World Rugby Board elections
-
Already seeing some potential changes after the election?
@Rapido said in World Rugby Board elections:
Already seeing some potential changes after the election?
I'd be surprised if that happened. Having said that, the scheduling of the 6N is a major hindrance to a global calendar because the SH would either be playing no rugby then or it's own Rugby Championship type format.
-
@gt12 said in World Rugby Board elections:
SH getting control of World rugby and our players getting paid (and still turning out for us).
i think this is a pipe dream.
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
@gt12 said in World Rugby Board elections:
SH getting control of World rugby and our players getting paid (and still turning out for us).
i think this is a pipe dream.
You’re my wife, aren’t you?
-
@Rapido Well considering Bill has said the 6N is not going to move 'cos it's been played then 'since he was a nipper' (good old school reasoning there) I think that article is mostly rubbish and/or scenario testing
@Machpants said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Rapido Well considering Bill has said the 6N is not going to move 'cos it's been played then 'since he was a nipper' (good old school reasoning there) I think that article is mostly rubbish and/or scenario testing
Although it can be put down to old school reasoning, it is a fair point. It's far and away the most successful / watched annual competition in rugby. Generally February is the shittyest, coldest month up here - it wouldn't be the same without the 6N and both would lose some serious appeal without each other.
-
For that reason I think the idea should be to develop a SANZAAR competition that could become similar to the Nations Cup - SANZAAR could have made a 12 team competition in two levels with promotion relegation.
The markets for future exploitation are Japan, the US, and maybe Korea and China in the future, plus trying to shore up Canada.
Rugby Championship (1 game home or away rotating every year)
Sanzaar 4 plus Japan and Fiji
Nations Cup (same as RC)
Samoa, Tonga, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Korea? (Or Georgia?)
Relegation/promotion game between winner of Nations Cup and lowest performing team in RC.
To get countries to join, we could use Maori and All Black XV tours.
Certainly by adding Japan to the RC we could have had a big grab to Asia and we could shore up our voting for future WR.
USA rugby has filed for bankruptcy so even though there should be plenty of sponsorship dollars available in the good ole USA (e.g. AIG) it won't be easy to crack that market.
The other big problem is that European clubs won't be keen to release any of the PI players. They usually give the middle finger in a RWC year, and without their best players Fiji, Tonga and Samoa won't be as competitive.
-
USA rugby has filed for bankruptcy so even though there should be plenty of sponsorship dollars available in the good ole USA (e.g. AIG) it won't be easy to crack that market.
The other big problem is that European clubs won't be keen to release any of the PI players. They usually give the middle finger in a RWC year, and without their best players Fiji, Tonga and Samoa won't be as competitive.
@Bovidae said in World Rugby Board elections:
USA rugby has filed for bankruptcy so even though there should be plenty of sponsorship dollars available in the good ole USA (e.g. AIG) it won't be easy to crack that market.
The other big problem is that European clubs won't be keen to release any of the PI players. They usually give the middle finger in a RWC year, and without their best players Fiji, Tonga and Samoa won't be as competitive.
I think this is reply to my Pan-Pac idea?
USA bankruptcy laws, a body will be back in charge of USA rugby. They were over ambitious. Lost money on the marketing company they set up. There is already (some) money there, but mostly it is a play on future.
Re: PI rugby availability. Quite likely realistic post-covid pro set up will be the Trans- Ta$man plus PI turnament.
7 NZ teams, 4 Australian, 1 PI.
not enough to suply 3 PI national teams, but better than current.
NZ and Aus will have it in their interests to not restrict PI players playing for NZ teams, if they want this other proposed competition to work.The whole point of proposing a A Pan-Pac tournament, is that it could make money, not that it would be better rugby than the TRC. It could make it financially possible for PI nations to pay better appearance money, and rugby-wise it would be a competition more PI Euro-based players would want to take part in (For some, not even a RWC is enough though ...)
But, tbh, if the PI teams were relatively weak and Japan and USA got more wins, it may make the tournament more finacially valuable and speed up the value growth of the tournament. But, will make it less interesting to NZ and Australian viewers.
I'm still pro SANZAAR at international level.
I want the TRC to continue. Also, I would like a small SANZAAR club compeition.
I'm anti Super Rugby, and anti being tied to the fortunes of South Africas politics.Pan-Pac, once every 4 years, diversify. Create a tournament you have shared ownership of.
-
@Bovidae said in World Rugby Board elections:
USA rugby has filed for bankruptcy so even though there should be plenty of sponsorship dollars available in the good ole USA (e.g. AIG) it won't be easy to crack that market.
The other big problem is that European clubs won't be keen to release any of the PI players. They usually give the middle finger in a RWC year, and without their best players Fiji, Tonga and Samoa won't be as competitive.
I think this is reply to my Pan-Pac idea?
USA bankruptcy laws, a body will be back in charge of USA rugby. They were over ambitious. Lost money on the marketing company they set up. There is already (some) money there, but mostly it is a play on future.
Re: PI rugby availability. Quite likely realistic post-covid pro set up will be the Trans- Ta$man plus PI turnament.
7 NZ teams, 4 Australian, 1 PI.
not enough to suply 3 PI national teams, but better than current.
NZ and Aus will have it in their interests to not restrict PI players playing for NZ teams, if they want this other proposed competition to work.The whole point of proposing a A Pan-Pac tournament, is that it could make money, not that it would be better rugby than the TRC. It could make it financially possible for PI nations to pay better appearance money, and rugby-wise it would be a competition more PI Euro-based players would want to take part in (For some, not even a RWC is enough though ...)
But, tbh, if the PI teams were relatively weak and Japan and USA got more wins, it may make the tournament more finacially valuable and speed up the value growth of the tournament. But, will make it less interesting to NZ and Australian viewers.
I'm still pro SANZAAR at international level.
I want the TRC to continue. Also, I would like a small SANZAAR club compeition.
I'm anti Super Rugby, and anti being tied to the fortunes of South Africas politics.Pan-Pac, once every 4 years, diversify. Create a tournament you have shared ownership of.
My comments were in response to @gt12 suggestion that the Japanese and US markets are important to increase the revenue for SANZAAR and having more unity amongst the non-6N nations. While I agree that is true, my point was that it might not be as simple in the US and their sporting landscape. Unfortunately, we won't get to see how successful MLR would have been this year.
-
My comments were in response to @gt12 suggestion that the Japanese and US markets are important to increase the revenue for SANZAAR and having more unity amongst the non-6N nations. While I agree that is true, my point was that it might not be as simple in the US and their sporting landscape. Unfortunately, we won't get to see how successful MLR would have been this year.
Yeah, it’s not an easy solution, but I think medium term we’d be smart to try to include Japan and the USA in our plans.
On the PI players, that’s a problem that would get closer to a solution if there was a strong voting bloc that wasn’t the 6N countries (who cause those problems).
My idea is that control of the game and solution to some ongoing problems comes from countering the 6N power by getting other Nations in our tent. The last election is a great example of SANZAAR not having enough power.
Maybe I’ve been in Japan too long, but here you’d build your power structure, get control, then start putting forward ideas. I feel that SANZAAR is a bit naive in putting forward ideas with no means of getting them voted in, while the 6N can use cash to keep other countries in line.
I guarantee that if SANZAAR had put Fiji and Japan in the RC, they’d have elected Pichot (for better or worse).
-
Over the past few weeks, Billy Vunipola has played a supporting role in rugby's version of House of Cards. The No 8 turned political pawn as his name was touted in manifesto promises for the World Rugby elections. As a sweetener to the Pacific Islands, Sir Bill Beaumont proposed an eligibility change allowing the England star to play for his Tongan homeland. But it may have been a good idea to first ask the man himself. 'From my point of view, you choose your path and you have to stick to it,' Vunipola told Sportsmail. 'Say I get dropped by England because someone better and younger is coming through. I don't think it would be right for me to then turn around and say "Right, I've had my go with England, I'm going to go back to Tonga". 'It's easy to just say, "Come on, guys, let's have the best players at the World Cup, amazing, let's do this" but it affects a lot of people. 'When I play for England, I am stopping someone like Ben Morgan. If I go back and play for Tonga, I am also stopping an opportunity for a player whose only goal was to play for Tonga. I don't think that's right. 'The reason I don't play for Tonga is well documented. The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family. 'Unless we have a system where everyone gets the same amount of money, people will always choose the more stable option. 'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.' (...)(...) -
Over the past few weeks, Billy Vunipola has played a supporting role in rugby's version of House of Cards. The No 8 turned political pawn as his name was touted in manifesto promises for the World Rugby elections. As a sweetener to the Pacific Islands, Sir Bill Beaumont proposed an eligibility change allowing the England star to play for his Tongan homeland. But it may have been a good idea to first ask the man himself. 'From my point of view, you choose your path and you have to stick to it,' Vunipola told Sportsmail. 'Say I get dropped by England because someone better and younger is coming through. I don't think it would be right for me to then turn around and say "Right, I've had my go with England, I'm going to go back to Tonga". 'It's easy to just say, "Come on, guys, let's have the best players at the World Cup, amazing, let's do this" but it affects a lot of people. 'When I play for England, I am stopping someone like Ben Morgan. If I go back and play for Tonga, I am also stopping an opportunity for a player whose only goal was to play for Tonga. I don't think that's right. 'The reason I don't play for Tonga is well documented. The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family. 'Unless we have a system where everyone gets the same amount of money, people will always choose the more stable option. 'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.' (...)(...)@Stargazer said in World Rugby Board elections:
As a sweetener to the Pacific Islands, Sir Bill Beaumont proposed an eligibility change allowing the England star to play for his Tongan homeland. But it may have been a good idea to first ask the man himself.
Ummmm....
-
Over the past few weeks, Billy Vunipola has played a supporting role in rugby's version of House of Cards. The No 8 turned political pawn as his name was touted in manifesto promises for the World Rugby elections. As a sweetener to the Pacific Islands, Sir Bill Beaumont proposed an eligibility change allowing the England star to play for his Tongan homeland. But it may have been a good idea to first ask the man himself. 'From my point of view, you choose your path and you have to stick to it,' Vunipola told Sportsmail. 'Say I get dropped by England because someone better and younger is coming through. I don't think it would be right for me to then turn around and say "Right, I've had my go with England, I'm going to go back to Tonga". 'It's easy to just say, "Come on, guys, let's have the best players at the World Cup, amazing, let's do this" but it affects a lot of people. 'When I play for England, I am stopping someone like Ben Morgan. If I go back and play for Tonga, I am also stopping an opportunity for a player whose only goal was to play for Tonga. I don't think that's right. 'The reason I don't play for Tonga is well documented. The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family. 'Unless we have a system where everyone gets the same amount of money, people will always choose the more stable option. 'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.' (...)(...)@Stargazer said in World Rugby Board elections:
Over the past few weeks, Billy Vunipola has played a supporting role in rugby's version of House of Cards. The No 8 turned political pawn as his name was touted in manifesto promises for the World Rugby elections. As a sweetener to the Pacific Islands, Sir Bill Beaumont proposed an eligibility change allowing the England star to play for his Tongan homeland. But it may have been a good idea to first ask the man himself. 'From my point of view, you choose your path and you have to stick to it,' Vunipola told Sportsmail. 'Say I get dropped by England because someone better and younger is coming through. I don't think it would be right for me to then turn around and say "Right, I've had my go with England, I'm going to go back to Tonga". 'It's easy to just say, "Come on, guys, let's have the best players at the World Cup, amazing, let's do this" but it affects a lot of people. 'When I play for England, I am stopping someone like Ben Morgan. If I go back and play for Tonga, I am also stopping an opportunity for a player whose only goal was to play for Tonga. I don't think that's right. 'The reason I don't play for Tonga is well documented. The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family. 'Unless we have a system where everyone gets the same amount of money, people will always choose the more stable option. 'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.' (...)(...)@Stargazer said in World Rugby Board elections:
Over the past few weeks, Billy Vunipola has played a supporting role in rugby's version of House of Cards. The No 8 turned political pawn as his name was touted in manifesto promises for the World Rugby elections. As a sweetener to the Pacific Islands, Sir Bill Beaumont proposed an eligibility change allowing the England star to play for his Tongan homeland. But it may have been a good idea to first ask the man himself. 'From my point of view, you choose your path and you have to stick to it,' Vunipola told Sportsmail. 'Say I get dropped by England because someone better and younger is coming through. I don't think it would be right for me to then turn around and say "Right, I've had my go with England, I'm going to go back to Tonga". 'It's easy to just say, "Come on, guys, let's have the best players at the World Cup, amazing, let's do this" but it affects a lot of people. 'When I play for England, I am stopping someone like Ben Morgan. If I go back and play for Tonga, I am also stopping an opportunity for a player whose only goal was to play for Tonga. I don't think that's right. 'The reason I don't play for Tonga is well documented. The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family. 'Unless we have a system where everyone gets the same amount of money, people will always choose the more stable option. 'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.' (...)(...)I could pick 5 holes in Billys argument there, but I've made those points before!
-
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
-
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
-
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
how are they "turning their back"?
-
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
how are they "turning their back"?
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
how are they "turning their back"?
The way he phrased it was that they have a choice, and the majority choose to follow the money:
"The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family.....
...'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.'"
Which is totally fair enough, I have no issue with that of you've fulfilled qualification requirements.
So not so much "turning their backs" I guess, as "proactively choosing another country"
My main point was that it's very easy for him , having had a successful international career, and made truckloads of cash, to say that he shouldn't be allowed to go back. But what about a bloke who played 1 test for a Tier 1, got an injury and then got dropped by his club? I imagine he'd feel pretty differently, and given an opportunity to represent Tonga in a RWC, may well jump at it.
-
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
how are they "turning their back"?
The way he phrased it was that they have a choice, and the majority choose to follow the money:
"The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family.....
...'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.'"
Which is totally fair enough, I have no issue with that of you've fulfilled qualification requirements.
So not so much "turning their backs" I guess, as "proactively choosing another country"
My main point was that it's very easy for him , having had a successful international career, and made truckloads of cash, to say that he shouldn't be allowed to go back. But what about a bloke who played 1 test for a Tier 1, got an injury and then got dropped by his club? I imagine he'd feel pretty differently, and given an opportunity to represent Tonga in a RWC, may well jump at it.
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
My main point was that it's very easy for him , having had a successful international career, and made truckloads of cash, to say that he shouldn't be allowed to go back. But what about a bloke who played 1 test for a Tier 1, got an injury and then got dropped by his club? I imagine he'd feel pretty differently, and given an opportunity to represent Tonga in a RWC, may well jump at it.
so what's your "line". When do you say "nah champ, you made your choice?"
-
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
My main point was that it's very easy for him , having had a successful international career, and made truckloads of cash, to say that he shouldn't be allowed to go back. But what about a bloke who played 1 test for a Tier 1, got an injury and then got dropped by his club? I imagine he'd feel pretty differently, and given an opportunity to represent Tonga in a RWC, may well jump at it.
so what's your "line". When do you say "nah champ, you made your choice?"
@mariner4life this got done to death a few months back, can't remember who I was arguing with now!
But I'm not even convinced there should be a line. What's the line actually for? To protect the 2nd tier of players that a Billy would be keeping out? Or to protect the 2nd tier nations somehow?
I'm generally of the view that we shouldn't stop someone representing a country they have ties to. And if Billy wants to go back to Tonga, and make his home there, pay taxes there etc, he should also be allowed to play rugby for them
-
@mariner4life this got done to death a few months back, can't remember who I was arguing with now!
But I'm not even convinced there should be a line. What's the line actually for? To protect the 2nd tier of players that a Billy would be keeping out? Or to protect the 2nd tier nations somehow?
I'm generally of the view that we shouldn't stop someone representing a country they have ties to. And if Billy wants to go back to Tonga, and make his home there, pay taxes there etc, he should also be allowed to play rugby for them
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life this got done to death a few months back, can't remember who I was arguing with now!
But I'm not even convinced there should be a line. What's the line actually for? To protect the 2nd tier of players that a Billy would be keeping out? Or to protect the 2nd tier nations somehow?
I'm generally of the view that we shouldn't stop someone representing a country they have ties to. And if Billy wants to go back to Tonga, and make his home there, pay taxes there etc, he should also be allowed to play rugby for them
so, rugby league then?
actually no, you're making up a fantasy. As you were
-
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
how are they "turning their back"?
The way he phrased it was that they have a choice, and the majority choose to follow the money:
"The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family.....
...'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.'"
Which is totally fair enough, I have no issue with that of you've fulfilled qualification requirements.
So not so much "turning their backs" I guess, as "proactively choosing another country"
My main point was that it's very easy for him , having had a successful international career, and made truckloads of cash, to say that he shouldn't be allowed to go back. But what about a bloke who played 1 test for a Tier 1, got an injury and then got dropped by his club? I imagine he'd feel pretty differently, and given an opportunity to represent Tonga in a RWC, may well jump at it.
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
Love Billy’s honesty there. It’s a bit rich IMO for guys who take the cash and play for NZ, Aus, etc (often the country of their birth or upbringing) to start whinging and express a desire to play for an Island nation
Equally rich for the guys that made it with the Tier 1 countries to then turn their backs on their country of birth, and in particular, on those guys that didn't have the same lucrative careers that they did?
how are they "turning their back"?
The way he phrased it was that they have a choice, and the majority choose to follow the money:
"The biggest export from Tonga is rugby players and it's our job to find where we can make as much money to support our family.....
...'It's tough, but you have a choice. You can't make the call to play for England, then turn around and say you've been hard done by. If you make that call, you stick with it.'"
Which is totally fair enough, I have no issue with that of you've fulfilled qualification requirements.
So not so much "turning their backs" I guess, as "proactively choosing another country"
My main point was that it's very easy for him , having had a successful international career, and made truckloads of cash, to say that he shouldn't be allowed to go back. But what about a bloke who played 1 test for a Tier 1, got an injury and then got dropped by his club? I imagine he'd feel pretty differently, and given an opportunity to represent Tonga in a RWC, may well jump at it.
I'm sorry but that is a risk that every pro footy player takes. It applies to plenty of guys who don't have the benefit of being dual-qualified - so why should we should we have special rules for dual-qualified players? Would you be happy for Brad Shields to return to NZ and have a crack at the ABs now that (it seems) his English international career is over?
-
@mariner4life this got done to death a few months back, can't remember who I was arguing with now!
But I'm not even convinced there should be a line. What's the line actually for? To protect the 2nd tier of players that a Billy would be keeping out? Or to protect the 2nd tier nations somehow?
I'm generally of the view that we shouldn't stop someone representing a country they have ties to. And if Billy wants to go back to Tonga, and make his home there, pay taxes there etc, he should also be allowed to play rugby for them
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life this got done to death a few months back, can't remember who I was arguing with now!
But I'm not even convinced there should be a line. What's the line actually for? To protect the 2nd tier of players that a Billy would be keeping out? Or to protect the 2nd tier nations somehow?
I'm generally of the view that we shouldn't stop someone representing a country they have ties to. And if Billy wants to go back to Tonga, and make his home there, pay taxes there etc, he should also be allowed to play rugby for them
Then we just end up with a the farcical situation where people are changing teams from year to year, tournament to tournament. You're living in fantasy land.
