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.

Just to compare Nations of Europe v Rest of the World in terms of money and potential. It's easy to see that unless the USA and Japan (both very internal when it comes to doing sports and sharing) would have to fund all rugby in the Americas and Pacific/Aisa for it to grow. If they both end up being white elephants thenEurope is the only hope.

Let's not forget that Russia finished 4th in the B6Ns while Germany finished 6th and were demoted.  Both accounted themselves ok in the WC and qualifiers considering their lowly placing. (Germany dispatching Kenya and Hong Kong well). Portugal were promoted up to the B6N from C6N just piping the Netherlands but finished 2nd this time round in the B6N while Rominia fell to last place.  That is the strenght and depth in Europe.  On the other hand Hong Kong, Namibia, Uragary and Canada are far better than anything below them. And each are miles behind what's in front.  Both Canada and Namibia would struggle in the B6Ns while Hong Kong may struggle to be promoted from the C6N (HK is ranked high due to the Asian Cup and not really playing better teams)

Top 15 teams from each Region
Rest of the World v Europe
1. South Africa v England
2. New Zealand v Ireland
3. Australia v France
4. Japan v Wales
5. Argentina v Scotland
6. Fiji v Georgia
7. Tonga v Italy
8. Samoa v Spain
9. USA v Romania
10. Uraguary v Russia
11. Hong Kong v Portugal
12. Canada v Netherlands
13. Namibia v Belgium
14. Brazil v Switzerland
15. Chile v Germany

No 7&1/2 wrote:So no reason at all. Not like you to throw silly comments out tight without any thought.

Why Pichot? No explanation from yourself as to why you want him instead of Bill. Just arguing for the sake of it. Prejudice is a nasty trait.

I havent said who I'd want tight. Still waiting for your answer however.
Oh Beaumont is still pushing for the new comp by the way. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52339817

Still at it!

Still asking why youd like Beaumont? Yup. What's he selling that you're buying. Is it the promise of the Nations league you like?

Have to agree with 7.5

You are dismissing Pichot for the top job due to his want of a world league and throw your support behind Bill who also wants a world league???

When asked why you wont support one world league wanter for another, you wont give a reason. Therefore the only conclusion is you want Bill over Pichot, not because Bill has views aligned to your wants, but because Bill is Bill or he is not Pichot.

A few good things from Monye here. https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/apr/19/rugby-union-must-see-enforced-break-as-a-chance-to-hit-the-reset-button?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
Not directly related to the throwing in of hats but does cover many of the discussion points.

One thing that always strikes me when they talk about a global calendar is nobody every gives any solutions, just problems. Because the Southern Hemisphere has its calendar, and the Northern Hemisphere has its calendar. So then you're saying either one block moves to suit the other block or vice versa. Or you have a compromise, which, when you think about it, is what we have at the moment.

The compromise doesnt give a proper solution. Personally I think that 6 nations and rugby championship should run at the same time. And we work from there with blocks of internationals all at the same time. Seasons to start and end at the same time. To do this all cards need to be on the table and work from there. Not an easy thing to do at all. There are several outcomes to those discussions including people/organisations spitting the dummy and trying to use their weight to get exactly what they want. Whoch is why it's a tightrope walk for anyone trying to do it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The compromise doesnt give a proper solution. Personally I think that 6 nations and rugby championship should run at the same time. And we work from there with blocks of internationals all at the same time. Seasons to start and end at the same time. To do this all cards need to be on the table and work from there. Not an easy thing to do at all. There are several outcomes to those discussions including people/organisations spitting the dummy and trying to use their weight to get exactly what they want. Whoch is why it's a tightrope walk for anyone trying to do it.

Is part of the problem that running the 6Ns and the RC at the same time mean that it splits TV viewers - if Sky, as predicted get hold of the 6Ns they're not going to want to put them up against the RC? They'll want a steady spread of internationals - 6Ns in the spring, RC in the NH summer time, summer tours to the SH and then SH tours in the autumn. Club rugby to be scheduled around those.

I'm still at a loss to see what benefits there are for the NH sides in any changes to the status quo, either in a revised calendar which moves NH rugby into the summer, a world league that dilutes the RWC, the world club league which only will emphasise the gap between the haves and have nots of European rugby, any changes to the 6Ns format, etc.

To be benevolent it seems like change for changes sake - as in "we've got to do something new" or to be cynical it seems like an attempt at a power and money grab by the SH nations. No problem with helping the T2 and developing nations, especially in Europe, but not a penny should be going to Australian and New Zealand rugby.

Again saying that the RC and 6N should run at the same time is all very well until you ask when should they run. Would you move the 6 Nations to the end of the European domestic season or would you move the RC to the beginning of the Southern Domestic Season? Even then it's not simple. At the moment the Six Nations runs alongside the domestic leagues, if you moved the Six Nations then either the domestic leagues will have to move to or they will on separate weekends. In that case you have the player welfare questions. Either you add an extra five-seven games onto the season of the top internationals or you introduce a game limit. The clubs then have a right to ask the question as to why can't they play their top players whenever they want when they pay their wages. Equally if the Six Nations won't happen until after the domestic season what's to say that a player definitely is or definitely isn't going to be selected. There's a myriad of questions for the wider game that come with simplifying it at the top.

I've seen Pichot stating he wants the Lions to tour North and South America as well as its traditional haunts. I don't know if he means that instead of a series or as an addition to the current series. If he means as stand alone tours then he's got no chance. I suspect all four home nations would expect to go to Argentina and win a series before you even start on North America. You have to go back to 2008 for the last time Argentina beat a European side at home.

Starting from scratch as I said I feel you have to do so with everything on the table. So yes it would be on the table to move the 6 nations but vice versa so it would be that the championship could be moved. In terms of competition start times shouldn't really impact bar those for sa at home. Could actually increase interest from a european aspect and increase some sponsorship here partly ticking a financial box.

Lots of questions which are wholly appropriate and if either side does stick their heels in and wants to dictate then it won't work. At the moment the 6ns does seem to dictate too much for me though.

C'mon Bill. Best man for the job.

See tight gets it. It's all about the nations league.
'Tuilagi for Samoa' is a good motto I suppose as well.

Now Pichot wants to get his hands on the Lions tour money too, it's all about the money with him.

C'mon Bill put him back in his box and fire his ass.

I quite like Monye’s thoughts.

I do think there is too much rugby, investors want the most revenue possible so seasons are stretched to the limit.

What world rugby must solve if they want a global international season is which 14 -16 week block will be the best compromise between both hemispheres.

The world league club or international thing is a no go in my view. Test series would be more popular in my view.

Club seasons are too long, there are only 52 weeks in a year, remove 8 for rest and recuperation and 12+2 weeks for prep for internationals and that leaves 30 weeks for club rugby.

If European Champions cup takes 9 weeks then that leaves 21 weeks for top 14, pro 14 and Gallagher Premiership.

That means no preptime no warmup matches, it is just ridiculous.

There is simply too much rugby.

Test rugby brings the big bucks, you cannot skimp on that.

Rory Best says northern hemisphere nations should align season with southern - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52362279
A bit of summer rugby would be quite nice.

I am still waiting to see how a nations league benefits T2 nations unless they are saying the SH is a T2 in terms of money

6 Nations while they are going to make losses don't seem to be so cap in hand as Aus and NZ. The nations league will ultimately split the 6 Nations money and the European money from the summer tests and AIs between 12 Nations.

The RC which already has poor viewing and attendances when compared to the 6Ns will add Japan and the USA or Fiji thus diluting a weaker tournament even more. I can only see those teams dragging down average attendances while also adding less than they would take.

So all the extra money would have to come from Europe. The fact that two of the SH nations rely on the Lions to get them out of wholes while a third nation needs WR money just to run their only professional team says that only SA has any money.

If the 6 Nations handed over 20m a year to the B6N they would get a better return. 5 of the 6 have been to the WC.
Georgia has one of the top12 u20 team, plenty players and a professional league
Spain have started a professional league.
Portugal have been to 8th best team in Europe at u20s for the last 3 years and missed out on promotion to the top tier by 1 pts and may push Scotland when the next tournament happens.
Russia has two professional teams
This year's B6N had an average attendance of 5.5k
Plenty for WR to work with but they never seem to. WR pours loads of money into the PIs yet most of Samoa's and Tonga's squads are second generation and from NZ.

When WR talks about T2 nations it seems to forget half of the are European.

European T2 nations which has a potential to be as big a market as the USA but doesn't have the competition of America Football seems undesirable to WR as we don't want Europe getting more control. But we'll take their money cause we don't need it. They have the structures, interest and even local players

The issue around Tier 2 countries is they are forever on the cusp of breaking through but it's actually a relative rarity for a Tier 2 side to beat a Tier 1 country. Georgia are forever spoken about as on the cusp but they have never actually beaten a Tier 1 side. Georgia were thrashed by Fiji at the World Cup. Russia are even further behind. At the World Cup they were abysmal. I think most Tier One teams would have to go down to at least sixth choice sides before the games were remotely competitive. It's been six years since Samoa beat a Tier One side. It was Italy (more on them later). It's been four years since Tonga beat a Tier 1 side, it was Italy. Fiji have recorded four wins in the last decade. Two of them were against Italy. Japan are the new next, best hope. They have a very good chance of making the transition. They have a professional league, in a country with a large population and a very strong economy. There's a benefit to engage with them out of the self-interests of the Tier One nations.But then Canada looked likely to break through in the nineties. They reached World Cup knockout stages and recorded a relatively respectful result against the All-Blacks when they were there. Italy and Argentina have shown in recent years that it's not that straightforward. Both have been Tier One for two decades. Their professional sides struggle to compete in their respective leagues. Since 2012 (when the Rugby Championship was formed) Argentina have won 5 out of 42 matches. In that same time frame Italy have won 4 from 43 matches. Both provide fairly clear evidence that simply being invited into the club doesn't allow you to compete.

I agree that T2 has alot of work to be done but again there are alot of signs for hope on the European side

Georgia did lose to Fiji but they had played 4 days previous while Fiji were on an 8 day turn around so not surprising.  Georgia at u20 have been in the top tier since gaining promotion in 2016.  While they may only have finish 9th or 10th they have still stayed there. They automatically quailifed for the last WC plus unlike Samoa and Tonga most of their players are born Georgians.  They have not beaten a T1.5 team (Italy, Japan, Fiji and Argentina) but they are not like Japan whose team is based on imports.  They are getting better each year but it is a slow growth.

Italy have had their ups and downs.  They beat South Africa in the last WC cycle. At u20s they have been improving at both 6Ns and Summer Championship.  They have been in the top teir since 2014 with the last three years seeing them finish 8th twice and 9th once.  Their clubs are improving mainly built off of young talent coming through rather than imports as in times past.  They have improved but not as fast as the other 6N teams.  They are clearly better than the T2s but not quiet good enough for T1.  They have large attendances for international matches compared to any other non T1 nation (5N + 3N). And they aren't propped up by WR like the other T1.5 nations.  Italy's second Teir of club is still semi pro and would be equal if not better than Ireland Wales or Scotland and better than anything of the T1.5/T2 nations outside Japan.

Japan imports to many players for it to be a sustainable model. Yes they have a professional league but again also has alot of imports in it.  WR needs to get Japan and the PIs into their own annual tournament were each country can play their best players.  Currently that doesn't happen.  Adding Japan to the RC will not improve Japan as the WC was a once off tournament set up to benefit them the most. On an even playing field they will be worse than Italy or Argentina.  At u20s they have been a yoyo team between T1 and T2 with last year just scraping past Portugal by 1pt (35-34)

If you could make Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, USA, Canada, Urugary and Namibia and stick them into Australia you would have what is available in Europe.

European Rugby is growing off the back of local talent with growing numbers of participation.  The PIs have reached saturation and don't have the potential to grow more.

At 7s were Fiji have learned to use it to get professional 15s contracts and maybe that's a way to help T2.

Whoever does top WR they need to actually do things to grow the games rather than just being a bank.

U20 T2 to also be 12 teams. It is madness that only one team from each of the 6 regions get in plus host plus demoted team from T1
So only one European autoquailifies. Only one between Samoa and Tonga get in. It would provide 4 more places were the top 4 teams would automatically be in it.

I would not be against 3 tiers of 8 teams held in three locations
Format could be
1A v 2B goes to final and 3rd place playoff
2A v 1B same
3A v 4B 5th place playoff and relegation
4A v 3B same

Regional Rugby T2

Actually oversee it.  They allowed the farce in registration in European Rugby and the accomadation issue in African.

Be actively supporting Regional Rugby rather than rubber stamping them (such as the American 6 Nations)

Look to have the top 20 nations in the world being able to have 45 professionals to call upon.  If that means part funding so be it.

Have a T2 WC inbetween WC to determine the 8 teams to Qualify for the WC. Have it be 16 teams based on a mix of rankings and regions

Personally this tier 1, tier 2 etc irks me.

There are two types of rugby countries in the world, those with a professional domestic competition and those with amateur domestic rugby.

Those with professional domestic rugby needs to find ways to sustain their professional competitions, the current mantra is to team up with other nations such as the pro 14 and Super rugby is you can’t financially sustain the cost.

England, France and Japan are the only rugby nations currently capable of sustaining a professional league and much of it is subsidized by billionaires.

Take those billionaires away and many of those clubs will not be sustainable due to high player salaries.

So professional rugby needs a reset. It needs to rethink the competitions which are now simply about sheer numbers of games that can be played.

less is more.

England and France need to reduce salaries and numbers of games played during the Top 14 and Gallagher Premiership.

This isn’t soccer, rugby players are at higher risk for muscle fatigue due to hard hits and recovery time.

Both competitions should be played as a single round robin.

Pro 14 need to kick SA out and go to a single round robin.

SA should rebuild the Currie Cup.

NZ to revitalize the Mitre 10

Australia need to restructure everything, build some professional teams and re energize the NRC.

Then Europe can do their European Champions Cup as per normal structure

SA, NZ and Australia can have a shortened version of Super Rugby, max three teams each.

Those countries that dont have professional domestic rugby comps , need help.

That is as far as domestic rugby is concerned.

Japan, USA/Canada, Georgia and Spain have professional leagues

Russia has two professional clubs that also take part in European Cups
Germany has/had one
South America has set up a league that I think is professional.
Not sure about Romania but they use to have professional clubs

Hence why you can't say professional clubs as some countries have professional but they are small wages.

T2 are those who don't have full voting rights at WR and also don't take part in either the 6N or RC.
Argentina without WR help would not be able to fund the Jags they are only T1 in name only.  At least Japan and Italy can fund their only top professional clubs/regions either via the union or private investment.

Brendan wrote:Japan, USA/Canada, Georgia and Spain have professional leagues

Russia has two professional clubs that also take part in European Cups
Germany has/had one
South America has set up a league that I think is professional.
Not sure about Romania but they use to have professional clubs

Hence why you can't say professional clubs as some countries have professional but they are small wages.

T2 are those who don't have full voting rights at WR and also don't take part in either the 6N or RC.
Argentina without WR help would not be able to fund the Jags they are only T1 in name only.  At least Japan and Italy can fund their only top professional clubs/regions either via the union or private investment.

Sustainability is key, US rugby just folded, Haven’r heard anything about a southern american league.

Proffesional rugby salaries must be adequate so the players are fulltime rugby players. othwise it isn’t really pro, is it?

As much as I applaud the aims of Pichot I would be very concerned if he is elected. Growing the game and supporting tier 2 nations should be done, but during these extremely challenging times we cannot afford to kill the 6Ns cash cow. Money will be a massive problem for all so some very careful thinking will be required. There is of course room to try and please all, but now is not the time for a major overhaul.

I would not want to see some convoluted world league as I think that would undermine the RWCs. Friendlies are full blooded test matches so just stick with them. But on future Southern Hemisphere tours I would like to see 1 game given over as a full test against a P.I. nation in a decent stadium in Aus or NZ where the home side gets all the money. Lions tours can add these fixtures as well including games V Japan.

And maybe there is room for a Euro comp where the winner challenges the bottom 6Ns team for the right to play in the next tournament?

US rugby went into administration rather than what we would think of as bankruptcy to the best of my knowledge.

All the leagues/clubs I mention are professional but aren't employing top players which is what I think you meant. Ireland could fund an 8 team professional league probably but would have no stars.

WR funding Japan, Fiji or USA to join the RC is going to cost alot in extra travel. That money could go straight to making players more professional in Europe as they already pay travel costs themselves.

If Georgia and a second team were added to the 6Ns that would pay for itself in for those two countries. The 6N teams wouldn't have to give up any of the 6 Nations money competition money, extra home game to cover the extra travel trip. Instead let's send 6N money to the SH unions to prop them up.
I think a Europe Lions of France Italy and Georgia to tour the same year as the B&I lions wouldn't be bad either.

The convoluted world league is also being pushed for by Beaumont.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The convoluted world league is also being pushed for by Beaumont.

Is this a ploy - basically when chasing the votes push for a "World League" safe in the knowledge that the NH countries will say no, so you can do the "don't blame me I tried" routine?

hugehandoff wrote: And maybe there is room for a Euro comp where the winner challenges the bottom 6Ns team for the right to play in the next tournament?  

The short answer is no - relegation would kill professional rugby in Scotland and Italy and do varying levels of financial harm to the other four nations - the answer is (when ready) to expand the 6Ns to 7 or even 8 when teams like Georgia or Spain get good enough to compete at that level.

Problem with the world league is it would basically ringfence T1 forever. Any relegation would be subject to playoff. Georgia for all their progress still are not able to beat Italy. Ringfencing the USA and Japan into the SH section will cause Fiji to fall back in a one off game. It will end up being the USA as it's the only thing the SH and sponsers/TV would sign off on. It probably would be some political interferences stuff that would disallow Fiji.

Yes WR are going to have a T2 world league aswell but basically it would be the B6N, 3 PIs, Canada, Uraguary and Nambia. That then ringfences those nstions because of the money they would have compared to T3.

It would shrink the WR Tiers rather than grow them

Instead they should be pushing the regional tournaments. That are in place already
America 6 Nations
T1 Argentia
T2 USA, Canada, Uraguary
T3 Chile, Brazil
Underpinned by the leagues of the MRL in the North and S American equivalent (2 teams from each nation)
African Gold Cup
T2 Namibia
T3  Kenya, Tunisia, Uganda Zimbabwe and Morocco. T
Underpinned by Nambia and Zimbabwe playing in the SA club system
Could have WR fund Nambia and Zimbabwe have a fully professional squad. Kenya second best team thanks to 7s

Asia/pacific - Pacific Nations cup currently is 3 PIs plus one were weaken teams play.
Hong Kong needs a Pacific Nations Cup that actually plays home and away and gets their best players.
Should have
T1 Named on
T2 Japan, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji
T3 Hong Kong
Should be underpinned by a HK team in the J league and a PI league or 3 in the Mitre10 or Aus league

Europe B6N
WR should fund part of the a team of home based players playing each other home and away plus 6 European cup games.
I would like to see the 6N u20 teams play in the B6N as I think both groups would benefit everyone. Most of the u20 players are already playing in the domestic leagues against fully grown men. Have Div 1 & 2 and put the top three from each in the Div 1. I think only Georgia could currently beat those teams

Whilst I agree the game must grow we also need to be realistic.

Countries like Namibia, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga have extremely small populations, and I cannot see a way where rugby will ever be financially viable to those nations.

WR can assist in putting structures in place, but will forever be funding them.

I think they both acknowledge that the status quo isnt really working for rugby as a whole londoner. They're both pretty open to how hard it is, Pichot more so.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think they both acknowledge that the status quo isnt really working for rugby as a whole londoner. They're both pretty open to how hard it is, Pichot more so.

I don't think the status quo is working but throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't the answer either.

Any expansion of either the international calendar or the club level one (via the "world club championship") by extension means a reduction in the domestic one - if the players are committed to eight internationals a year, plus three to five world club championship games on top of the domestic league and HEC then something's going to give - do we reduce the number of teams in the league to give the players more rest, do we reduce the number of teams in the HEC or even do away with the second tier competition - what impact has that on the lesser clubs in the Premiership, TOP14 or the PRO14.

Effectively you'd be running European club rugby for the benefit of nine to twelve clubs - perm four of Saracens, Quins, Bath, Exeter, Leicester and Wasps for England, Leinster, Munster, Glasgow and Ulster for the PRO12 - the Welsh clubs on their current set up would be pushed to compete and forget the Italians and then the top half dozen rich French teams. Possibly in real terms after a few year just for Saracens, Leinster and a couple of the French teams.

As I've posted all for the NH developing the game in the rest of Europe and elsewhere but not in favour of keeping the SH T1 countries in a place they'd like to be accustomed to.

All World Rugby want to do is spend other people's money.

That's why pichot is keen to talk the clubs and european rugby as well as the unions. Beaumont is right in that the covid situation potentially opens up more options for consideration and focuses minds more of club owners and wider.

I think USA rugby has gone bust but MLR is a different organisation, it's just sanctioned by USA Rugby. In the same way that Premiership Rugby is not the same organisation as the RFU. The RFU is also in pretty serious financial trouble I believe. For all of Australian rugby's difficulties, they still have double the number of professional teams as Scotland. They are still higher in the rankings. When Scotland had to fold the Border Reivers there was no call to change rugby's systems to ensure the survival of Scottish rugby. New Zealand and South Africa sit at the top of rugby still. The difference is that in the last ten years the European sides have been getting better and closer to the Southern Hemisphere teams. It seems that there is a status quo in rugby that the Southern Hemisphere sides want to keep. The further into professionalism we get the more money becomes the deciding factor. To keep ahead of the European sides they need the European money.

Paying double the average wage to rugby players in Uraguary, Namibia and the PIs for about 60 people is only 1m a year at most. Not a massive amount for WR to pay if it was serious. The 80m WR are ready to fork out are going to do what, keep AUS and NZ holding onto players they can't afford only to see those countries attendance rates continue to decline.

I didn't see WR jump in to bail out Italy when there was all the issues in European Club rugby that caused them to go backwards

It's not like RA or NZRU are going under they are just prolonging the restructuring that Ireland, Wales, Scotland and SA all went through. They have all come out the other side without WR's help

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's why pichot is keen to talk the clubs and european rugby as well as the unions. Beaumont is right in that the covid situation potentially opens up more options for consideration and focuses minds more of club owners and wider.

Good luck to him persuading the owners of the English and French clubs to do anything that doesn't directly benefit the English and French clubs.

First question - where's the money coming from?

It's a hard job indeed to bring change.
What money?

Some more quotes here World Rugby: Agustin Pichot believes he can oust Sir Bill Beaumont as chairman - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52383771

'I am going to be blunt. They all want more incomes and a better game. Everyone wants the same: income, and a better product. We all have a common agenda," he said. (Pichot)
He also talks on expanding the success of the 6ns but a more equitable share in general. No detail.on that.
Surely everyone can agree it's a bit of a farce that voting is weighted to the big teams?

Yes, the voting issue is just a waste of time at this point, however the big unions won’t change it as they fear control will be lost.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's a hard job indeed to bring change.
What money?

And that's when the English and French club owners go "bye!".

The voting issue is not a huge sticking point, providing the voting is independent and you don't end up with (for example) the PI nations voting as "clients" of New Zealand and doing what the NZRFU tells them to do - what happens if the WR board vote that a proportion of the 6Ns income has to be given to the SH teams? Apart from another RU/RL split between North and South.

What Pichot wants to do seems to be trying to run World Rugby like FIFA whilst forgetting he's on crickets budget.

While the soccer model isn't great each country gets one vote.

However Fifa can't tell UEFA or anyone else what to do. WR can't tell Regions what to do against their will or interest which is what it sounds like to me.  Why can't the RC add teams if they want more money, it was all the talk until the 6N refused to fund the RC going to 6 teams via the Nations League.

I like the bit about more equitable income. Does that mean the NZRU will share it's bigger chunk of their turnover with the poor people of the IRFU, SRU FIR and SARU.

Super Rugby is losing hand over fist it seems for every nation.  We aren't talking Pro14 top ups but being a drain on resources where it is the biggest contributing factors to losses.  Let's look at making that cost less rather than trying to increase costs (and having a club WC will just drain the SH team more)

I cant see that pichot wants to directly share 6 nations wealth though londoner. I dont see you much detail on that as yet. It may well end up as the games outside of tournaments need to be played more equitably shared ie not england vs aus every ai but aus vs Romania and england vs Namibia. We dont know. We also dont know what the clubs would be offered in terms of international windows.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I cant see that pichot wants to directly share 6 nations wealth though londoner. I dont see you much detail on that as yet. It may well end up as the games outside of tournaments need to be played more equitably shared ie not england vs aus every ai but aus vs Romania and england vs Namibia. We dont know. We also dont know what the clubs would be offered in terms of international windows.

While it would be nice to see more teams playing T1 nations could places like Romania pay the same match fee and Oz sell the TV rights back home for the same. Not unless all Summer and AIs money's from everything was put into one pot and divided up accordingly which is a non starter as 6N teams generally get bigger attendances and TV deals which they depend on to run their Union.

Well change seems to be coming.

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I cant see that pichot wants to directly share 6 nations wealth though londoner. I dont see you much detail on that as yet. It may well end up as the games outside of tournaments need to be played more equitably shared ie not england vs aus every ai but aus vs Romania and england vs Namibia. We dont know. We also dont know what the clubs would be offered in terms of international windows.

While it would be nice to see more teams playing T1 nations could places like Romania pay the same match fee and Oz sell the TV rights back home for the same.  Not unless all Summer and AIs money's from everything was put into one pot and divided up accordingly which is a non starter as 6N teams generally get bigger attendances and TV deals which they depend on to run their Union.

just a question

Does Irish , Scottish, Welsh and Italian rugby not get same share of the pot as English and French rugby when it comes to the six nations?

How about the European Champions Cup?

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I cant see that pichot wants to directly share 6 nations wealth though londoner. I dont see you much detail on that as yet. It may well end up as the games outside of tournaments need to be played more equitably shared ie not england vs aus every ai but aus vs Romania and england vs Namibia. We dont know. We also dont know what the clubs would be offered in terms of international windows.

While it would be nice to see more teams playing T1 nations could places like Romania pay the same match fee and Oz sell the TV rights back home for the same.  Not unless all Summer and AIs money's from everything was put into one pot and divided up accordingly which is a non starter as 6N teams generally get bigger attendances and TV deals which they depend on to run their Union.

just a question

Does Irish , Scottish, Welsh and Italian rugby not get same share of the pot as English and French rugby when it comes to the six nations?

How about the European Champions Cup?

6N and European Rugby sell the rights and after agreed fees to participating teams are distributed, the company divides the rest with the shareholds as they seem fit.

The gate receipts are kept by the home team generally as would sponsership if not competition specified.
In Super Rugby from quarter finals on the away team is paid a fee for being there.  Crusaders made more money for the SR they won in SA than the one at home a year later.  In Europe you would make Bank if you could hold all your knockout games in your home Stadium, not so much in SR.

As far as I know WR facilitates Test Matches rather than run them.. It is up to the unions to organise the financials etc as far as I know

Again the 6N generally play 25-33% of their AIs against T2 nations as well as some in the summer over a WC cycle   how are the RC on that front, that's right they generally can't afford to so price the T2 nations out of the Market with their match fee (NZ even asked a price of the RFU that was to much for them at one stage).

The nations league won't fix the NH money v the SH no money unless everything is shared.  Italy get more for home games generally than NZ and would have the potential to earn more from sponsership as they have bigger Multi-nationals than NZ. They also would see more money increase than NZ as the current Turnover and costs are alot lower so more gain for them. So they could potential double the wages of their Pro14 teams while NZ couldn't double their wage bill (if figures talked about were true)

Brendan wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I cant see that pichot wants to directly share 6 nations wealth though londoner. I dont see you much detail on that as yet. It may well end up as the games outside of tournaments need to be played more equitably shared ie not england vs aus every ai but aus vs Romania and england vs Namibia. We dont know. We also dont know what the clubs would be offered in terms of international windows.

While it would be nice to see more teams playing T1 nations could places like Romania pay the same match fee and Oz sell the TV rights back home for the same.  Not unless all Summer and AIs money's from everything was put into one pot and divided up accordingly which is a non starter as 6N teams generally get bigger attendances and TV deals which they depend on to run their Union.

just a question

Does Irish , Scottish, Welsh and Italian rugby not get same share of the pot as English and French rugby when it comes to the six nations?

How about the European Champions Cup?

6N and European Rugby sell the rights and after agreed fees to participating teams are distributed, the company divides the rest with the shareholds as they seem fit.

The gate receipts are kept by the home team generally as would sponsership if not competition specified.
In Super Rugby from quarter finals on the away team is paid a fee for being there.  Crusaders made more money for the SR they won in SA than the one at home a year later.  In Europe you would make Bank if you could hold all your knockout games in your home Stadium, not so much in SR.

As far as I know WR facilitates Test Matches rather than run them..  It is up to the unions to organise the financials etc as far as I know

Again the 6N generally play 25-33% of their AIs against T2 nations as well as some in the summer over a WC cycle   how are the RC on that front, that's right they generally can't afford to so price the T2 nations out of the Market with their match fee (NZ even asked a price of the RFU that was to much for them at one stage).

You aren’t really answering my questions though, not interested in super rugby revenue, want to know how much the smaller nations in europe benefit during the six nations and European champions cup.