No prospect of eastern Europe joining in 6 Nations

First topic message reminder :

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/six-nations-2016-no-prospect-of-eastern-europe-joining-in-best-tournament-a6840196.html#commentsDiv

Way to crush all hope for other nations in Europe. Whats the point in even developing rugby in other European countries?

marty2086 wrote:

Rowanbi wrote:The best time for Tier 1 nations to be playing their regional tier 2 neighbours would be in the pre-season, as warm-ups for the 6 Nations & Rugby Championship competitions.

And when exactly would that be fitted in? Players are coming back to clubs in preseason after being away on summer tours etc in the NH and the SH teams have Super Rugby on.

Right after the 6 month tour of the pacific islands and the 12 nations qualifing rounds of course. Duh.

Thanks for clearing it up Gooseberry because I knew the already overburdened schedules would have time in there somewhere to run the players further into the ground

I'm sure it would be a lot easier to find room for a warm-up match or two than it would to actually expand these competitions. There certainly doesn't seem to be any problem when the World Cup rolls around and all the 6 Nations teams play extra games against each to prepare for it. Where there's a will . . .

There isn't the will though.

Not from the tier 1 nations, evidently, even though Georgia is ranked ahead of Italy, won 2 games at least year's World Cup, and just secured its 6th straight ENC title in front of 55 K home-fans in Tbilisi. Nope. That's why the tiers were devised, precisely to prevent inter-action with the ragmuffin lower classes between World Cups (when they are needed to help turn a tidy profit) and thereby stifle their growth.

They need to fit within the current framework not in addition. AIs seem ideal, get the SH nations to pick up games with them.

get the SH nations to do what the 6N don't want to do because they're full of piddling excuses and have never given a damn about the international growth of rugby, you mean?.

(France notwithstanding)

No, I mean there's already scheduled tours in the Autumn which would allow the big teams of the SH to play the likes of Georgia, Portugal etc, would then free up more space for the NH teams to pick up games against Fiji and the like. Win win in terms of sharing games. Lose lose in terms of money of course but there will never be the agreement for more international games.

Rowanbi wrote:get the SH nations to do what the 6N don't want to do because they're full of piddling excuses and have never given a damn about the international growth of rugby, you mean?.

(France notwithstanding)

I didn't realise the 6N unions were registered charities.

Rowanbi wrote:I'm sure it would be a lot easier to find room for a warm-up match or two than it would to actually expand these competitions. There certainly doesn't seem to be any problem when the World Cup rolls around and all the 6 Nations teams play extra games against each to prepare for it. Where there's a will . . .

Well the English had to renegotiante their contracts with the clubs and players to get that access for world cups, and the rest relies on a world rugby ditacted window.

Of course that window could be expanded, but there comes a point where you break the club game...or push mor eand more players into international retuirement ( like err Preistland). Theres a yearly hoo hah around Wales players based in Jeff clubs not being released outside said windwws, and a significant part of the "exceptional circumtances" no foriegn based players for England is around that release. The Welsh clubs fought their Union for years over the 4th AI and its still the cause of stink. Ireland holds back players from the Pro 12 and damages that competition to squeeze in these extra games.
The world cup happens wonce every 4 years, and they dont find it that easy to shoe horn in. The very reason the Barbrains game got ditched this year in favour of a bigger draw wales/england farce was to help cover the costs of missing the AIs and screwing with the club season. World cups themsleves are actually hugely problemtic for the big Unions and clubs (espeically when you sh1t the bed in the opening stages)

Too much international rugby screws everything else.
Lets not forget for many of these smaller Unions its the big Unions clubs that provide them with a regular level of professional training and opportunity to play against good players which keeps them vaguely competitive.



None of this adresses the endemic levels of corruption and PED use in the game out in many of the eastern eurpean unions. Something many arent keen to bring into the fold of top level international rugby for some reason. Not to say that its 100% clean in the West of course.

Rowanbi wrote:The best time for Tier 1 nations to be playing their regional tier 2 neighbours would be in the pre-season, as warm-ups for the 6 Nations & Rugby Championship competitions.

What pre-season occurs prior to the 6 Nations in Europe? Do you mean at the end of the season, before a European team tours abroad? Or do you mean just before the club season starts? Or do you mean the AI, which aren't pre-seasson at all?

Rowanbi wrote:Miaow, I've covered most of those points before, and agree that the first step is to have 6 Nations teams playing regular friendlies against the Eastern Europeans on a regular basis. If they each committed to just one game a year, that would mean three games each for both Georgia and Romania (at least one of which should be a home game). In fact, Italy might play Russia, Spain or Portugal instead, to help develop the third tier. Meanwhile, my view on a hypothetical promo-rele fixture is it ought to be at the home of the incumbent, to ensure than any challenger who comes through will be fully worthy of its place in the elite competition.

I really don't think you have. Try fitting two more games  into an already cluttered European domestic and international calendar. It's far from easy, especially as neither club nor country can really prepare for it, it is more thrust upon them in March, well in to the season. Also, it would have to be two games, one at home and one away, otherwise what's the point in having Georgia lose to Italy or Scotland every season in a meaningless fixture where the challenger stands almost no chance, the power swung heavily against them? It makes a mockery of the very notion of sporting fairness.

Also, you're not going to see the 6Ns play Georgia or Romania each Autumn, and definitely not away from home, where the Unions make a significant amount of money through paying supporters. There's no financial incentive to play them that regularly, whilst sacrificing playing Argentina, Fiji, or Samoa ever again. There is a balance. Once every three years is much more likely and feasible. Equally, Italy are not going to be playing Russia, Spain, and Portugal every Autumn. How does that help an already struggling Italian rugby? The FIR is not there to develop the semi-professionals for the rest of Europe, they're there to develop Italian rugby. The onus should be on bigger and wealthier nations, or the relevant rugby boards, to help develop Spanish or Russian rugby.

Rowanbi wrote:Which do you think would attract more fans: A relegation zone dog fight with both teams battling down to the wire, or a meaningless frollock between two sides already out of contention for the title and more interested in blooding a few young players while avoiding injuries to any of their mainstays??

Do you watch the 6N? Do you really think Italy treat the Scotland game as meaningless, and vice versa? Utterly redundant, relegation would certainly not improve the standard, and whilst you could argue the spectacle is improved in a sense as there is greater jeopardy on any such fixture, it hardly helps a team develop. It is far more preferable to have a tournament whereby every team competing could win it, rather than one or two teams kept locked in a battle every season, favouring attritional players over talent in the hope of avoiding last place.

Equally, perhaps it remains meaningless if you get your way of a one-legged play off fixture (you never proposed when in the season this would be by the way)? The last placed 6N team knows they stand a very good chance of winning said play off game, so why bother placing any more importance on a game that may decide who finished bottom? After all, is it not preferable for the Union to gain more money from having an 'extra' international game played at their home ground, a game that is heavily swayed in their favour and that they are likely to win, therefore why not finish bottom?

There are many problems with this idea, and you really haven't countered any of the points I've made. As it stands, it's simply nor feasible, nor fair.

HammerofThunor wrote:Priestland is a REALLY poor example for club power. He lied about retiring from international rugby to his prospective club to get a contract (as they were looking for cover for Ford) and then when he reversed his decision they couldn't do anything about because they have NO power to stop these players. The only power they have is to not renew his contract when it ends. That is the example for how the clubs don't have power in this.

That's a rather slanted way of looking at it. Bath would have pressurised Priestland to commit to his international sabbatical, either by offering significantly less money in wages, or withdrawing the contract completely if he rejected it. As a result, Bath sign a player in the same position as the coach's son and England's incumbent; in no way would Priestland ever have a fair crack at usurping Ford, regardless of form. Bath were directly hampering Wales's international pool of players with the agreement they had come to; where Priestland differs is that Wales are less disadvantaged than tier two countries. In this sense, his domestic league can pay him a relatively competitive wage to return home, where the likes of Fijian or Samoan players usually cannot. So it was less a lie, and much more a regretful realisation of the commitment he'd made, the conditions of which were at the behest of the club. The power is very much with the club here; they can choose to drop him, or- as in this case- have him disadvantaged in selection terms from the start, as well as not renewing his contract. Admittedly, there are plenty of better, more explicit examples of club-over-player power, but this goes to show how the influence of wealthy clubs is not merely resigned to the tier two and three countries; it is also creeping in to the less affluent tier one countries. This is why it was raised as an issue affecting the bottom clubs in the Six Nations, which is likely to be Italy, possibly Scotland, but could- with a particularly poor season- be any of the other four countries.

HammerofThunor wrote:I don't really understand the comment about this being motivated by finance and audience.

There are far better ways to improve the Georgian and Romanian national teams than giving them a 180 minute shot every season at making the step up. Hopefully everyone is in agreement there; it's a bit of lottery, and it's not particularly reliable or sustainable. So, it's fair to say this talk is not being made with that intention at heart, it's to improve the 6N as a spectacle, primarily, I think, for the television audience. Which is fair enough, until you take a rather wider view of things, and realise the conditions within Italian professional rugby operate in are incredibly tough, made tougher by the changes in European rugby over the last few years. From the 2007 WC to 2013, Italy were at times a decent team, and whilst not challenging for the title, I dare say they weren't far off Scotland in terms of wins during that period. So, why is this being discussed? Is it simply people have short memories, and forget that Italy weren't always losing by the kind of scorelines they did in the 2016 6N? Or, is it because it's easier to replace Italy than to help them by creating conditions at European club level that aren't swayed in favour of keeping the wealthiest clubs wealthier, and creating monopolies of money and playing talent? If the FIR could have a system similar to England's, or even Wales's, where they only selected players playing domestically bar a few select players, their clubs would go back to being competitive as Treviso were a few years ago, and the national team would benefit. Just look at the Jaguares in Argentina; I'm sure they will only benefit the Pumas.

Instead of accepting that Italy are disadvantaged, and questioning why this may be, it's far easier to simply say "ah, you're not good enough, you've got to go", and replace them with a different whipping boy, presumably Georgia. The benefit from the marketing side of things is the 'newness' of it all; the large crowds Georgia will bring, the novelty of the spectacle, the ability to market it as such. It feels very much like change for change sake: let's just make a significant change, rather than harder, smaller ones, that might help Italy. Of course, it is not the role of the 6N to influence domestic and European club rugby, but equally they should be more sympathetic of the Italians' plight.

HammerofThunor wrote:People keep talking about playing European teams in the AI but that just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the international calendar is set up. If you have Europe playing Europe in the autumn then you have ROTW teams missing out and you have a European team not getting a home game.  Same applies to calls for NZ et al to tour Samoan et al. There is simply not a spot in the calendar that is setup for that.

Does it not seem reasonable to say that, once every three years, England plays Georgia at Twickenham rather than Argentina, Samoa, Fiji, or Canada etc. in the AI? There are 6 teams, Georgia and Romania play each once every year. This is really not a big sacrifice. It's really not the same as playing away, so the NZ to Samoa analogy is redundant. Georgia and Romania would have to come to the 6Ns stadiums initially, as the gate receipt is too important for most 6Ns teams to lose, and perhaps there would be a token, pre-Summer Tour game in Tblisi in return. However, pretending that the international season is somehow fixed and rigid is wrong as well. We could well see it shaken up very soon, but even as it stands, it is still possible for this to occur. Most countries play four AI, one outside the window, as it is. I'm sure, perhaps in the lead up to World Cup seedings, the 6Ns teams would be happy to drop a game against Argentina, Australia or South Africa (NZ guarantee a sellout, not going to lose that) in order to play Georgia or Romania? In any case, there are several reasons why your points are redundant. You just seem to be arguing for things to stay the way they are, as if they're immovable. Why?

HammerofThunor wrote:And on the final point, with the 6 nations being called the best annual competition in the world (not sure why it's bolded). Is that said by anyone not emotionally or financially involved in it? I've never heard a SH fan say that unless they're a paid pundit on the BBC. In terms of quality it's often quite poor but my team plays in it so I watch it and enjoy it. If they scrapped it and completely rethought the European competition I wouldn't bother me in the slightest and it's something I think they should consider.

Undoubtedly, as a standard the Rugby Championship is better, but as a competition, it's really quite unique. Not many sports have a competitive, annual international competition that has quite the same longevity, history, and gravitas. If/when France become competitive again, and with Scotland seemingly on a tentative rise back to a better standard, the fact that results- regardless of home or away advantage- are typically very difficult to call, the sides so equally matched, it simply makes it an incredibly exciting competition. The argument is that Italy devalue this by not being competitive, and not bringing the sense of history and unity (and probably viewing numbers and money) that Scotland have done when they were almost as uncompetitive. I don't see how getting rid of them is the best way to address this.

I'd happily see a change to the competition if it was made with the best intentions, and actually benefited ALL rugby countries involved, or at least it disadvantaged them all equally. But I cannot see that happening. Without dredging up an old debate, the European season is a mess, and needs reworking to something less frenetic and fractured, with something closer to the SH replacing it. However, money is the major factor here, and anything that will lessen the power of the wealthiest clubs in the wealthiest countries with be vehemently opposed by said clubs. This is detrimental to European rugby as a whole, to all the international teams, Italy particularly.

Rowanbi wrote:I'm sure it would be a lot easier to find room for a warm-up match or two than it would to actually expand these competitions. There certainly doesn't seem to be any problem when the World Cup rolls around and all the 6 Nations teams play extra games against each to prepare for it. Where there's a will . . .

Doesn't seem to be a problem except there are no summer tours which as most unions point out hurts their finances and league schedules are moved around which clubs aren't happy about so your analyse of the situation seems to be wrong

miaow wrote:That's a rather slanted way of looking at it. Bath would have pressurised Priestland to commit to his international sabbatical, either by offering significantly less money in wages, or withdrawing the contract completely if he rejected it. As a result, Bath sign a player in the same position as the coach's son and England's incumbent; in no way would Priestland ever have a fair crack at usurping Ford, regardless of form. Bath were directly hampering Wales's international pool of players with the agreement they had come to; where Priestland differs is that Wales are less disadvantaged than tier two countries. In this sense, his domestic league can pay him a relatively competitive wage to return home, where the likes of Fijian or Samoan players usually cannot. So it was less a lie, and much more a regretful realisation of the commitment he'd made, the conditions of which were at the behest of the club. The power is very much with the club here; they can choose to drop him, or- as in this case- have him disadvantaged in selection terms from the start, as well as not renewing his contract. Admittedly, there are plenty of better, more explicit examples of club-over-player power, but this goes to show how the influence of wealthy clubs is not merely resigned to the tier two and three countries; it is also creeping in to the less affluent tier one countries. This is why it was raised as an issue affecting the bottom clubs in the Six Nations, which is likely to be Italy, possibly Scotland, but could- with a particularly poor season- be any of the other four countries.

cowpat. Bath were looking for a good backup during the international windows and Priestland lied to get the job. He then went back on his word and Bath were completely powerless to do anything about it. At all. As I said, it was a moronic example of the point you were trying to make because it shows the exact opposite. You are right that players who are being signed for international cover need to be non-international players. That's kind of obvious isn't it?

There are far better ways to improve the Georgian and Romanian national teams than giving them a 180 minute shot every season at making the step up. Hopefully everyone is in agreement there; it's a bit of lottery, and it's not particularly reliable or sustainable. So, it's fair to say this talk is not being made with that intention at heart, it's to improve the 6N as a spectacle, primarily, I think, for the television audience. Which is fair enough, until you take a rather wider view of things, and realise the conditions within Italian professional rugby operate in are incredibly tough, made tougher by the changes in European rugby over the last few years. From the 2007 WC to 2013, Italy were at times a decent team, and whilst not challenging for the title, I dare say they weren't far off Scotland in terms of wins during that period. So, why is this being discussed? Is it simply people have short memories, and forget that Italy weren't always losing by the kind of scorelines they did in the 2016 6N? Or, is it because it's easier to replace Italy than to help them by creating conditions at European club level that aren't swayed in favour of keeping the wealthiest clubs wealthier, and creating monopolies of money and playing talent? If the FIR could have a system similar to England's, or even Wales's, where they only selected players playing domestically bar a few select players, their clubs would go back to being competitive as Treviso were a few years ago, and the national team would benefit. Just look at the Jaguares in Argentina; I'm sure they will only benefit the Pumas.

Instead of accepting that Italy are disadvantaged, and questioning why this may be, it's far easier to simply say "ah, you're not good enough, you've got to go", and replace them with a different whipping boy, presumably Georgia. The benefit from the marketing side of things is the 'newness' of it all; the large crowds Georgia will bring, the novelty of the spectacle, the ability to market it as such. It feels very much like change for change sake: let's just make a significant change, rather than harder, smaller ones, that might help Italy. Of course, it is not the role of the 6N to influence domestic and European club rugby, but equally they should be more sympathetic of the Italians' plight.

Not really. The people who are generally calling for it have nothing to do with the 6 Nations and therefore have nothing to gain from 'improving the spectacle'. I am discussing it because I want a proper European competition that would allow any team to make it to the top. An expansion of the current ENC to include the 6 nations teams. The French guy on his way is supposedly doing it to gain votes for Paris Olympics (not sure if I believe that). None of the rest of the 6 Nations bods seem particularly interested in it. So your theory that people are only calling for it to make more TV money doesn't really stand up...at all.

Does it not seem reasonable to say that, once every three years, England plays Georgia at Twickenham rather than Argentina, Samoa, Fiji, or Canada etc. in the AI? There are 6 teams, Georgia and Romania play each once every year. This is really not a big sacrifice.

Given that Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Japan, Canada and USA are all trying to get game time, along with New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Argentina, yes, it is too big a sacrifice. Not for us, for them.

It's really not the same as playing away, so the NZ to Samoa analogy is redundant.

You do realise that one of those teams has to be away from home...so how is it redundant? Either Samoa are losing a home game or New Zealand is. No different to England v Georgia.

Georgia and Romania would have to come to the 6Ns stadiums initially, as the gate receipt is too important for most 6Ns teams to lose,

This is the key point and why nothing will change. Money money money.

and perhaps there would be a token, pre-Summer Tour game in Tblisi in return. However, pretending that the international season is somehow fixed and rigid is wrong as well. We could well see it shaken up very soon, but even as it stands, it is still possible for this to occur. Most countries play four AI, one outside the window, as it is.

Most countries? I think Ireland have done it once. England do it every other year. Wales do it even year (except potentially WC years). So if Ireland's game was a one off there are 1.5 games a year additional during the AI.

I'm sure, perhaps in the lead up to World Cup seedings, the 6Ns teams would be happy to drop a game against Argentina, Australia or South Africa (NZ guarantee a sellout, not going to lose that) in order to play Georgia or Romania? In any case, there are several reasons why your points are redundant. You just seem to be arguing for things to stay the way they are, as if they're immovable. Why?

Not entirely sure what you're reading because I'm clearly not saying things should stay as they are. I'm saying games between 6N teams and ENC teams during the AI is not a credible solution.

Undoubtedly, as a standard the Rugby Championship is better, but as a competition, it's really quite unique. Not many sports have a competitive, annual international competition that has quite the same longevity, history, and gravitas. If/when France become competitive again, and with Scotland seemingly on a tentative rise back to a better standard, the fact that results- regardless of home or away advantage- are typically very difficult to call, the sides so equally matched, it simply makes it an incredibly exciting competition. The argument is that Italy devalue this by not being competitive, and not bringing the sense of history and unity (and probably viewing numbers and money) that Scotland have done when they were almost as uncompetitive. I don't see how getting rid of them is the best way to address this.

So it's old and sometimes has tight games (unfortunately that's often that there are several teams who are all around average) and that makes it unique? The reason it's often called the best competition in the world in these parts is purely down to the fact our teams play in it. If you think it's down to anything else you're deluding yourself.

I don't really care about the compensative side of things. The reason why I want a relegation system has nothing to do with Italy's performances. The reason I want to maintain relegation in the English league. They may well flip flop but every team has the opportunity to do an Exeter.

I'd happily see a change to the competition if it was made with the best intentions, and actually benefited ALL rugby countries involved, or at least it disadvantaged them all equally. But I cannot see that happening. Without dredging up an old debate, the European season is a mess, and needs reworking to something less frenetic and fractured, with something closer to the SH replacing it. However, money is the major factor here, and anything that will lessen the power of the wealthiest clubs in the wealthiest countries with be vehemently opposed by said clubs. This is detrimental to European rugby as a whole, to all the international teams, Italy particularly.

Just double checking that you're aware the reason the season stays as it is, and the reason the 6 Nations won't move is because the people in charge want the extra money that get from filling empty slots? And these people are the unions? Sin e is always posting about how Feehan will not move things because it would make less money. Not sure what the clubs have to do with it. If anything there have been comments from them that they want to sort the season out (with the obligatory reduction of the international window of course).

No, I mean there's already scheduled tours in the Autumn which would allow the big teams of the SH to play the likes of Georgia, Portugal etc, would then free up more space for the NH teams to pick up games against Fiji and the like. Win win in terms of sharing games. Lose lose in terms of money of course but there will never be the agreement for more international games.

Sure I've already mentioned that more than once myself. SH teams should try and squeeze in a stop-off test in Eastern Europe enroute to Western Europe (Argentina could perhaps take on Spain or Portugal, just as 6 Nations teams should do likewise in the Pacific Islands, Namibia and Uruguay when touring the Southern Hemisphere. But I've moved on since then to discussing how the 6 Nations might most appropriately be involved in regular friendlies with their Eastern European neighours (with a view to future amalgamation of the 6 Nations & ENC competitions by way of a promotion-relegation fixture).

I didn't realise the 6N unions were registered charities.

That's a myopic view of it. The biggest money-spinner in the game today is the World Cup and that tournament involves 20 teams. The more competitive the teams are the better the event will become and everyone wins. But right now we have a relatively stagnant world order because half of those 20 teams are receiving very little exposure to that level of competition in between World Cup tournaments.

What pre-season occurs prior to the 6 Nations in Europe? Do you mean at the end of the season, before a European team tours abroad? Or do you mean just before the club season starts? Or do you mean the AI, which aren't pre-seasson at all?

Is there no room for a warm-up game or two immediately before the 6 Nations then? Ok, so how about playing in the spring tour window? What's the point in going Down Under to get thrashed anyway? Better off developing regional rivalries which will be an investment in the future.

Do you really think Italy treat the Scotland game as meaningless, and vice versa? Utterly redundant, relegation would certainly not improve the standard, and whilst you could argue the spectacle is improved in a sense as there is greater jeopardy on any such fixture, it hardly helps a team develop. It is far more preferable to have a tournament whereby every team competing could win it, rather than one or two teams kept locked in a battle every season, favouring attritional players over talent in the hope of avoiding last place.

I think you're taking a very negative stance. The fact is, games in which neither team were in contention for the title would have added meaning if there were a promotion-relegation fixture to avoid, and thus there would be added motivation for the players, and added interest from the fans. That's a no-brainer.

Also, you're not going to see the 6Ns play Georgia or Romania each Autumn, and definitely not away from home, where the Unions make a significant amount of money through paying supporters. There's no financial incentive to play them that regularly, whilst sacrificing playing Argentina, Fiji, or Samoa ever again. There is a balance. Once every three years is much more likely and feasible. Equally, Italy are not going to be playing Russia, Spain, and Portugal every Autumn. How does that help an already struggling Italian rugby? The FIR is not there to develop the semi-professionals for the rest of Europe, they're there to develop Italian rugby. The onus should be on bigger and wealthier nations, or the relevant rugby boards, to help develop Spanish or Russian rugby.




I mentioned one game per 6 Nations team, not three. It would be Georgia and Romania who would be involved in three games each on that basis. Obviously if Italy played its once annual fixture against Russia OR Spain OR Italy, it would come at the expense of either Georgia or Romania, obviously. But, again, that's ONE solitary game per 6 Nations team a year.

Rowanbi wrote:No, I mean there's already scheduled tours in the Autumn which would allow the big teams of the SH to play the likes of Georgia, Portugal etc, would then free up more space for the NH teams to pick up games against Fiji and the like. Win win in terms of sharing games. Lose lose in terms of money of course but there will never be the agreement for more international games.

Sure I've already mentioned that more than once myself. SH teams should try and squeeze in a stop-off test in Eastern Europe enroute to Western Europe (Argentina could perhaps take on Spain or Portugal, just as 6 Nations teams should do likewise in the Pacific Islands, Namibia and Uruguay when touring the Southern Hemisphere. But I've moved on since then to discussing how the 6 Nations might most appropriately be involved in regular friendlies with their Eastern European neighours (with a view to future amalgamation of the 6 Nations & ENC competitions by way of a promotion-relegation fixture).

I didn't realise the 6N unions were registered charities.

That's a myopic view of it. The biggest money-spinner in the game today is the World Cup and that tournament involves 20 teams. The more competitive the teams are the better the event will become and everyone wins. But right now we have a relatively stagnant world order because half of those 20 teams are receiving very little exposure to that level of competition in between World Cup tournaments.

What pre-season occurs prior to the 6 Nations in Europe? Do you mean at the end of the season, before a European team tours abroad? Or do you mean just before the club season starts? Or do you mean the AI, which aren't pre-seasson at all?

Is there no room for a warm-up game or two immediately before the 6 Nations then? Ok, so how about playing in the spring tour window? What's the point in going Down Under to get thrashed anyway? Better off developing regional rivalries which will be an investment in the future.

Do you really think Italy treat the Scotland game as meaningless, and vice versa? Utterly redundant, relegation would certainly not improve the standard, and whilst you could argue the spectacle is improved in a sense as there is greater jeopardy on any such fixture, it hardly helps a team develop. It is far more preferable to have a tournament whereby every team competing could win it, rather than one or two teams kept locked in a battle every season, favouring attritional players over talent in the hope of avoiding last place.

I think you're taking a very negative stance. The fact is, games in which neither team were in contention for the title would have added meaning if there were a promotion-relegation fixture to avoid, and thus there would be added motivation for the players, and added interest from the fans. That's a no-brainer.

Also, you're not going to see the 6Ns play Georgia or Romania each Autumn, and definitely not away from home, where the Unions make a significant amount of money through paying supporters. There's no financial incentive to play them that regularly, whilst sacrificing playing Argentina, Fiji, or Samoa ever again. There is a balance. Once every three years is much more likely and feasible. Equally, Italy are not going to be playing Russia, Spain, and Portugal every Autumn. How does that help an already struggling Italian rugby? The FIR is not there to develop the semi-professionals for the rest of Europe, they're there to develop Italian rugby. The onus should be on bigger and wealthier nations, or the relevant rugby boards, to help develop Spanish or Russian rugby.




I mentioned one game per 6 Nations team, not three. It would be Georgia and Romania who would be involved in three games each on that basis. Obviously if Italy played its once annual fixture against Russia OR Spain OR Italy, it would come at the expense of either Georgia or Romania, obviously. But, again, that's ONE solitary game per 6 Nations team a year.

Yeah and as I said there's no room or want to squeeze another game in around that time hence why you'd have to look at replacing a game or 2. NZ, SA and Aus won't get an England, Ieland Wales whoever and pick up a game vs Georgia, Romania etc and the NH teams pick up a Fiji, Samoa etc. Less money for the bigger teams but England could cope with that.

Rowanbi wrote:
I didn't realise the 6N unions were registered charities.

That's a myopic view of it. The biggest money-spinner in the game today is the World Cup and that tournament involves 20 teams. The more competitive the teams are the better the event will become and everyone wins. But right now we have a relatively stagnant world order because half of those 20 teams are receiving very little exposure to that level of competition in between World Cup tournaments.

But why are you acting like the individual unions should care about bringing the lower teams forward? I doubt you spend much effort helping less qualified people find jobs at your expense.

Looks like a fair bit of nitpicking going on here. It's not really important who I think should be responsible for driving the game's international development, but in the very comment you've quoted I have made it clear that the inernational development of the game is in the longer term interests of all.

I think most of us agree there needs to be more interaction between 6 Nations and ENC 1 teams, with a possible view to an expanded 6 Nations or pan-European competition by way of a promotion-relegation fixture. But beyond that we appear divided into two camps - those who think a way should be and can be found, and those who think it's impossible and dismiss all conjecture to the contrary.

Rowanbi wrote:Looks like a fair bit of nitpicking going on here. It's not really important who I think should be responsible for driving the game's international development, but in the very comment you've quoted I have made it clear that the inernational development of the game is in the longer term interests of all.

I think most of us agree there needs to be more interaction between 6 Nations and ENC 1 teams, with a possible view to an expanded 6 Nations or pan-European competition by way of a promotion-relegation fixture. But beyond that we appear divided into two camps - those who think a way should be and can be found, and those who think it's impossible and dismiss all conjecture to the contrary.

No just those who think your supposition and 'ideas' are lacking in an understanding of the reality

Or those who think it's fine to expand the game played between the top teams and the rest and have offered another example of how that could be achieved without needing to add additional international games which are extremely unlikely.

Rowanbi wrote:
That's a myopic view of it. The biggest money-spinner in the game today is the World Cup and that tournament involves 20 teams. The more competitive the teams are the better the event will become and everyone wins. But right now we have a relatively stagnant world order because half of those 20 teams are receiving very little exposure to that level of competition in between World Cup tournaments.

The 6Ns is as much of a money spinner as the World Cup in that each yearly tournament is worth about 100m x 4 = 400m which is similiar to what the World Cup makes. Bearing in mind that only 6 teams are involved and they only play 15 games (total 60) it is a much better money spinner than the World Cup.

The reason why they don't want to change the time of year is because it is a quite time of the year for other sportsl. Move it and they are going to be competing with Finals of Football (like Champs League and run in of leagues), Cricket, golf (and in Ireland GAA).

If you destroy the 6Ns, World Rugby will lose a major revenue stream which will result in some countries not being able to afford to play countries like Georgia.

Changing, killing the 6Ns would actually be killing the goose that is laying the golden egg.

No just those who think your supposition and 'ideas' are lacking in an understanding of the reality

"You look at things and ask why, but I dream of things that never were and ask why not"?

There's certainly room,  It's just a case of prioritizing and placing the emphasis on the future rather than the past.

If you destroy the 6Ns, World Rugby will lose a major revenue stream which will result in some countries not being able to afford to play countries like Georgia.

Changing, killing the 6Ns would actually be killing the goose that is laying the golden egg.




Oh deary me. It's thinking like this that has held the game back for so long. Are you really so afraid? I'm sure you would have been against Italy's addition with a mindset like that, and France's as well if you'd been around at the time. I do remember how adamant the Home Unions were in their opposition to a World Cup as well. Australasia had a real battle on its hand getting that tournament off the ground. And now it is indeed the biggest money spinner in the game, and it requires 2o teams (not 6 or 8 or 10) to be so. But you would advocate ignoring half those teams in between tournaments so that they will forever be disadvantaged, and the World Cup itself remain a lopsided event with more or less the same quarterfinalists again and again ad infinitum. That's a self-absorbed, myopic outlook if ever there was one. Meanwhile, far from killing the 6 Nations the ideas I am suggesting would ultimately enhance it.

Wow quoting RFK misquoting Shaw, you can dream of what you like but you talk like you're some lone crusader rather than someone who's rambling on about what is should be done and ignoring the consequences.

You talk about enhancing the 6Ns but actually don't tell us how because less money across the game, which means less to develop it across the world at all levels isn't enhancing anything.

I'd also challenge Sin about the RWC, were the ABs not talking about how much they lose in WC years because they don't get the revenue from the summer tours?

Just discussing an issue on a chat forum and making suggestions, that's all. You seem to think this is a United Nations summit meeting or something. I've repeatedly stated how my ideas will benefit the game in the long term future, by developing a more competitive international rugby community and withal a more competitive World Cup tournament.

The quotation was apt. Nothing but nitpicking and stubborn resistance going on here.

& just to remind you, all I'm suggesting is each of the 6 Nations commit themselves to a solitary friendly against an ENC 1 team per year, thus providing the likes of Georgia and Romania perhaps two or even three games versus their 6 Nations counterparts per season - at least one of which ought to be in their home stadium. This with a view to introducing a promotion-relegation fixture to the 6 Nations perhaps a decade from now.

But as stated the blockage in this is there is not the room to create additional games in the international calendar.

So you would have to go down the route of taking on the clubs, which given the fragile status quo at times may be very foolish, and forcing through an extended international window. This is turn may have the opposite effect that you're after (as clubs pick up the Georgians etc as they think they can persuade them to not turn out for their country and thus be less hit by the players absence) and lead to less top coaching to them.

You could slot games in either side of the season which I personally wouldn't be in favour of as the risks of over playing people become more and more apparent and impact upon the quality of games.

So then you turn to replacing fixtures of the big guns vs big guns to slot in a Romania vs NZ in the Autumn etc. I'm sure eventually that would benefit Romania and a couple of thumpings vs NZs B side but would the tv companies prefer that or Ireland NZ? Comes down to money.

I am talking about one game. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest the 6 nations teams would not be able to find time for one solitary game if they really wanted to. This reminds me of all the nitpicking, feeble excuse-making and brick wall opposition to such innovations as Argentina's addition to SANZAR competitions, Italy's inclusion in the 6 Nations and the advent of the World Cup itself. If you think it would be abosolutely impossible and unthinkable to fit in one single game (perhaps at the expense of a less useful fixture) in order to help drive the development of international rugby forward - as an investment in the future - because the clubs might not like it, and refuse blindly to even consider the possibility that a compromise might just possibly be found, fine, but you belong in the 19th century not the 21st.

Speaking from an English perspective, an additional game would cost a lot. Presumably if World Rugby did extend the international window for a further week after the 6Ns say, the RFU would then have to renegotiate with the PRL around funding so would lose out there. If it's one game I would assume that the 6Ns teams would take turns each year playing the one off game with a Georgia, Portugal, whoever and the remaining teams would then sit out for 3-4 years? So maybe you'd only be harming the clubs with the 2nd string players as you would be unlikely to get the 1st teamers. You'd then be looking more at a Saxons team for the fixture.

You'd obviously then have some clubs trying to put pressure on players to retire early.

All at a time where there's talk of limiting play time and reducing fixtures overall.

Rowanbi wrote:Just discussing an issue on a chat forum and making suggestions, that's all. You seem to think this is a United Nations summit meeting or something. I've repeatedly stated how my ideas will benefit the game in the long term future, by developing a more competitive international rugby community and withal a more competitive World Cup tournament.

The quotation was apt. Nothing but nitpicking and stubborn resistance going on here.

And you have been told how it will actually damage the game in the long term

Its not stubborn resistance when pretty much everyone wants to see progress, difference is you work with blinkers on and don't see the big picture

Sorry, double post.

Its not stubborn resistance when pretty much everyone wants to see progress, difference is you work with blinkers on and don't see the big picture

You are unwilling to even consider a hypothesis on the addition of a single game (per team), with a view to developing international rugby as an investment in the future, yet deny this is stubborn resistance and accuse me of working with 'blinkers?' That may be one of the most ironic comments I've ever read.

Ok, I get the fact that you think think it is absolutely impossible, unthinkable and beyond the realms of all possiblity for any 6 Nations team to ever play an Eastern European team under any circumstances whatsoever outside World Cups because the clubs simply would never ever ever contemplate it, the schedule is absolutely, unequivocally set in stone for the indefinite future, no other fixture could possibly be sacrificed to make way for it, and the players themselves would all drop dead on the spot at the mere prospect. I get that. But I also happen to disagree with you; just as I disagreed with those who opposed SANZAR & 5/6 Nations expansion in the past, and also those who opposed the World Cup concept itself.  

Presumably if World Rugby did extend the international window for a further week after the 6Ns say, the RFU would then have to renegotiate with the PRL around funding so would lose out there. If it's one game I would assume that the 6Ns teams would take turns each year playing the one off game with a Georgia, Portugal, whoever and the remaining teams would then sit out for 3-4 years? So maybe you'd only be harming the clubs with the 2nd string players as you would be unlikely to get the 1st teamers. You'd then be looking more at a Saxons team for the fixture.


This is a pretty good example of missing key points because your mind is already made up and you are actually not reading what has really been written. For example, it has been suggested more than once that rather than adding a game, the fixture could simply replace one of less usefulness and meaning. Secondly I have repeatedly pointed out that it would be one game per Six Nations team, meaning perhaps two or even three fixtures for Georgia and Romania (Italy might opt for a match against Spain or Portugal instead, for example, while Russia might feature somewhere from time to time as well).  

So just to re-cap once again: The suggestion is for the 6 Nations to commit to ONE game per team per season against an ENC team. Georgia and Romania, as tier 2 nations and regular World Cup-contenders, would be the obvious recipients, therefore receiving up to 3 games per season against 6 Nations opposition (at least one at home), which would aid their development greatly. However, the odd match might be played against other ENC 1 teams such as Russia, Spain or Portugal. The long term objective would be to increase contacts between the two competitions and raise the standard of ENC 1 rugby, so that a promotion-releation match might become feasible within a decade or so, making all-inclusive pan-European competiton a reality

You've been saying tag the game ahead of pre season end of 6Ns etc so I was answering those points. You're now presumably saying that instead of giving the likes of Fiji those games in the AIs they go to the Georgias etc? Give with one hand take with the other?

Well, the obvious answer to that is increased contact beween the Pacific Islands and their Australasian neighbours. I've already written about this many times too. Increased regional competition is the simplest and most obvious pathway forward.

Or, seeing as the AIs is traditionally the European based teams vs the rest, fit in Georgia with the NZs SAs etc and invite Japan and some more to tour as well. Fits well.

Yes, discussed before also, tying the proposed additional fixtures in with Autumn tours is a plausible option, as it could be for fixtures against the Pacific Islands, Namibia & Uruguay's, etc, during the Spring tours.

Money then remains the only negative for some of the teams. Aus won't get as much playing romania as England etc.

Rowanbi wrote:Its not stubborn resistance when pretty much everyone wants to see progress, difference is you work with blinkers on and don't see the big picture

You are unwilling to even consider a hypothesis on the addition of a single game (per team), with a view to developing international rugby as an investment in the future, yet deny this is stubborn resistance and accuse me of working with 'blinkers?' That may be one of the most ironic comments I've ever read.

Who said I didn't consider it? You mean because I said its not viable that's different to not considering it, as I have told you before there are numerous issues that prevent it happening such as player availability. The Tier 2 nations can't access players for the games there are now yet you want more games for them to not have them available?

International rugby is being developed for the future at all levels with underage teams, select teams and competitions such as the Tbilisi Cup but you choose to ignore them because they fly in the face of your conspiracy theory. These efforts by the way are in a large part due to the revenues created by those you continue to accuse of holding teams back.

I dismiss your ideas because they lack real substance and the short term aim should be developing the club game in Tier 2 nations such as Georgia and Romania so that this gives them a stronger foundation, group of players and takes control and reliance on foreign based players who being available part time hurt the structure and consistency of the teams.

I should have added that there remains the issue of clubs wanting the Georgians and the like as they are great cover during international periods as well.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I should have added that there remains the issue of clubs wanting the Georgians and the like as they are great cover during international periods as well.

It happens to most Tier 2 nations, how many quality Pacific Islanders are not always available or picked?

How many have retired early and are available during Test windows for their clubs?

Yeah, just may be an unintended consequence that you have more retiring players or even having players not picked up and not being developed as well.

It may have been Census Johnson who talked a while back about French clubs offering more money to players if they retired from Test rugby, he got into bother with Toulouse last year when he came out of retirement after they gave him a new contract under the belief he would not be playing for Samoa again.

But isn't that completely understandable? Any team with international players will need non-international players as cover. If players want to forego international rugby because they can make more money by doing so (because they get paid more by their club than by their union) it's their choice isn't it? It's clubs putting pressure on players who signed with the full intention of playing international rugby which needs to be stamped down on hard.

Yes, but which came first the chicken or the egg.

The egg, obviously.

Of course its understandable but its against the rules, you can't induce a player to retire from international rugby that's where the problem is but its almost impossible to police as well

It depends on the intent of the regulation. Is to ban the hiring of international window cover? Or is to stop clubs putting financial pressure on their players not to play? We've already seen that clubs can't actually do anything about players who lie about it (see Priestland).

Its putting financial pressure on players not to play, such as offering x if they play international rugby or then can go for y if they don't

They should just make it a rule that all tier 1 teams have to play a minimum of one test a year against a non-tier 1 nation within their regional association.

Rowanbi wrote:They should just make it a rule that all tier 1 teams have to play a minimum of one test a year against a non-tier 1 nation within their regional association.

Why? It's not what the unions, fans, players coaches, sponsors or tv companies want. Big games against the big sides is the main draw.

Send the Saxons, Wolfhounds etc to play the minnows. They need more games anyway and at least it (probably) won't be a pointless thrashing.

I don't think you believe most of what you're typing but enjoy thinking up unworkable scenarios in a dream world

It's called investing in the future. You're incredibly myopic, you realise. It's thinking like that which held the game back for so long. A one game per team investment which would help bring the next tier up to speed and create a large, more competitive international rugby circuit for the future. That's all, and that's why.