Nations Championship?
-
Another thing to consider is how and when do nations organise extra games. For example say you come 3rd, 4th or 5th you will only be guaranteed 11 tests per year. But you will only likely know this at the end of November. So do you take a gamble and organise a second bledisloe or a game vs USA etc. This may come back to bite the eventual winner as they have two extra games in November.
I know Aus and NZ bank on those extra Bledisloe and Feature matches for extra revenue.
Ultimately it is going to make player management/squad depth etc much more important.
@chimoaus This only applies to NZ, but maybe they'll organise longer Maori ABs tours, or even Junior ABs matches. The latter could be good for test players who haven't had too much game time, and some wider training squad members, who aren't eligible to play for the MABs.
-
@chimoaus This only applies to NZ, but maybe they'll organise longer Maori ABs tours, or even Junior ABs matches. The latter could be good for test players who haven't had too much game time, and some wider training squad members, who aren't eligible to play for the MABs.
@Stargazer said in World League Rugby:
@chimoaus This only applies to NZ, but maybe they'll organise longer Maori ABs tours, or even Junior ABs matches. The latter could be good for test players who haven't had too much game time, and some wider training squad members, who aren't eligible to play for the MABs.
Maybe they will, you still have the issue of locking in other countries as they themselves wont know exactly how many games they may play. Perhaps most nations will just organise to play 13 tests, meaning 2 outside the World League and just play 15 tests if they make the final.
-
Just had a look at the 19 Six Nations tournaments since Italy joined. Apart from Italy, Scotland should be the most nervous about relegation being added to the Six Nations. Imagine if Scotland dropped to Division 2, you would wonder how the Union could cope financially.
Wooden Spoons
Italy 13
Scotland 4
Wales 1
France 1 -
I really like it to be honest. The travel part sucks for the non-Europe group, but that's always going to be the way with any global comp. The best thing is that every game matters. I love the promotion/relegation thing, its a shame they have to cut it for Lions years but can see why.
It reminds me a bit of athletics, they have the Olympics every 4 years, which is the pinnacle (analogous to Rugby World Cup), then the year before/after have World Champs (analogous to World League Rugby with promotion/relegation) and in the middle of the 4yr Olympic cycle there's no major international comp (this would be the Lions tour + World League Rugby - promotion/relegation).
Every year is different in the 4yr cycle, which keeps it interesting, rather than the year-on-year narrative just being "building towards" / "playing in" the next RWC.
-
I like it.,I especially like it that is trying to de power French and English clubs, and balance the money. No more playing at Twickenham for nothing whilst the RU take in millions of pounds. Yes England will get the gates will happen but we will also get a portion of the broadcasting through the overall deal. And on previous rankings well at least get some semi final money, probably some final money, and add another money spinner test for Bled 2. Hopefully I'll also be able to pay one sub to one streaming partner for all international rugby
-
I like it.,I especially like it that is trying to de power French and English clubs, and balance the money. No more playing at Twickenham for nothing whilst the RU take in millions of pounds. Yes England will get the gates will happen but we will also get a portion of the broadcasting through the overall deal. And on previous rankings well at least get some semi final money, probably some final money, and add another money spinner test for Bled 2. Hopefully I'll also be able to pay one sub to one streaming partner for all international rugby
@Machpants Ideally they would have revenue sharing as well, that would be massive for the less well off nations. Why should England and France make all the money because they have the population and stadiums.
Perhaps they could have a 50/50 of gate profits after stadium fees etc. Host nation could still keep stadium sponsorship and food sales etc.
There is also the issue of who gets six home games and who gets five. 11 games doesn't split equally.
I believe at the moment we have 6 or 7 home tests a year? No doubt the ABs will have an extra Bledisloe and a warm up game before first June test.
-
@Machpants Ideally they would have revenue sharing as well, that would be massive for the less well off nations. Why should England and France make all the money because they have the population and stadiums.
Perhaps they could have a 50/50 of gate profits after stadium fees etc. Host nation could still keep stadium sponsorship and food sales etc.
There is also the issue of who gets six home games and who gets five. 11 games doesn't split equally.
I believe at the moment we have 6 or 7 home tests a year? No doubt the ABs will have an extra Bledisloe and a warm up game before first June test.
@chimoaus said in World League Rugby:
There is also the issue of who gets six home games and who gets five. 11 games doesn't split equally.
Meh, non issue. It'll alternate like every other similar tournament. It's not like the 2/3 split in the 6N had done that any harm, and that's a much higher effect than 5/6
-
@chimoaus said in World League Rugby:
There is also the issue of who gets six home games and who gets five. 11 games doesn't split equally.
Meh, non issue. It'll alternate like every other similar tournament. It's not like the 2/3 split in the 6N had done that any harm, and that's a much higher effect than 5/6
@Machpants Yeah no doubt however would be a bummer if you host 5 and then get relegated. I guess the major factor is what percentage of total income is hosting a home game. I can't imagine we make that much hosting a game in Nelson so the broadcasting and sponsorship must be worth way more.
-
@chimoaus said in World League Rugby:
There is also the issue of who gets six home games and who gets five. 11 games doesn't split equally.
Meh, non issue. It'll alternate like every other similar tournament. It's not like the 2/3 split in the 6N had done that any harm, and that's a much higher effect than 5/6
@Machpants said in World League Rugby:
@chimoaus said in World League Rugby:
There is also the issue of who gets six home games and who gets five. 11 games doesn't split equally.
Meh, non issue. It'll alternate like every other similar tournament. It's not like the 2/3 split in the 6N had done that any harm, and that's a much higher effect than 5/6
It actually would still take some tinkering, as the world league is biennial. Under the current structure that would mean the same 6N teams playing 3 home games each time.
An easy fix, but the fix will still result in complaints as ti will disrupt a 100 and however many year tradition.
-
First of all, we need to sort out the pie in the sky wheat from the chaff.
There's no way in a million years that all the nations making up the WR voting block are going to voluntarily give up and share their host broadcasting rights for their existing competitions to be diverted into a large pot and then shared.
So, obviously, 6N TV rights, despite now possibly making up part of the world league every second year. The 6N unions are not going to give this away. Fair enough. Trickle down effect - therefore the SANZAAR won't break up their own lesser but still pretty good broadcast rights. Therefore Fiji and Japan (in proposed first iteration) will keep their own broadcasting rights. Which would be a possible financial boon for Fiji if they have 3 6N unions and 2 SANZAAR union visiting them each year.
Or else Japan and Fiji somehow get brought into the SANZAAR rights, which would complicate promotion/relegation.
So. In reality. The only extra revenue, to be shared by god-knows how many unions. Is:
- 2 semi-finals, and 1 final. TV Rights & ticket sales.
- An overall league sponsors. Which may crowd out existing sponsors
So, who is looking to benefit from the possible world league?:
- in the original proposal (pools of 3 in June/November windows) the T2 nations were going to benefit. No longer the case apart from a possible annointed 2 (Fiji and Japan)
- If TV rights get pooled. Then SANZAAR benefit hugely to narrow the gap with the NH. But IMO this not going to be a reality.
- A bit of extra pooled revenue from the 2 extra games under WR management every 2 years. Maybe some SH T1 nations might benefit a little from that. Personally I doubt NZ would make much more money from that than their current strategy of playing revenue sharing tests every 2 years.
I'm not dead set against it. But I don't see a lot of financial change from the status quo for the final version I expect to possibly pass.
-
@Machpants said in World League Rugby:
@chimoaus said in World League Rugby:
There is also the issue of who gets six home games and who gets five. 11 games doesn't split equally.
Meh, non issue. It'll alternate like every other similar tournament. It's not like the 2/3 split in the 6N had done that any harm, and that's a much higher effect than 5/6
It actually would still take some tinkering, as the world league is biennial. Under the current structure that would mean the same 6N teams playing 3 home games each time.
An easy fix, but the fix will still result in complaints as ti will disrupt a 100 and however many year tradition.
-
First of all, we need to sort out the pie in the sky wheat from the chaff.
There's no way in a million years that all the nations making up the WR voting block are going to voluntarily give up and share their host broadcasting rights for their existing competitions to be diverted into a large pot and then shared.
So, obviously, 6N TV rights, despite now possibly making up part of the world league every second year. The 6N unions are not going to give this away. Fair enough. Trickle down effect - therefore the SANZAAR won't break up their own lesser but still pretty good broadcast rights. Therefore Fiji and Japan (in proposed first iteration) will keep their own broadcasting rights. Which would be a possible financial boon for Fiji if they have 3 6N unions and 2 SANZAAR union visiting them each year.
Or else Japan and Fiji somehow get brought into the SANZAAR rights, which would complicate promotion/relegation.
So. In reality. The only extra revenue, to be shared by god-knows how many unions. Is:
- 2 semi-finals, and 1 final. TV Rights & ticket sales.
- An overall league sponsors. Which may crowd out existing sponsors
So, who is looking to benefit from the possible world league?:
- in the original proposal (pools of 3 in June/November windows) the T2 nations were going to benefit. No longer the case apart from a possible annointed 2 (Fiji and Japan)
- If TV rights get pooled. Then SANZAAR benefit hugely to narrow the gap with the NH. But IMO this not going to be a reality.
- A bit of extra pooled revenue from the 2 extra games under WR management every 2 years. Maybe some SH T1 nations might benefit a little from that. Personally I doubt NZ would make much more money from that than their current strategy of playing revenue sharing tests every 2 years.
I'm not dead set against it. But I don't see a lot of financial change from the status quo for the final version I expect to possibly pass.
@Rapido said in World League Rugby:
So, who is looking to benefit from the possible world league?:
- in the original proposal (pools of 3 in June/November windows) the T2 nations were going to benefit. No longer the case apart from a possible annointed 2 (Fiji and Japan)
I'd say the T2 and T3 nations are still the biggest winners here. Instead of a series of ad-hoc games each year, they are a part of something much larger and with a prospect of promotion if they succeed.
I'd also suggest the potential for a big-ticket, big-dollar sponsor is far greater under this proposal than the status quo.
While we do OK for jersey sponsors etc., the market for companies to support the Rugby Championship or the mid-year series is pretty thin as I understand it. But a world league? I could see a company like HSBC stumping up big coin for that.
-
Jersey sponsors is a dying revenue stream, although not as much as naming rights. See the struggles in 6N and Euro Cup up north. Companies realise it is orders of magnitude cheaper to use various forms of social media. However being in the Tier 2 comp, regularly, is going to be better for those than current, I certainly agree with that, incl jersey sponsors.
-
Along with getting 6N to agree with relegation, there's this small road bump..
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12210817
-
Along with getting 6N to agree with relegation, there's this small road bump..
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12210817
@Machpants That's what happens if you allow clubs having too much power and there's so much money involved.
Edit: ... and when your club seasons are too long.
-
@Machpants That's what happens if you allow clubs having too much power and there's so much money involved.
Edit: ... and when your club seasons are too long.
@Stargazer Yup fkn incompetent RFU and FFR when professionalism came about, real ivory tower stuff
-
Along with getting 6N to agree with relegation, there's this small road bump..
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12210817
@Machpants Well if the french had more french players there wouldn't be a problem as they would never make the finals anyway.
As a side note, does this make NZ players even more valuable as they do not play internationals? Well until they qualify this is.
