No prospect of eastern Europe joining in 6 Nations

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?

It's a shame there is a closed door.

Romania and Georgia both played above most people's expectations at the RWC.

I hope they at least get more games vs top tier teams

Its going to dilute the product though which wont be a good thing for the six nations as a whole. People will bring up the progress that Argentina have made since being in the rugby championship but fail to ignore the fact that they came 3rd in the 2007 world cup so had been a good team.capable of challenging tier one teams for a while. If Italy comfortably beat Romania in the world cup then I fail to see how getting thrashed by teams in the six nations is going to improve you. I mean what progress have treviso made by getting slaughtered in the European rugby cup every year. Something needs to be done in terms of developing them but it isn't throwing them into the six nations to get their asses handed to them

I didn't realise it was a closed door but as he said it happens after every world cup if one of the so called lesser sides do well.

I am pretty sure it will change in years to come after all it took a very long time before we went up to 6.

I like the bit where they blatantly lie and say every seat is sold out except Italy, as Wales and Scotland have not sold out a few games over the years.

Like most I think a two division league sounds appealing but certain teams won't agree to relegation/promotion system for fear of dropping out of the top tier.

Bringing them into the 6N is a bit of a stretch right now. I would prefer that these countries had a more active role in the AI's for a few years to gauge their progress.

eirebilly wrote:Bringing them into the 6N is a bit of a stretch right now. I would prefer that these countries had a more active role in the AI's for a few years to gauge their progress.

Yeah that would be a more logical and measured approach I feel.

Most of us play at least one test against the likes of Fiji, Samoa etc so maybe it should be made compulsory that instead of a playing one of them they should have to play a developing NH side.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Bringing them into the 6N is a bit of a stretch right now. I would prefer that these countries had a more active role in the AI's for a few years to gauge their progress.

Yeah that would be a more logical and measured approach I feel.

Most of us play at least one test against the likes of Fiji, Samoa etc so maybe it should be made compulsory that instead of a playing one of them they should have to play a developing NH side.

The top three teams play even less against second tier nations. The whole game needs to be more inclusive of smaller nations.

Agree with you there maesteg, the AI's would also be a good platform for the SH to also play one of these teams as well.

Personally I think the 6 nations should remain the 6 nations. However, Georgia, Romania, Russia and another nation (Spain, Germany, Ukraine) should have there own tournament around the same time of year. A European version of the Pacific tournament is definitely needed.

bsando wrote:Personally I think the 6 nations should remain the 6 nations. However, Georgia, Romania, Russia and another nation (Spain, Germany, Ukraine) should have there own tournament around the same time of year. A European version of the Pacific tournament is definitely needed.

They already do don't they? I thought Georgia had now won in for several years running.

Here you go

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_%28rugby_union%29

Georgia have been winning it since 2011 apparently.

I feel Feehan's statement is very poorly worded. It comes across as short-sighted and condescending towards the two developing nations concerned. He's also dismissive of the undeniable progress sides like Georgia and Romania have made over the last 5-10 years.

Aside from that, I have to agree with the notion that now isn't the right time for expansion. Taking the additional fixtures and distances to travel would be mad in a club-international system which is already arguably over-congested. I'm not closed to expansion in the medium term but it really ought to accompany a broader restructuring of the modern season rather than being stuffed in amid the current mess. So the question of expansion is closely connected to the question of a global season.

In the interim I'd support the idea of playing more AI fixtures against the two. Any side which plays teams like Japan, Canada or Tonga on a semi-regular basis should now consider inviting the Georgian and Romanian teams over at a fair frequency.

The main thing isn't whether Romania or Georgia are ready for the 6 nations right now, it's Feehan admitting the 6 nations is a closed shop competition. That is a huge blow to the two countries who have been investing heavily into rugby with the view of someday joining the competition.

Nobody in the Rom and Georgian union are calling for an immediate inclusion they just want the chance in the medium term.

He calls it a closed tournament but gives no indication how long it'll stay that way. I suspect that's because nobody currently knows how long that will be. And reading through the article, the only solid reason he gives against expansion is the fixture congestion which would subsequently arise, on which subject he has a point. If congestion were avoidable somehow, there might be more of a case. Feehan never specifies that these nations would still be excluded if it was, only that it isn't practical in the current structure.

Like I said, I don't see medium term integration as an impossibility. But for it to happen union and club heads everywhere would probably have to agree on a complete fixture and timetable reorganisation.

Knowsit17 wrote:He calls it a closed tournament but gives no indication how long it'll stay that way. I suspect that's because nobody currently knows how long that will be. And reading through the article, the only solid reason he gives against expansion is the fixture congestion which would subsequently arise, on which subject he has a point. If congestion were avoidable somehow, there might be more of a case. Feehan never specifies that these nations would still be excluded if it was, only that it isn't practical in the current structure.

Like I said, I don't see medium term integration as an impossibility. But for it to happen union and club heads everywhere would probably have to agree on a complete fixture and timetable reorganisation.

He's saying its closed shop for good under this management at least. He even says its not up to us to provide the solution for Romanian and Georgian rugby. The fixtures are mostly locked up until 2019 so they'll be licky to get a couple against the tier 1 nations.

This problem could be sorted if we get rid of the pointless lions tour and set up a Euro comp. I feel this could be way more lucrative for the home nations. That would give European tier 2 teams a good competition to play in every two years.

The Lions tour isn't directly the problem. It happens once every four years and runs alongside the summer tours. So even if it was cancelled, the 'home unions' would still send their players away to tour the SH, only with their respective national teams rather than the Lions.

Are you therefore suggesting abolishing the summer tours themselves and setting up a Euro comp in their place? Would that replace the 6N or just exist separately?

Knowsit17 wrote:The Lions tour isn't directly the problem. It happens once every four years and runs alongside the summer tours. So even if it was cancelled, the 'home unions' would still send their players away to tour the SH, only with their respective national teams rather than the Lions.

Are you therefore suggesting abolishing the summer tours themselves and setting up a Euro comp in their place? Would that replace the 6N or just exist separately?

It would exsist seperatley and would be only every 4 years just like the Lions. It can't happen though because of the impact it would have on the SH game monetary wise.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:The main thing isn't whether Romania or Georgia are ready for the 6 nations right now, it's Feehan admitting the 6 nations is a closed shop competition. That is a huge blow to the two countries who have been investing heavily into rugby with the view of someday joining the competition.

Nobody in the Rom and Georgian union are calling for an immediate inclusion they just want the chance in the medium term.

Feehan championed the entry of Italy, so I don't think he is suggesting that its a closed shop.

Its a very successful tournament from a commercial point of view, mess with that, and the 6Ns countries would be broke.

Sin é wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:The main thing isn't whether Romania or Georgia are ready for the 6 nations right now, it's Feehan admitting the 6 nations is a closed shop competition. That is a huge blow to the two countries who have been investing heavily into rugby with the view of someday joining the competition.

Nobody in the Rom and Georgian union are calling for an immediate inclusion they just want the chance in the medium term.

Feehan championed the entry of Italy, so I don't think he is suggesting that its a closed shop.

Its a very successful tournament from a commercial point of view, mess with that, and the 6Ns countries would be broke.

Really? "This is a closed tournament, by agreement amongst the countries currently competing in it". What does he mean by that then? I do agree that messing with the tournament would be a huge risk.

bsando wrote:Personally I think the 6 nations should remain the 6 nations. However, Georgia, Romania, Russia and another nation (Spain, Germany, Ukraine) should have there own tournament around the same time of year. A European version of the Pacific tournament is definitely needed.

They do/there is. Just doesn't get much exposure media or tv wise.

I'll be in the minority here I think, why relegate anyone from the Six nations?
You take the 6 nations away from any of the existing teams and you kill rugby in the country, especially for the Celt teams.

The answer for European rugby is having a cup similar to the football European Cup, NOT messing around with the home international tournament.  Anyone with half a brain can see it would be better to scrap the Lions and play a European Cup tournament, it's basically what pushed European football upwards.  

Look at it this way, even excluding tv contracts etc.  We expand it to 8 teams, so what happens when Germany and Spain catch up?  10 teams?  ok 10 teams, then Russia and Ukraine?  12 teams?
You can't relegate anyone because you'd kill interest in a developed rugby country, and we haven't the room to promote anyone without starting world war 3 with the French and English clubs.  In fact if you use A teams it could be played every year.  Look at this system.

Pool 1
1 Ireland (1st place 2015)
2 Romania (2nd place 6N B)
3 Germany (6th place 6N B)
4 Poland (4th place 6N C)

Pool 2
1 England (2nd place 2015)
2 Georgia (1st place 6N B)
3 Portugal (5th place 6NB)
4 Ukraine (3rd place 6N C)

Pool 3
1 Wales (3rd place 2015)
2 Scotland (6th place 2015)
3 Russia (4th place place 6N B)
4 Moldova (2nd place 6N C)

Pool 4
1 France (4th place 2015)
2 Italy (5th place 2015)
3 Spain (3rd place 6N B)
4 Belgium (1st place 6N C)

Ok, 4 pools of 4 teams, each teams plays each other once, giving us 3 weeks, or a week and a half if we play Saturday, Wednesday, then Saturday.  
After the 3 games have been played, each team will be moved to semi finals of one of four new tournaments:

Cup - the 4 teams finishing top of the pool stages will go into semi finals
Shield - the 4 teams finishing second in the pool stages go into semi finals
Plate - the 4 teams finishing third in the pool stages go into semi finals
Bowl - the 4 teams finishing third in the pool stages go into semi finals

So it would look like this:

Cup (semi final):
Game 1: Ireland (winner pool 1)  V England (winner pool 2)
Game 2: Wales (winner pool 3) V France (winner pool 4)

Shield (semi final):
Game 1: Romania (2nd place pool 1) V Georgia (2nd place pool 2)
Game 2: Scotland (2nd place pool 3) V Italy (2nd place pool 4)

Plate (semi final):
Game 1: Germany (3rd place pool 1) V Portugal (3rd place pool 2)
Game 2: Russia (3rd place pool 3) V Spain (3rd place pool 4)

Bowl (semi final):
Game 1: Poland (4th place pool 1) V Ukraine (4th place pool 2)
Game 2: Moldova (4th place pool 3 V Belgium (4th place pool 4)

Ok so we have now played the semi finals, at this point the winners play each other, and the losers play each other.  
So basically everyone in the tournament plays 5 games, and also at the end of it each team has a ranking of between 1 and 16.  Additionally 4 teams actually get to win something.  

The Finals:
Ireland V Wales (winners of Cup semi finals) - game was won by Ireland
Georgia V Scotland (winners of Shield semi finals) - game was won by Scotland
Germany V Spain (winners of Plate semi finals) - game was won by Germany
Poland V Belgium (winners of Bowl semi finals) - game was won by Poland

3rd/4th place play off:
England V France (losers of Cup semi finals) - game won by England
Romania V Italy (losers of Shield semi finals) - game won by Italy
Portugal V Russia (losers of Plate semi finals) - game won by Portugal
Moldova V Ukraine (losers of Bowl semi finals) - game won by Moldova

Final European rankings:

1 Ireland (European Cup winners)
2 Wales (second place losing finalists)
3 England (winners of 3/4 place play off)
4 France (losers of 3/4 place play off)

5 Scotland (Shield winners) - yey they won something other than a wooden spoon!  
6 Georgia (second place losing finalists)
7 Italy (winners of 3/4 place play off)
8 Romania (losers of 3/4 place play off)

9 Germany (Plate winners)
10 Spain (second place losing finalists)
11 Portugal  (winners of 3/4 place play off)
12 Russia (losers of 3/4 place play off)

13 Poland (Bowl winners)
14 Belgium (second place losing finalists)
15 Moldova (winners of 3/4 place play off)
16 Ukraine (losers of 3/4 place play off)

So there you go a European Cup, teams don't get knocked out and everyone plays 5 games each, and 4 teams get a chance to win something.  

  Wednesday         /// Saturday
week 1  (no game)            /// Pool stage game 1
week 2 Pool stage game 2  /// Pool stage game 3
week 3 (no game) /// Semi final
week 4 (no game) /// Final

there we go, squeezed into 4 weeks.

I read that interview and I could not believe it, John Feehan comes across very arrogantly, I would like to think that he would regret what he has said in the near future. He sounds like a fat cat sitting on top of his pile of money and mocking the unfortunate. 

By saying what he has said he has landed a killer blow to the rugby communities in Europe outside the 6N.

We need our sport to grow, he did not have to say what he has said, he should have left the door ajar. Rugby is massive in Georgia, how will the Georgian population react to hearing this ? 

It is sad when the main aim taken by the people in charge is solely about £££££'s. This, we are alright Jack attitude will ruin rugby, this is not good, not good at all.

Why do we need the sport to grow? My preference as a fan would be that it doesn't grow because the more it grows the bigger the chance that smaller countries like Ireland will be completely left behind.

LordDowlais wrote:I read that interview and I could not believe it, John Feehan comes across very arrogantly, I would like to think that he would regret what he has said in the near future. He sounds like a fat cat sitting on top of his pile of money and mocking the unfortunate. 

By saying what he has said he has landed a killer blow to the rugby communities in Europe outside the 6N.

We need our sport to grow, he did not have to say what he has said, he should have left the door ajar. Rugby is massive in Georgia, how will the Georgian population react to hearing this ? 

It is sad when the main aim taken by the people in charge is solely about £££££'s. This, we are alright Jack attitude will ruin rugby, this is not good, not good at all.

Feehans in charge of 6N/Lions/Pro12 his job is to look after the interests of everyone involved there, its up to World Rugby to develop the game in places like Georgia and Romania and they are doing that through things like the Tbilisi Cup.

There is no money in inviting Georgia and/or Romania to come in right now as the markets have no added value re tv or sponsorship so what would they bring into the tournament?

marty2086 wrote:Feehans in charge of 6N/Lions/Pro12 his job is to look after the interests of everyone involved there, its up to World Rugby to develop the game in places like Georgia and Romania and they are doing that through things like the Tbilisi Cup. 

There is no money in inviting Georgia and/or Romania to come in right now as the markets have no added value re tv or sponsorship so what would they bring into the tournament?

Why do you feel so threatened by the possibility of including them ? I am not saying we should, but to completely tell them no, and it is a closed shop does not send out the right message.

For me, the tier one countries have a responsibility to help the lesser nations in rugby, the tier one countries hold the monopoly on rugby at the moment as we make the money, and we should be looking at ways to improve the tier two countries and develop the game as a whole, not to tell them no, go away and do not ask again.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Feehans in charge of 6N/Lions/Pro12 his job is to look after the interests of everyone involved there, its up to World Rugby to develop the game in places like Georgia and Romania and they are doing that through things like the Tbilisi Cup. 

There is no money in inviting Georgia and/or Romania to come in right now as the markets have no added value re tv or sponsorship so what would they bring into the tournament?

Why do you feel so threatened by the possibility of including them ? I am not saying we should, but to completely tell them no, and it is a closed shop does not send out the right message.

For me, the tier one countries have a responsibility to help the lesser nations in rugby, the tier one countries hold the monopoly on rugby at the moment as we make the money, and we should be looking at ways to improve the tier two countries and develop the game as a whole, not to tell them no, go away and do not ask again.

Where did I say I feel threatened by them?

I think a roadmap should be drawn up for improving rugby across Europe, the third tier of the EPCR tournaments is a nice thought but more teams from across Europe need to be in the second tier, Challenge Cup, and teams from countries like Georgia included in the third tier.

Personally I'd like to see a Pro12 for countries like Georgia and Russia so that they are playing at a higher level more regularly

I wonder whether the big unions could accommodate a four-yearly hemisphere tournament, similar to the Euros etc.  This could be a good way of helping to establish the Tier 2 teams while also keeping traditions alive in the 6N.  Make it 12 teams (4 pools of 3) and you could wrap up in 6 weeks, which is pretty much the same as what you have now (5 weeks in 6N, 6 weeks in 4N).  Base it in one (or two) countries.  You could have:

2019 – World Cup
2020 – Sth Hem 12 team comp (NZ, Aus, SA, Arg, Fij, Tga, Sam, Uru, Nam, Zim + 3 qualifiers)
2021 – Lions Tour
2022 – Nth Hem 12 team comp (Fra, Ita, Eng, Ire, Wal, Sco, Geo, Rus, Jpn, USA, Can + 1 qualifier)
2023 – World Cup

I’m sure events like these would generate sufficient sponsorship and TV revenues to deliver a return (or go a long way towards) to those affected by the loss of their major tournaments for that year, plus would also help develop those without regular fixtures.  Suddenly, within 15-20 years, Tier 1 is made up of 20 teams.  Everyone’s a winner.

Now let the naysayers rip this apart!

chewed_mintie wrote:2019 – World Cup
2020 – Sth Hem 12 team comp (NZ, Aus, SA, Arg, Fij, Tga, Sam, Uru, Nam, Zim + 3 qualifiers)
2021 – Lions Tour
2022 – Nth Hem 12 team comp (Fra, Ita, Eng, Ire, Wal, Sco, Geo, Rus, Jpn, USA, Can + 1 qualifier)
2023 – World Cup

That would make a lot of sense, the only thing wrong is, it would have to be held in one country, and the home nations would lose a hell of a lot in income through gate receipts and the what not. Also, the local economies would take a bashing, I know Cardiff and the surrounding towns, including my own, make a fortune on international day, with hotel bookings and away fans that spend their monies here.

This obsession with tweaking the 6 Nations is a symptom of the 'change' obsession that started in business and now seems to affect all aspects of life; the suggestion the lions i outdated and anachronistic is also something i just dont get and my response dis go on tour you'll never have so much fun.

What happened to tradition. Why is that not good enough anymore?

Perhaps we should also say that teams that can't get out of their group at their own RWC should sit out the next one.

Gwlad wrote:This obsession with tweaking the 6 Nations is a symptom of the 'change' obsession that started in business and now seems to affect all aspects of life; the suggestion the lions i outdated and anachronistic is also something i just dont get and my response dis go on tour you'll never have so much fun.

What happened to tradition. Why is that not good enough anymore?

Perhaps we should also say that teams that can't get out of their group at their own RWC should sit out the next one.

I think the vast majority of Lions bashing comes from the Irish quaters, where we have never really fully been behind it as it's always felt very British (the media doesn't help when they constantly call them the "British Lions"). If the Lions was scrapped tommorow there wouldn't be any sort of outrage over here apart from former players.

A Euro comp every 4 years would be ideal but the SH unions need the summer tours to survive and we need the AI's.

chewed_mintie wrote:I wonder whether the big unions could accommodate a four-yearly hemisphere tournament, similar to the Euros etc.  This could be a good way of helping to establish the Tier 2 teams while also keeping traditions alive in the 6N.  Make it 12 teams (4 pools of 3) and you could wrap up in 6 weeks, which is pretty much the same as what you have now (5 weeks in 6N, 6 weeks in 4N).  Base it in one (or two) countries.  You could have:

2019 – World Cup
2020 – Sth Hem 12 team comp (NZ, Aus, SA, Arg, Fij, Tga, Sam, Uru, Nam, Zim + 3 qualifiers)
2021 – Lions Tour
2022 – Nth Hem 12 team comp (Fra, Ita, Eng, Ire, Wal, Sco, Geo, Rus, Jpn, USA, Can + 1 qualifier)
2023 – World Cup

I’m sure events like these would generate sufficient sponsorship and TV revenues to deliver a return (or go a long way towards) to those affected by the loss of their major tournaments for that year, plus would also help develop those without regular fixtures.  Suddenly, within 15-20 years, Tier 1 is made up of 20 teams.  Everyone’s a winner.

Now let the naysayers rip this apart!

I like the idea of both hemispheres adopting this more inclusive model.
But if we're having two separate 12-team comps, surely it makes sense to play them around the same time as each other rather than two years apart. That way NH unions could still arrange tours to the SH during years when they have no alternative summer schedules. That way the NH and SH can still tour one another, if only at a reduced frequency.

It's a lot more tournaments but in theory not too many more fixtures so long as they take place on alternating years.

I think in international sport in general rivalries are important.

The 6 nations has been at least partially successful because it's been built on the closeness of the nations in terms of geography and history. Italy is of course slightly further away but they have that historical tie with France at least. France has had a long history tied with the home nations too of course.

Georgia and Romania - don't have any ties with the home nations unless you include England's usage of St George!

A game vs Georgia or Romania would just lack the spice that most 6 nations games have.

The 6 nations is a time of bragging rights, settling old scores and of course is steeped in history.

I do think there should be some sort of plan to integrate Georgia and Romania more into the framework though, just not the 6 nations itself.

Regardless if it is in an enhanced 6n becoming 8n or it becomes mandatory that tier 1 teams play these teams in the Autumn or summer international periods these teams MUST get more exposure.

Ireland played Georgia last year...England, Wales, France etc all need to help as well.

The number of teams playing rugby in Europe (and the rest of the world) is growing at a huge rate now....and eventually a European championship style tournament must come into effect.

The Eastern Europeans are basically the Pacific Islands of Europe, shut out due to economic limitations. I'd love to see an 8 Nations with Georgia and Romania involved. But there are some very simple alternatives. First and foremost, 6 Nations teams should be playing regular friendlies in Eastern Europe. If each of them committed to just one annual fixture against Georgia or Romania, that would be three apiece for the tier 2 duo. Perhaps that could be stretched to include Russia, one of the most promising tier 3 nations with a huge population and its own professional league. Also, Southern Hemisphere nations touring Europe should be stopping in at Tbilisi or Bucharest for one-off tests (the All Blacks once played in Romania and really struggled to put away their hosts). In Argentina's case, why not Spain or Portugal, with whom they also have cultural ties? Another possibility would be a quadrennial European Championship tournament, perhaps involving the 6 Nations and top 2 ENC division 1 teams in two groups of four leading directly to a final. Did you know football's European Championship only involved 8 teams right up until 1992. Rugby could similarly look to expansion in the future. Finally, how about combining the Tbilisi Cup and Romania's Nations Cup every 4 years to create a proper 'Confederations Cup' style tournament - involving the top non-tier 1 teams from Africa, Asia, Oceania, North America, South America and Europe (excluding the hosts). Romania could host one group, Georgia the other, and the final would alternate between the pair. Just some ideas.

You don't need to change it to change it from 6 countries - relegation and promotion could work though.

I guess the next logical step though is home and away games.

And if you think one of the 6n teams are prepared to lose the income for a year if they are relegated you need your head read!

Not interested in bringing in other teams which we don't have history with. The home nation rivalries are the tournament to me.

I don't care how we do against Georgia, no matter how much their rugby is improving.

Scottrf wrote:Not interested in bringing in other teams which we don't have history with. The home nation rivalries are the tournament to me.

I don't care how we do against Georgia, no matter how much their rugby is improving.

If this is the view of NH rugby fans then international rugby is doomed

GeordieFalcon wrote:And if you think one of the 6n teams are prepared to lose the income for a year if they are relegated you need your head read!

And therein lies the issue - Italy/Scotland can swap the wooden spoon for a decade but its fine because the fans pay to see it.

The only other option is expansion but I don't see that happening any time soon, Georgia is quite a trek.

GeordieFalcon wrote:And if you think one of the 6n teams are prepared to lose the income for a year if they are relegated you need your head read!

Nobody will be relegated as Georgia are not good enough yet. This could be the kick up the arse Italian rugby needs to improve. They are getting way to comfortable with the huge amount of money they are recieving from the various top competitions they compete in. The Italian union has no drive to improve because they are guarenteed their position in the top table.

Italy also refuse to play Georgia in the AI's. Georgia have been wanting to play against Italy for years now to see where they are in comparison. There also seems to be a bit of an agenda against Georgia from the home unions. They are now not able to play in the u18 European championships after making the final whilst beating the likes of Ireland on the way. There has been no reasonable explanation as to why this happened.

Scottrf wrote:Not interested in bringing in other teams which we don't have history with. The home nation rivalries are the tournament to me.

I don't care how we do against Georgia, no matter how much their rugby is improving.

Im sure there was stuff like this from some stick in the muds when Italy joined and before that when France joined...

Is the tournament better with Italy in it? Not for me. Needless game against whipping boys.

Shame there's insults when someone doesn't agree with your view of a communist rugby utopia though.

Scottrf wrote:Is the tournament better with Italy in it? Not for me. Needless game against whipping boys.

Shame there's insults when someone doesn't agree with your view of a communist rugby utopia though.

Insults ? Was that directed at me ?

France couldn't buy a win when they first joined the 5 Nations.

I wouldn't call expanding the game a 'communist rugby utopia' - it's investing in the game so it doesn't stagnate and remain the jobs for the boys club its always been.

Scottrf wrote:Is the tournament better with Italy in it? Not for me. Needless game against whipping boys.

Shame there's insults when someone doesn't agree with your view of a communist rugby utopia though.

Whipping boys for England, perhaps. They've been fairly competitive against the rest, and are about square with Scotland, I believe. It took France a couple of decades to get up to speed after joining the 5 Nations too, remember. & just look where Italy were in the amateur era, playing 2nd fiddle to Romania in FIRA competiton (& sometimes third behind the USSR). As recently as 99, the year before they joined the 6 Nations, they conceded a ton agianst the All Blacks and lost to Tonga at the World Cup. I think it's a shame the powers-that-be can't take a more far-sighted approach to internatonal competition.

munkian wrote:Insults ? Was that directed at me ?

France couldn't buy a win when they first joined the 5 Nations.

I wouldn't call expanding the game a 'communist rugby utopia' - it's investing in the game so it doesn't stagnate and remain the jobs for the boys club its always been.

"stick in the muds". Seems like an insult.

I'm just saying what I want to see - I'm not an international rugby development ambassador, just a fan. I don't see how expanding the game and having a home nations tournament are mutually exclusive.

If teams take decades to come up to speed, how would a newly promoted team fare? Would be a merry go round and create a bigger gap between the top few teams and the rest. Unless, maybe the promoted team has to win against the relegated team to join the tournament.

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:Insults ? Was that directed at me ?

France couldn't buy a win when they first joined the 5 Nations.

I wouldn't call expanding the game a 'communist rugby utopia' - it's investing in the game so it doesn't stagnate and remain the jobs for the boys club its always been.

"stick in the muds". Seems like an insult.

I'm just saying what I want to see - I'm not an international rugby development ambassador, just a fan. I don't see how expanding the game and having a home nations tournament are mutually exclusive.

If teams take decades to come up to speed, how would a newly promoted team fare? Would be a merry go round and create a bigger gap between the top few teams and the rest. Unless, maybe the promoted team has to win against the relegated team to join the tournament.

Not exactly an 'insult' is it ? It's a term describing a person.

Don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but it definitely has negative connotations. Many insults are 'term[s] describing a person'.

You are being negative about what could well be positive change, 'stick in the mud' describes that attitude perfectly without being 'offensive'.

The obvious blockage is the agreement with clubs which would have to be reached.

The obvious blockage is that you are asking teams and unions to forego important income that they rely on by giving up a game/tour from SH sides, the Lions tour, a tour of the SH or whatever else has been suggested.

How does a drop in income help the bigger nations who may have to take a step backwards in the hope that others can step forward?

Personally I think these teams MUST be given more exposure.