tell the 6N to sod off, then I would suggest 10 game 6 Nations  if that happened then the SH teams would need games to play so they would play T2 nations

In my 4 team test series you would only play each T1 nation not in your Region once per WC cycle.  I don't like playing every team every year.  The reason the WC should be special is you are playing all the teams together.  Any tournament that involves all the top teams playing against each other each year means the WC is pointless.

Under the WR suggestions Fiji and Japan would be locked in as T1 and only the top T2 nation in each Region would get one game against the bottom T1 nation every couple of years.

I would rather things as they are (except have the SH do tours for the AIs aswell) but NZRU and RA have said that's unacceptable and things have to change because they need a tournament funded by the NH and SA but have the prize money shared out with them.

England would arrange to play the sh giants I'm sure. The problem with not wanting to make the rugby world fairer is that the big unions like France and england will take advantage of the situation.

No 7&1/2 wrote:England would arrange to play the sh giants I'm sure. The problem with not wanting to make the rugby world fairer is that the big unions like France and england will take advantage of the situation.

Life isn't fair boo hoo, so why does the rugby world need to be?

These big unions are big because they have worked hard for years to build and grow the game. They haven't had it handed to them on a plate.

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:England would arrange to play the sh giants I'm sure. The problem with not wanting to make the rugby world fairer is that the big unions like France and england will take advantage of the situation.

Life isn't fair boo hoo, so why does the rugby world need to be?

These big unions are big because they have worked hard for years to build and grow the game. They haven't had it handed to them on a plate.

You really have quite a strong dislike in the SH nations, eh?

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:England would arrange to play the sh giants I'm sure. The problem with not wanting to make the rugby world fairer is that the big unions like France and england will take advantage of the situation.

Life isn't fair boo hoo, so why does the rugby world need to be?

These big unions are big because they have worked hard for years to build and grow the game. They haven't had it handed to them on a plate.

I don't think it is SH more NZ and AUS the 6N has issues with

SA have made changes to be better

Old Man wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:England would arrange to play the sh giants I'm sure. The problem with not wanting to make the rugby world fairer is that the big unions like France and england will take advantage of the situation.

Life isn't fair boo hoo, so why does the rugby world need to be?

These big unions are big because they have worked hard for years to build and grow the game. They haven't had it handed to them on a plate.

You really have quite a strong dislike in the SH nations, eh?

They do not rate our style of play and are very vocal about that, yet they are incredibly jealous of the money in the north despite the fact british fans were ripped off in 2015 to cover the costs of the 2011 RWC.

It's very simple for me, the NZRU and ARU are struggling now. They believe the game belongs to them. Thing is they wanted professionalism and they wanted it quickly. So now the game belongs to the highest bidder. That's England and France. Professionalism at that speed near on bankrupted the game in Scotland and set as back decades. We still only have two teams. There was no talk of restructuring the game to help us. No redistribution of money from Super Rugby to fund the Border Reivers or the Caledonia Reds in 2007. People were made redundant by the SRU to keep professional rugby afloat. The root of the problem was the same, players could earn more in England than they could in Scotland. So the best players went south. People did not come to watch because the stars weren't there. Scottish rugby is probably in the best place it has been in the pro era and that is the consequence of relatively good management of the pro-teams and of the finances in the meantime. Australia and New Zealand are now in similarly sticky situations. The idea they should make the same sacrifices Scotland made seems out the question. The notion that they should seek to rectify their own mistakes dismissed. If they made some attempt to get their own houses in order and to fix elements of their own system I would be more receptive to the arguments rather than the grievance culture mudswinging they've indulged in instead. We are selfish for looking to safeguard our place in the game while they seek to turn rugby upside down to safeguard their own. I think there are haves and have nots in rugby. Australia and New Zealand are in the former category in the grand scheme of things. Samoa, Fiji and Tonga are in the latter. If they want to help international rugby then they could suggest a levee on Tier One Match Fees, 10% goes in a kitty at World Rugby. World Rugby can then send it directly to Tier Two players, that would provide an incentive to turn out for the national team and a manageable and fair degree of redistribution. That way we'd see the Pacific Islanders much closer to the best teams that they can put out. That would make rugby more competitive and more marketable. The idea that Scotland, that has a smaller economy than New Zealand and Australia and a smaller rugby playing population both professionally and generally should be involved in some form of redistribution to them just because things are not as hunky-dory as they used to be is grotesque.

So as long as australia and New Zealand are lucky enough to be next england and france to take advantage of their club structure to pay their players and skim off other countries development system without fair compensation they should be tickety boo.

British and Irish Lions open to moving 2021 South Africa tour to autumn - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52539537

Looks like Beaumont has been able to use this to turn a few heads.

Look, I think there is a lot of “they this” and “they that” going on here.

I fully agree Super Rugby has been poorly planned and poorly executed.

I think the biggest downfall for SANZAAR was their attempt to try and compete with a European structure that firstly has a much bigger economy, much bigger population and a vastly different geographic set up, countries can be travelled in a day whereas in the SH you are fighting travel, time zones and much higher cost whilst having smaller economies, smaller populations and exodus of players.

What SANZAAR must accept is that they will never and can never compete with the wages paid by England, France, Japan, even Scotland, Wales and Ireland can pay higher wages due to the Six Nations and European setups.

Hooper for example is on a salary of 1.2 million Ozzie dollars, that is just crazy, no wonder the ARU are struggling.

First things first, the SH unions must pay what they can afford, regardless of what the competition across the oceans are paying.

SANZAAR is trying to model their structures on more matches, which doesn’t make sense because the expanded teams still add to the costing structures whilst diluting the quality.

New Zealand has always had five teams, which regardless of the talent pool provides them with a huge advantage as SA teams and Ozzie teams have always had to play more away games in NZ than what NZ had to play in their countries.

NZRU reasoning is they have the talent, but what they conveniently ignore is the advantage of more home games vs other nations.

Consider you have to play an extra game or two in NZ, that means NZ teams have a general advantage of 4-8 log points every season.

This has been conveniently ignored and is never spoken about.

Sure once the conference malarky has come in that has changed. But the interest in Super Rugby has wained, adding Argentina and Sunwolves made the interest dwindle even more.

The only way I see Super Rugby survive is down to nine teams, three each from SA, NZ and OZ.

The Currie Cup has to revive itself, it has always been very important to South African rugby, during the isolation years it was our test rugby.

I can’t speak for NZ or OZ, but in SA our rugby will in its healthiest state if we build a structure like this.

Amateur rugby
Varsity rugby
Currie Cup B division
Currie Cup premier division
Super Rugby/European Champions Cup
Test rugby.

The joke of it all is that those structures all currently exist, but due to the Super Rugby tournament taking over our calendar, the rest is given less importance.

I realise we cannot currently compete financially with Europe, but if the reality is you cant compete then dont.

Build a structure that is financially sustainable, pay players a fair wage, those that can earn more elsewhere must go.

We have a big talent pool, for every star that leaves there are a half a dozen potentials waiting in the wings.

If NZRU and the ARU can’t compromise on a shortened version of Super Rugby we should leave. Simple as that.

Even if we don’t then get into European Champions Cup.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL4N2CI0E3

New Zealand Rugby Union made NZ$190 in 2018 and NZ$187 in 2019.  That is €106m and €104m.

Now explain to me how NZRU are making their second and third biggest income and more income than the IRFU, SRU, SARU and FIR yet they feel that all the 6N Unions and SA owe them money.  They also want money off the WRU who only make slightly more than them due to the events at their stadium so from Rugby. So under the NZRU logic they should be given some of their money to the poorer unions of Italy, Scotland, South Africa and Argentina.

They have had 5 professional regional teams since professionalism.  SA and Wales both have heavily subsides private backing.  Wales and Ireland only have 4 teams and the SRU have 2 while Italy has only 1 funded by the FIR.  Each if these have had to cut their cloth to fit the money.

Now I accept that travel costs are more within NZ than any of those countries and SR has higher costs than the Pro14.  But maybe the NZ should ask where all the money is going.

They were spending NZ$68 on wages for SR and AB in 2018.

Also when the NZRU had planned to make losses at a time when they bring in there 2nd and 3rd highest income tells you that they don't believe in rainy day funds.  You would think the extra cash from the lions would be spread over the 12 year cycle but with forecasted losses for 18 and 19 (which they then made even with high income) you can see they weren't good planners and have no interest in sustainability.

So a general question do people think it's fine that theres no set finance flow for teams playing away? Bear in mind that the number of home and away games teams play isnt equal?

I would be happy for each away team to be given a set fee.  In SR it's 70k regardless of what team you play in the knockouts.

Problem is will NZ pay the IRFU the same match fee to visit NZ as they want for the return leg.  Same costs to get there. We all know NZ charge alot more than any other international side.

The thing that upsets most people about NZ is their lack of consistency.  They deserve more because they are the ABs but the 6N tournament doesnt deserve to make more money because it's only the 6Ns.

So we broadly agree by the sounds of it that there is disparity in pay and the sharing of that, so it's a start. Your view of NZ is a bit of a distraction from that. NZ get their match fees agreed outside as they think the current agreement sucks. It does.

I would be in favour of all T1 teams getting a set fee for playing away from home (excluding tournament as things like the 6N and RC you play home and away and it evens out over the year/years)

I would then have a T1vT2 fee that would be lower to offset lower income for T1 but also allow T2 to host T1 nations without it being to high to discourage it (ringfencing by the back door)
Finally I would have a T2 match fee that each of them would pay to host each other.

Problems with this is
1. New Zealand refuse to be treated equally as they feel they are better than everyone
2. PIs generally don't play home games in the Pacific cup but play in a host country. They don't really play to many home games in general.
3. Some T2 nations get alot more away games against T1 nations than others (Georgia is the only T2 European nation to get T1 matches and don't get toured while the USA gets both even though they only beat Romania for the first time in the last 4 years)

Problem 1, you've got a big a chip for NZ as Cyril does for Ireland.
Problem 2 yes, that's the big issue that needs to be addressed re finance of home and away and one of the big things that Pichot was raising.
Yes again, and thus the need which fits to 2.

Pichot was identifying these things and saying things need to change to reflect those issues. Beaumont less so but COVID will and is focusing minds.

I very much like your first points. these are the things that should all be discussed among all stakeholders with a clean slate and everything on the table.

Problem is Pichot had the backing of SANZAAR who are the biggest winners from the current system as those three command much higher fees than everyone else except maybe England and France.

This is in part due to in the Summer 6 teams are looking for places to play with only 4 places to go that fans will care about.  In the AIs you have 4 teams wanted by 6 places each week (Wales have never failed to fill the 4th test).  Supply and demand comes into it.

So when you are backed by the Nations who make the most from away matches why would Pichot look for a change.  If he was looking for a %split of gate receipts that is another story.  That doesn't take into account the cost of the event (insurance costs in SA would be much lower than Ireland), running a small stadium that the Union rents for a few games a year v owning the stadium and having it empty for most of the year.

I am completely against % split

Regarding my chip for NZ I probably do but I like fairness and when you have a union who makes more than all but maybe 4 unions in the world and they are demanding that your union who makes less should give up some of your income to make it fair it is not right.  If the NZRU hadn't made record highs yet still can't pay the bills I don't see how Ireland taking 10% of their money and giving it to NZ would do anything other than make Ireland struggle to run 4 teams just so NZ can run 5 teams.  Why should Ireland give NZ 40% of 50k fans when the reverse fixture might only have 40k fans.  Why should SRU give money to RA and result in them lowering the max wage the SRU pays so RA can continue to have some of the best paid players on the planet playing at home.

I have more sympathy for RA and wish they would sit down with the SRU and follow their template.  They have falling income which means they don't have the same choices as NZ

I have alot of sympathy for SA who have had to cut half of their home based professional so that their money can make the RC and SR viable   Imagine if England and France had to make those cuts so the 6Ns and European Rugby was viable.

Wales have failed to fill the 4th test. I was there vs Scotland and it wasn't full.

Good negotiations mean that all sides are listened to. You don't have to give in to all demands, if there are even any demands.

The current system needs to change.  NZ have said they could be in massive if they don't get more money.  They already demand the most in match fees and with the finacial hit they cant ask for more.  That only leaves two choices

1. Every T1 gets the same fee.  NZ would get less so they will veto it.  If there was a tournament in the Summer and AIs than all match fees should banned for away teams as everyone would get home and away matches.
2. Everyone gets more money from somewhere.  Japan is a potential but it wouldn't lift every nation to the point where NZ would get more because everyone would get more (Scotland and Italy and probably could double fees if NZ got more) leave the NZRU still fighting off the richer clubs.

What NZRU want is an annual tournament were teams get money according to position.  As they would finish in the top 2 or 3 each year they figure they will get loads.  If they are getting more and the pot is not bigger than others a losing out mainly Scotland and Italy (and bad years Wales and Ireland).  The 4th or 5th richest Union can't be demanding more money from people who are better at managing their money.

In any WR tournament the performance fees for position should be small but they won't be because I can't see how else the SH think they will get more money.