World Rugby Board elections
-
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
-
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
Who is stopping him? I'm certainly not.
The thing that would stop him is the relative quality of Island village footy compared to that in Europe / NZ / Aus. Seriously, a season of that kind of footy and this guy is very, very unlikely to get selected to play a test match. That's especially the case if his competition now includes ex-Tier 1 internationals still playing week-in week-out in Europe / NZ / Aus.
-
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
Who is stopping him? I'm certainly not.
The thing that would stop him is the relative quality of Island village footy compared to that in Europe / NZ / Aus. Seriously, a season of that kind of footy and this guy is very, very unlikely to get selected to play a test match. That's especially the case if his competition now includes ex-Tier 1 internationals still playing week-in week-out in Europe / NZ / Aus.
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
Who is stopping him? I'm certainly not.
The thing that would stop him is the relative quality of Island village footy compared to that in Europe / NZ / Aus. Seriously, a season of that kind of footy and this guy is very, very unlikely to get selected to play a test match. That's especially the case if his competition now includes ex-Tier 1 internationals still playing week-in week-out in Europe / NZ / Aus.
Yeah, the idea is fine in principle but there is so much in the way of making it viable.
-
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
Who is stopping him? I'm certainly not.
The thing that would stop him is the relative quality of Island village footy compared to that in Europe / NZ / Aus. Seriously, a season of that kind of footy and this guy is very, very unlikely to get selected to play a test match. That's especially the case if his competition now includes ex-Tier 1 internationals still playing week-in week-out in Europe / NZ / Aus.
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
Who is stopping him? I'm certainly not.
The thing that would stop him is the relative quality of Island village footy compared to that in Europe / NZ / Aus. Seriously, a season of that kind of footy and this guy is very, very unlikely to get selected to play a test match. That's especially the case if his competition now includes ex-Tier 1 internationals still playing week-in week-out in Europe / NZ / Aus.
Well, we are stopping him currently, if he has played a single test match for anyone else.
-
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
Who is stopping him? I'm certainly not.
The thing that would stop him is the relative quality of Island village footy compared to that in Europe / NZ / Aus. Seriously, a season of that kind of footy and this guy is very, very unlikely to get selected to play a test match. That's especially the case if his competition now includes ex-Tier 1 internationals still playing week-in week-out in Europe / NZ / Aus.
Well, we are stopping him currently, if he has played a single test match for anyone else.
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
Who is stopping him? I'm certainly not.
The thing that would stop him is the relative quality of Island village footy compared to that in Europe / NZ / Aus. Seriously, a season of that kind of footy and this guy is very, very unlikely to get selected to play a test match. That's especially the case if his competition now includes ex-Tier 1 internationals still playing week-in week-out in Europe / NZ / Aus.
Well, we are stopping him currently, if he has played a single test match for anyone else.
We only stop tight forwards at the moment .
It was possible for Tongans last December to re-qualify last December by playing a single 2-day 7s tournament. Much more doable than migrating to play amateur park footy in your father's country of birth.
-
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@voodoo because "T2" nations get fucked over! Who in their right mind is going to return to Samoa at 24 when they can go to Ireland and spend 5 years qualifying for Ireland while earning hundreds of thousands of Euro?
No no no!!!
That is the status quo! That their players leave to play overseas, first at club level then often at international level - I'm just trying to find some avenue for T2 nations to field their best teams! Why is it detrimental to allow quality players to return and contribute to their homelands at some point?
Well no - under status quo, player that goes to Ireland and looks to play for Samoa et al still has an avenue back. You want to change it so that player now has to move to Samoa, not play professional rugby and wait 5 years.
No, only if they represent Ireland then want to switch should they have to fulfill that residency requirement back in Samoa. Seems weird to allow someone to move from Samoa to Ireland to play club and test footy, then to stay in Ireland but play for Samoa???
But in that case no one is going to switch back to Samoa are they? Because that would preclude them playing club or franchise footy and earning heaps of coin elsewhere
Who knows? Maybe a 33yr who has played 10yrs of club footy in Europe and made heaps of cash wants to go and give back to his community and also represent his country of birth?
The better question is why would we want to stop him if he did?
Who is stopping him? I'm certainly not.
The thing that would stop him is the relative quality of Island village footy compared to that in Europe / NZ / Aus. Seriously, a season of that kind of footy and this guy is very, very unlikely to get selected to play a test match. That's especially the case if his competition now includes ex-Tier 1 internationals still playing week-in week-out in Europe / NZ / Aus.
Well, we are stopping him currently, if he has played a single test match for anyone else.
We only stop tight forwards at the moment .
It was possible for Tongans last December to re-qualify last December by playing a single 2-day 7s tournament. Much more doable than migrating to play amateur park footy in your father's country of birth.
-
I think there are two parts to this conversation.
For me, if you travel to another country as a professional footballer (or as an academy member), residency shouldn't count. You're ineligible.
Now, obviously that's a bit too strict, but that's where the line should roughly be.
If you happen to have dual/multiple citizenship or moved when you were young for non rugby reasons, there are strict stand down periods which must be observed (these should be the same as the Olympics to make it easy).
@gt12
If you don't have citizenship for a country, you shouldn't be representing them. Hopefully the 5 year eligibility at least aligns this. Still, I doubt we have seen the last of eligibility poaching. We are already seeing younger and younger players being picked up by clubs from foreign countries, particularly for countries like SA and Fiji.IMO the likes of Billy and Piutau should probably be able to represent Tonga after a stand-down period but ironically neither of those guys were born in or raised in Tonga and will probably never move back. Which could potentially make rugby a lot more like Leagues merry-go-round of nationalities based on the whims of the players.
-
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
-
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
Because it is not equitable. On many levels. Twickenham and the Principality Stadium , for instance, have much bigger capacity and can command much higher ticket prices. This is in part due to the investment the respective unions have put in. Cost of living, cost of real estate are different across countries. Currency movement makes a mockery of any idea of equality. NZ, SA and Aus get a Lions tour every 12 years. TV rights are different. Population is different. Many things against it.
Main argument for it? Seems to be “we want more money”.
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
Because it is not equitable. On many levels. Twickenham and the Principality Stadium , for instance, have much bigger capacity and can command much higher ticket prices. This is in part due to the investment the respective unions have put in. Cost of living, cost of real estate are different across countries. Currency movement makes a mockery of any idea of equality. NZ, SA and Aus get a Lions tour every 12 years. TV rights are different. Population is different. Many things against it.
Main argument for it? Seems to be “we want more money”.
-
I see Gus has chucked it in.
https://www.rugby.com.au/News/2020/05/13/Agustin-Pichot-World-Rugby-resignation?amp=1
Shame. Could still work towards effecting change if he was on the inside.
-
@Catogrande sorry. Left off the fishing emoji ...
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande sorry. Left off the fishing emoji ...
That’s either careless or cruel. I’ll go back over the last 10 years of your posts to determine which.
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande sorry. Left off the fishing emoji ...
That’s either careless or cruel. I’ll go back over the last 10 years of your posts to determine which.
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande sorry. Left off the fishing emoji ...
That’s either careless or cruel. I’ll go back over the last 10 years of your posts to determine which.
Quicker to assess which don’t need it, smaller number
-
Why not make it you can change countries once (that you meet representative criteria for), but have a five year stand down? And make that between the last game that you played.
That means sitting out basically half your professional international career.
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
Because it is not equitable. On many levels. Twickenham and the Principality Stadium , for instance, have much bigger capacity and can command much higher ticket prices. This is in part due to the investment the respective unions have put in. Cost of living, cost of real estate are different across countries. Currency movement makes a mockery of any idea of equality. NZ, SA and Aus get a Lions tour every 12 years. TV rights are different. Population is different. Many things against it.
Main argument for it? Seems to be “we want more money”.
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
Because it is not equitable. On many levels. Twickenham and the Principality Stadium , for instance, have much bigger capacity and can command much higher ticket prices. This is in part due to the investment the respective unions have put in. Cost of living, cost of real estate are different across countries. Currency movement makes a mockery of any idea of equality. NZ, SA and Aus get a Lions tour every 12 years. TV rights are different. Population is different. Many things against it.
Main argument for it? Seems to be “we want more money”.
If we start sharing revenue, we have start sharing costs too. Fucked if we really want NZR paying for NH stadia.
-
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
Because it is not equitable. On many levels. Twickenham and the Principality Stadium , for instance, have much bigger capacity and can command much higher ticket prices. This is in part due to the investment the respective unions have put in. Cost of living, cost of real estate are different across countries. Currency movement makes a mockery of any idea of equality. NZ, SA and Aus get a Lions tour every 12 years. TV rights are different. Population is different. Many things against it.
Main argument for it? Seems to be “we want more money”.
If we start sharing revenue, we have start sharing costs too. Fucked if we really want NZR paying for NH stadia.
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
Because it is not equitable. On many levels. Twickenham and the Principality Stadium , for instance, have much bigger capacity and can command much higher ticket prices. This is in part due to the investment the respective unions have put in. Cost of living, cost of real estate are different across countries. Currency movement makes a mockery of any idea of equality. NZ, SA and Aus get a Lions tour every 12 years. TV rights are different. Population is different. Many things against it.
Main argument for it? Seems to be “we want more money”.
If we start sharing revenue, we have start sharing costs too. Fucked if we really want NZR paying for NH stadia.
Not to mention the gin bill.
-
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
Because it is not equitable. On many levels. Twickenham and the Principality Stadium , for instance, have much bigger capacity and can command much higher ticket prices. This is in part due to the investment the respective unions have put in. Cost of living, cost of real estate are different across countries. Currency movement makes a mockery of any idea of equality. NZ, SA and Aus get a Lions tour every 12 years. TV rights are different. Population is different. Many things against it.
Main argument for it? Seems to be “we want more money”.
If we start sharing revenue, we have start sharing costs too. Fucked if we really want NZR paying for NH stadia.
Not to mention the gin bill.
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@junior said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mariner4life said in World Rugby Board elections:
The only way to ever solve this is to make sure you get paid the same whether you play a test for Samoa or for England. Then you can choose to play for the country where you live, and who taught you to play rugby, or the country where your parents were born.
Agree in principle. The downside is that the NH clubs will have far too much power and the international game may well be downgraded.
But it's bullshit that when England play Fiji at Twickenham, the England players get 20-30k for the match, whilst the Fiji players get a couple of hundred.
On your last point I think it would be great to see a unified match fee for all players in the squads, paid directly to the players and paid for by the home nation. This would help alleviate the absurd discrepancy in match day earnings and also bypass the issue of funds getting swallowed up in "expenses". The downside is that this may well prove a bigger obstacle to getting T1 nations to play in places like the PIs. Maybe World Rugby should fund match day fees from a central pot obtained from levies from the respective Unions.
Why don't we just share revenue equally?
Because it is not equitable. On many levels. Twickenham and the Principality Stadium , for instance, have much bigger capacity and can command much higher ticket prices. This is in part due to the investment the respective unions have put in. Cost of living, cost of real estate are different across countries. Currency movement makes a mockery of any idea of equality. NZ, SA and Aus get a Lions tour every 12 years. TV rights are different. Population is different. Many things against it.
Main argument for it? Seems to be “we want more money”.
If we start sharing revenue, we have start sharing costs too. Fucked if we really want NZR paying for NH stadia.
Not to mention the gin bill.
Cucumber sandwiches don't come cheap these days
-
New World Rugby interim committee appointments include
Rassie Erasmus, Melodie Robinson, Conrad Smith and Bryan Habana are among a host of leading players and coaches who have been appointed to World Rugby interim committees.
Building on a productive agreement between the international federation and International Rugby Players (IRP), each of the 12 committees will feature player representation nominated by IRP. With the core objective of contributing to the decision-making process, the player representatives will combine extensive rugby experience with relevant expertise, including broadcast, digital media, welfare, medical, commercial and legal business backgrounds.
With World Rugby Chairman Sir Bill Beaumont committed to building on transformational governance reform implemented in 2015 to further representation, efficiency and effectiveness, every committee features broader nation, female and independent representation with 30 per cent of all committee members women and three committees chaired by female Council members.
Rassie Erasmus and Steve Hansen join Eddie Jones, Fabien Galthié, Mario Ledesma, Gregor Townsend, Lesley McKenzie and David Nucifora as coaching representatives on the new High Performance 15s Committee. Rugby World Cup winners Bryan Habana, Conrad Smith and Rachael Burford along with Wales’s Dr Jamie Roberts and Canada’s Dr Araba Chintoh have been appointed as player representatives with medical expertise on the same committee.
Appointments across the committees include former Ireland captain and broadcaster Brian O’Driscoll and New Zealand’s two-time Rugby World Cup winner, sports journalist and presenter Melodie Robinson, who join the Rugby World Cup Board, while England’s Deborah Griffin, independent and fan-engagement expert Angela Ruggiero and former All Blacks and Black Ferns team doctor Deb Robinson will each chair committees.
Link to all Committees: https://www.world.rugby/organisation/structure/council-committees -
Full World Rugby media release:
https://www.world.rugby/news/591610/players-female-leaders-and-greater-global-representation-on-interim-world-rugby-committees
