Pichot's Tilt at Power - Rugby's Future

by 123456789. Mon 13 Apr 2020, 8:32 pm

First topic message reminder :

Agustin Pichot has announced he's running for World Rugby Chairman. Unfortunately the only in-depth article I could find with relative ease was in the Mail, so apologies for that. With the lull in rugby now, it seems a sensible time to discuss what Pichot's bid means and rugby's future generally.

Daily Mail wrote:Pichot's six-point plan includes:

Addressing the challenges of COVID-19 as part of a wider alignment of the global playing calendar, creating a 'compelling narrative' for men and women in XVs and Sevens. Clubs, unions and private equity firms will be consulted about an annual tournament featuring 12 to 14 Tests per nation per year.
A democratic governance structure. A long-term goal of scrapping the weighted vote system that gives more power to wealthy nations, as well as revenue sharing.
A growing grassroots and youth game, including focus on developing emerging nations such as Brazil and Tunisia.
A safe and entertaining game, featuring a dedicated World Rugby Innovation Department to look at projects such as Hawkeye technology and a flagship rugby computer game.
Mandatory athletes' commissions to put players at the heart of decision making – with discussions about reducing wages to create sustainability.
A World Rugby management 'fit for purpose' – reviewing all internal structures to 'restore trust' in the governing body.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-8211135/Argentinian-great-Agustin-Pichot-promises-revolution-challenges-World-Rugbys-job.html

Look like he's pretty set on the Nations Cup idea and breaking up the traditional rugby structures. I think one of the things people outside the Six Nations don't understand is that we don't want to change it because we actually quite like it. Equally running to scrap the voting rights of the old rugby nations doesn't work when the old rugby nations collectively hold 27 out of 50 votes. Nonetheless it is time for things to change. For rugby's commercial stability it's important to expand into new economies, it's interesting that Pichot has earmarked Brazil and Tunisia for this. Personally I am of the opinion that several nations give far more to our game than they get in return; primarily the Pacific Islanders, and that rugby will be a far more exciting sport if we can harness some of the world's bigger economies to create genuine rugby powers but that should not come at the expense of what we already love about our game. I love the Six Nations, not just because of the rugby but what it constitutes beyond rugby. As a Scotland fan I know that in a good year we could win the tournament, as a realist I know that we will never win a 12 team Nations league. Rugby needs to learn the lesson that bigger does not always constitute better.

by Irish Londoner Mon 27 Apr 2020, 1:10 pm

Apart from anything else, in an increasingly "climate change" world, can rugby (or any other sport) justify increasing it's carbon footprint with teams, both national and club, constantly traversing the globe?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Apr 2020, 1:34 pm

So what are the achievements of beaumont which are the key improvements from his reign? Hes done his own om his twitter feed. Doesnt mention the increase in time for residency qualified players which was a pichot initiative. That was widely supported on the england threads here.

https://twitter.com/BillBeaumont/status/1254063649746026499?s=19

by le_chat Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:07 pm

Old Man wrote:
le_chat wrote:
123456789. wrote:Rather than descend into a my New Zealander is bigger than your New Zealander classic England against Wales debate perhaps it would make more sense to consider the nuances of the situation. Nationality is a very personal, abstract concept. It is therefore an unenviable task to dictate who does and doesn't qualify for selection for a certain country. I think we can all agree that three years is not long enough and that countries, some more than others, have exploited this to their own advantage. By the time rugby kicks off again Scotland could have Nel, Du Preez, Strauss (unlikely), Van Der Walt and Van Der Merwe all playing in Blue having come to Scotland from South Africa as "Project Players". There's something slightly ridiculous about that as far as I'm concerned, although if they all play and we win the Six Nations I'll be as happy as I would be if we had an entire team that trace their lineage through William Wallace. I'd like to see World Rugby move to a more intuitive system that addresses all the issues people have with the current eligibility model. One way would be a sort of points system. If you reach 100 points you have eligibility to play for a country. One parent or birth in a country would be worth 100 points, a Grandparent 60 points, a year of residency 25 points along with a discretionary panel that can investigate individual cases in certain situations. Residency period aren't so much an option for countries that don't have professional leagues.

I think this touches at the fundamental issue rugby faces on nationality - and how "a more intuitive system that addresses all the issues people have with the current eligibility model" is so difficult to actually achieve. In my view, it's impossible, other than having an imperfect kind of compromise we have at the moment, where there are always gaps for individuals to slip through.

Pichot is able to take a nationalistic and 'black and white' approach to this because Argentina are just about the only top nation, along with South Africa minus the odd Namibian and Zimbabwean, who only select players who are born, raised, and trained in their own country. So he can denounce the residency and grandparent-qualified players over and over with a sense of 'purity'.

However, the issue here is that Western Europe has prided itself on multiculturalism and immigration since the 1950s. It is both a social and economic policy, a sign of being open, tolerant, and how, in Britain alone, the legacy of the Empire was not subjugation, but of succession and enfranchisement. Forget the kind of facile retelling of postcolonialism we have at the moment within the media and institutions, which reads like something out of Star Wars - European national identity has ceased to be racial, religious, or even cultural, but is now primarily civic, and it has been that way for at least 70 years, with links going back far earlier than that. Aligned with treating sport like soft power - "yes, Mo Farah, run for us and we'll fund you really well"; "same goes for you, Manu Tuilagi" - and culture as a whole, the notion of saying an economic migrant isn't 'allowed' to represent their nation jars with the prevailing civic identity of the day. There's more that can be said about that, of course, but that's largely where we are as a country in the UK, particularly England.

On the flipside, what is relevant in Europe is not as relevant in Polynesia and the Pacific, and vice versa. There is a clear Islander link between New Zealand and Samoa, Tonga etc. that is a different kind of multiculturalism. While Australia and NZ have some of the same elements of civic identiy, the Islands really do not. More than that, there's a real sense of holding on to the Islander culture - which is so much stronger as a familial and cultural bond than we have in urbanised nations - irrespective of where you live. Which is why the idea of NZ pushing for allowing former All Blacks to play for Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga is so popular there. Rather than seeing themselves as displaced people who have become part of the system like we might in the NH, there's a retaining of a sense of self and community and nationality in a way that is just different for the Islands than it is in Europe, or Australia etc.

Trying to harmonise the Islander issue in particular seems really tricky. Allowing the Kiwis to be their spokesman, on some misapplied belief that the presence of the Maori and the proximity of NZ to these Pacific nations mean they have their best intentions at heart, seems a flawed move to me. Mainly because it's based on disliking the idea of a Fijian playing for France, or England, but seeing no problem with them playing for NZ. When, of course, reality is never that black and white: NZ's claim they have cultural connection, yet European nationality isn't built on culture any more. And this is where much of the misunderstanding comes from. Not only that, but it's quite apparent that NZ are motivated not out of altruism, but out of wanting to keep the Islands as a breeding ground for test stars, while weakening the NH. The post-ABs capping of Pacific Islanders cannot happen in a professional sport, it's a regression back to the amateur days.

But how do you fix this problem? It's not easy.

That was a really good post, albeit a bit onesided in its final delivery.

Thanks Biltong.

I would be more tolerant of the idea that there is a shared cultural connection between NZ and the Islanders based on non-exploitative means that should be protected if the NZRU weren't leveraging the carrot of dual qualification to the PIs as a way of trying to curtail a Pacific player drain to Europe, which of course includes their own players and coaches.

As I've said, I can see the vast amounts of money that can be earned in Ireland and England - less so France given the academy issues raised earlier, even if there's even more money to be had there - being far more beneficial to a player's family and community back in Fiji or Samoa, than giving more money, from World Rugby's pot, to corrupt unions and systems within the Islands' governments themselves. Basically, I cannot see any practicality behind NZ's apparent stewardship of the Islanders beyond a. taking the excellent wages away from the Fijians/Samoans/Tongans and asking them to earn less in NZ or wherever, and b. using them as political backing for their own challenges in stopping Europe's rise due to their commercial work, which is somehow seen as 'off the ball foul play' (oh the irony...) in NZ.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:10 pm

What's the fantasy that pichot has promised fiji miaow?

by Brendan Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:20 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:What's the fantasy that pichot has promised fiji miaow?

I would guess being in T1 but as recent events have shown it's easy to imply things about Fiji governance. Pichot would then put his hand up and say oh well not my fault but governance not up to standard so move the USA into the Rugby Championhip in their place (which is better for Argentina)

by le_chat Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:21 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And remember from pichots perspective it's not the sh vs nh hes wanting a fairer system. At the moment the likes of nz are fine as despite making less from home games than england they know they'll get a tour every year and can and have been getting payments for playing countries in the ais. A team like Samoa, georgia Romania etc dont have a summer tour from England ever. They also get scraps if that from ais. A system of we get the money from home games as we built the stadia and pay for policing etc is fine if there is a set of games guaranteeing a reciprocal arrangement. It's a closed financial shop at the moment.

So how does the new system make it "fairer". The proposed "world league" merely secures the top teams in the top places, all the games in the international windows will be with the teams in the the league so England won't be playing Tonga or Samoa more often, quite the opposite - the top teams are not going to waste their time playing the T2 teams when there are league placings and presumably money riding on playing the other T1 sides.

The other question that Pichot has failed to answer, is that where is the money coming from? Where are all these new TV deals going to come from in a world where the major economies are going to be struggling post CV19 - and in the case of the NH the fall out from Brexit?

Very valid questions. Didn't the Champions Cup revenue actually decrease substantially in recent years? And that the assumed, projected growth - the same sort of thing we're hearing here - based on new formats and broadcast rights effectively failed to materialise, because the growth of the game takes more than just a corporate agreement.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:27 pm

Never seen that promise myself Brendan. I hang on for miaow to confirm.

by le_chat Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:34 pm

Old Man wrote:
WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Not sure I would like it, but the 6N could play on a a home and away basis to make up for the loss of the AIs, they would still get sell out crowds to most games.

Even Saxons games produce 50-60,000 gates if they want to play T2 sides like Romania, Georgia etc.

For how long though? Too much of one thing gets boring.

This alone sums up the fundamental issue I have with Pichot.

He's brought in an aggressive kind of brinkmanship at a time when rugby needs to get serious about growing the game, because sport is exploding (not literally...) as a sector and rugby is way down the pecking order in commercial and global terms compared to athletics, football, and all the rest of it. It faces real problems breaking in to non-'Commonwealth' countries, the USA in particular, and the focus should be on bolstering it to a new audience in particular. MMA is probably the best newcomer I can think of, in a sport that, typically, is heavily male-centric. The use of social media, stars like McGregor etc. and the commercial rise while fusing the best elements of similar, existing 'codes' (does this sound familiar...) is absolutely the way rugby needs to go to take a share of the NFL and League's future market. Also, women love watching rugby, for obvious reasons.

Instead, Pichot comes along and raises the idea of 'who can survive the longest without playing one another, SH v NH'. Now of course, this is a forum, but he's taken the emotional tone of where rugby needs to go in to this sort of territory, he's reinforced the hemispherical divide between rugby, even if, in real terms, it's nowhere near that simple or entrenched.

But the issue really isn't internal, it's external. Seeing rugby in a vacuum is the exact kind of navel gazing that will set the sport back 20 years if all we achieve is cutting the commercial gains that have been made.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:38 pm

And the fantasy promise was what miaow?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:53 pm

I'm starting to think that there isn't a promise at all miaow and it was a mistake you're just not brave enough to hold your hands up to. Think fiji are still planning o voting for Beaumont anyway despite their boss taking a walk for racism.

by le_chat Mon 27 Apr 2020, 2:58 pm

Lockdown really is proving a stressful time for some...

Pichot's Tilt at Power - Rugby's Future - Page 5 Giphy

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Apr 2020, 3:18 pm

So there was no fantasy promise. Glad we got to the bottom of another miaow post.

by le_chat Mon 27 Apr 2020, 3:43 pm

You've worked yourself up in to dither. Have a kit kat. Calm down. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Apr 2020, 4:08 pm

Calling you out on inaccuracies I'd cathartic. Your made up theories and accusations are your own problem. The fact you cant just hold your hands up and admit you're wrong is quite funny though.

by le_chat Mon 27 Apr 2020, 4:19 pm

by TightHEAD Mon 27 Apr 2020, 4:37 pm

I never understand people getting upset just because they backed the wrong horse. Thats Life.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 27 Apr 2020, 4:58 pm

Oh. So you are admitting you were wrong. Very decent of you eventually miaow.

by 123456789. Mon 27 Apr 2020, 7:24 pm

Stuart Barnes wrote a decent article in the Times today

Stuart Barnes The Times wrote:
Familiarity breeds contempt. There can be too much of a good thing. Television is a problem. It feeds our addiction for live sport and the addiction for sponsorship and revenue. It sucks the soul out of sport.

Television and sponsors would like to see the All Blacks at Twickenham every year. So would the RFU. Even Agustín Pichot, the vice-chairman of World Rugby, wouldn’t mind as long as the financial windfall was spread globally.

Pichot, the former Argentina scrum half, is trying to oust Bill Beaumont as chairman of World Rugby, the sport’s governing body. The online poll was yesterday, with 51 votes up for grabs and the winner, who will serve a four-year term, to be announced on May 12.

Beaumont, 68, the former England lock and captain, is perceived as the bastion of rugby’s colonial past. Pichot, 45, the firebrand revolutionary (who embraces the free market). Whichever man wins we can expect similarities on the pitch. TV broadcasters want a globalised game on an annual basis. Right now it is a case of any port will do.

What rugby needs and what it will get are two different things. As with the English club game, so too with World Rugby. Less is more.

Less, as in fewer opponents, not fewer matches. Converting the November internationals into part of a world league, as broadcasters want, would do long-term damage to the World Cup. There would come a time when we would stop noticing the difference between World Cup champions and World League winners, or whatever you want to name the Never-Ending League.

As for the Six Nations; it is rugby’s longest success story. It is not the standard of rugby, more the intensity of tribal rivalry. So let us forget all talk of South Africa joining in 2024 and instead consider the impact of globalised rugby.

It means jetting all over the world. We need to cut down on the sport’s emissions. The global jamboree that is the ten-tour sevens circuit is a two-fingered salute to climate crisis. There was no talk of rationing air miles from either man.

As for the 15-a-side-game, there is an alternative. It is called touring. The November series should be about three Test tours. Three internationals, a series at stake. A once in six years’ chance to win a home series against say, South Africa. That has heft.

Rugby’s roots are in touring. The Lions, the epic South Africa versus New Zealand tours of old. Even the recent England 3-0 win in Australia. “A first ever,” England’s fans crowed. History matters to the rugby fan.

The same principle needs applying in the southern hemisphere with not just European tours but the jettisoning of the Rugby Championship with the older touring tradition. New Zealand flying to Argentina and back for 80 minutes rugby is obscene. The All Blacks playing three Tests around the country galvanises.

So far I have accounted for four teams from each hemisphere. There are two further Tier One European nations while Japan and a South Sea amalgam would complete the Southern sextet.

Whoever wins the second tier European competition has to be pledged a play-off against the Six Nations sixth team. The time of empire is over. An Americas league might have a role but gambling on growth as the world tilts is the stuff of madness.

Which leads inexorably to Super Rugby. It was a wonderful tournament when it was Super Ten. It lost all shape as it got bigger, not better. Super 14 became Super Rugby in 2011, and now involves teams from Argentina, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Africa. It drifted into anything but. Next season it reverts back to 14. Thirteen games, seven home and six away. Alternating. A play-off system from sixth place upwards. The “conferences” of same-nation matches consigned to the bin of failed experiments.

Yet most of the watchable stuff has been the New Zealand derbies. Without a guaranteed play-off place courtesy of the conferences, Australia is lost in limbo. As are the majority of South African teams.

Here is rugby union at its most bloated and unthinking. The time has come to do away with Super Rugby and its endless criss-crossing of the skies. New Zealand does not need it. It has franchise teams good enough to create a compelling competition while preparing players for the All Blacks. Its provincial championship has pride, passion and the atmosphere Super Rugby lacks.

South Africa has the Currie Cup. It is the emotional hub of the country’s elite end of rugby and, with artificial franchise teams scrapped, its rivalry could be recharged. Like New Zealand rugby, this would make good telly.

As for Australia, it is in serious trouble. It doesn’t have four franchises worth of talent but it has enough raw ability to guarantee a dangerous Wallaby team. The nation has lost Raelene Castle, the chief executive of the ARU, who resigned last week after a letter was signed by a number of former Wallaby captains demanding a change in leadership, and it is in danger of losing its rugby mind. No other country needs to retreat as obviously as Australia. The club game has to be boosted. New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory can produce a lively club league and a champion club to face Queensland’s champions.

Retrenchment to their union strongholds rather than throwing money at the unassailable Australian Rules stronghold of Victoria is the way forward. It isn’t a matter of growing. Quite the opposite. Shrinking the sport so rivalry is real. Throw in NSW v Queensland as a three-match grudge series and there is Australia’s test trial. The Wallabies, more than even the rest of the rugby world, must shrink to survive. The days of growth have gone.

I agree with a lot of it. I don't think getting rid of the Rugby Championship is a good idea. Although if Europe is to move to a promotion and relegation model, as Pichot seems to want, then why should the southern hemisphere not do the same? If Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and Japan play in a second tier of Southern Hemisphere rugby should the winner of that tournament not get the opportunity to play for entry to the Rugby Championship. I don't think anybody would seriously argue against that the idea that Japan would have severely tested, even likely beaten, Argentina this Autumn. Although that wouldn't suit Pichot's grievance agenda. Rather than a jet-setting, Carbon Dioxide emitting World League, why not return to a touring cycle whereby the top 12 teams at world cups then engage in three test tours against one another in the four year cycle that follow?

by Old Man Mon 27 Apr 2020, 7:39 pm

As for the 15-a-side-game, there is an alternative. It is called touring. The November series should be about three Test tours. Three internationals, a series at stake. A once in six years’ chance to win a home series against say, South Africa. That has heft.

I like this man Stuart Barnes.

by Old Man Mon 27 Apr 2020, 7:41 pm

The time has come to do away with Super Rugby and its endless criss-crossing of the skies.

I like this man more and more.

by Irish Londoner Tue 28 Apr 2020, 9:23 am

Stuart Barnes talks sense - we really are living through the End of Days........

by tigertattie Tue 28 Apr 2020, 9:46 am

Why isn’t the RC being earmarked for promotion and relegation like the 6ns you say?

Easy, look at the last standings

1 - South Africa
2 - Australia
3 - New Zealand
4 - Argentina

Would Pichot really be advocating relegation when Argentina would be going down? No!

Pichot is going about things the wrong way. He's not going about it in a way to improve things for the SH, he's going about it to drag down the NH and make things a race to the bottom.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 10:14 am

Not sure where this nh vs sh thinking has come from but it surely cant be from pichot. Sorry for the link to the daily heil but have a read:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-8234965/Agustin-Pichot-talks-SIR-CLIVE-WOODWARD-campaign-chairman-World-Rugby.html

by TightHEAD Tue 28 Apr 2020, 11:26 am

There is and always will be a NH v SH thing.

by Old Man Tue 28 Apr 2020, 11:45 am

I agree with Pichot regarding the voting structure.

Don’t like the idea of league of nations

Global season would be nice, one four mobth window of test rugby.

Leave six nations and rugby championship as is, but add promotion and relegation.

Find the reducing number of subs hilarious

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 12:09 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure where this nh vs sh thinking has come from but it surely cant be from pichot. Sorry for the link to the daily heil but have a read:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-8234965/Agustin-Pichot-talks-SIR-CLIVE-WOODWARD-campaign-chairman-World-Rugby.html

Read through it, like most Clive interviews it's all about him. He also asks alot of soft questions that are based on the 6Ns are terrible do you agree.

The best one was Clive couldn't understand why Italy were against promotion relegation as Italy in the 90s were so much better when they were fighting to get in. Yeah Clive who needs money when you are fighting for your life and have no money. If Italy had the players they had in the 90s especially at 9 and 10 they would be alot better.

Clive goes we know the small nations are bullied by France and England, Pichot replies I know I'm offering them wonderful things

I agree it's not NH v SH it's Europe v Rest of the World. T2 world league would be on one side 6 European Nations, on the other side the rest of T2. For the WC T2 European teams get 2.5 places, Rest of the World (excluding 2 spots as they would be in new T1) have 5.5 places.

T2 Nations at the WCs. As you will see only Europe has any competition for places.
Africa
Zimbabwe 87, 91
Ivory Cost 95
Nambia since 99

Asia
Japan since 87

Europe
Rominia all except 19 (might not make the next one The way things are looking)
Georgia Since 03
Russia 11, 15
Spain 99 (should have been Spain and Rominia in 19 but there were issues)
Portugal 07

America's
Canada since 87
USA all but 95
Urugary 99, 03, 15, 19

Oceania
Fiji all but 95 (I thought they missed NZ for political reasons)
Samoa since 91
Tonga all except 91

While voting should be one union one vote Europe would still hold by far the largest bloc
WR members
Africa 18
Asia 17
Europe 37
North America 11
South America 9
Oceania 12

When you consider that Europe is two blocks 6Ns and Rest of Europe. It wouldn't take much to make it one block.
North Africa use to be part of Europe so not hard to get votes there
Alot of the small unions would have key links to France and Brittian.

The RC championship would go from 12 votes to 4 votes. As we are seeing at both WC and elections the PIs are as likely to vote with Europe as against it. So the real loser to a one union one vote would be the SH. If the 2027 WC was voted on by unions it would go to Russia who are doing alot with Asian Rugby including to help run a champions league style tournament not Australia.

by Old Man Tue 28 Apr 2020, 12:15 pm

Even if the SH or shall we say SANZAAR nations lose out, it will still be a fairer voting system.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 12:37 pm

Old Man wrote:Even if the SH or shall we say SANZAAR nations lose out, it will still be a fairer voting system.

It depends what you want from WR. I would rather more control be given over to the regional organisations and just have WR run the world events and rules and give the money side to the regions for development.

You don't want the Fifa situation where someone comes to power based on a 32 team WC that would do little for development.

Calendars aren't WR's problem as the season in Russia or Canada can't be done the same time as South Africa. European Soccer runs fine with many season dates (some do summer others do winter). UEFA sets rules for qualification and countries work around it.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 12:52 pm

Neither Pichot or Beaumont is going to change the strategy of world rugby to match that though Brendan.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 1:01 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Neither Pichot or Beaumont is going to change the strategy of world rugby to match that though Brendan.

Never said they were. If everyone was to get an equal vote as Pichot wants then what WR would become would be alot different. All the countries who have never been to a WC could vote to get rid of it and it would happen. They could vote that all closed tournaments outside of Regional multilevel tournaments would be a qualification group for a WC. WR would become like the Olyimipcs or UN which are as corrupt as FIFA. At least WR has two opposing blocks with regional floating votes that determine outcomes.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 1:04 pm

You think pichot would propose that the world cup could be dropped? Doesnt seem to fit with what hes proposing. Don't you think a fair vote is a positive thing?

by Irish Londoner Tue 28 Apr 2020, 1:35 pm

Old Man wrote:Even if the SH or shall we say SANZAAR nations lose out, it will still be a fairer voting system.

The problem with what ostensibly seems like a fairer voting system, is that it only works if the costs/rewards are equally shared. FIFA operates on a "one FA (i.e. union) one vote" system - ideally that means that each country votes for what it thinks is the best policy for everyone.

What of course it means is that in practice the process of getting anything done defaults to dodgy deals, horsetrading and downright corruption as nations wanting to host events like the World Cup chase votes based on the amount of brown envelopes, Rolexes and all expenses paid "fact finding" trips have to be offered just to get the minor countries on board - look at the process to award the FIFA World Cup to Quatar.

by Old Man Tue 28 Apr 2020, 1:45 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:
Old Man wrote:Even if the SH or shall we say SANZAAR nations lose out, it will still be a fairer voting system.

The problem with what ostensibly seems like a fairer voting system, is that it only works if the costs/rewards are equally shared. FIFA operates on a "one FA (i.e. union) one vote" system - ideally that means that each country votes for what it thinks is the best policy for everyone.

What of course it means is that in practice the process of getting anything done defaults to dodgy deals, horsetrading and downright corruption as nations wanting to host events like the World Cup chase votes based on the amount of brown envelopes, Rolexes and all expenses paid "fact finding" trips have to be offered just to get the minor countries on board - look at the process to award the FIFA World Cup to Quatar.

I would suggest a very strict conflict of interest policy be adopted. Appointing compliance officers to monitor could go a long way.

Besides time for World rugby to become more transparent.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 2:06 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:You think pichot would propose that the world cup could be dropped? Doesnt seem to fit with what hes proposing. Don't you think a fair vote is a positive thing?

I never said he did

I said if you give every union a vote you will not have the same WR (a knock on effect of Pichot's voting system).
First thing that would happen is the next election would see the WR borad being much T2+ nations than current and head of WR would most likely be backed by the lower countries.
Second you would see WR funding not going to prop up T1 countries with things like helping support professional teams, no bailing out T1 unions for bad choices.
Third you would see a 24 team WC which has already been discussed but was voted down (Once 24 teams whats another 8 teams to make it a nice 32 teams) and maybe back to a 16 team Jr WC.
Fourth you would see T1 nations having to play more T2 games.

I go on T2 rugby forums, I am well aware of what T2 nations are calling for and how they think its unfair that T1 nations get more from WR than T2 do even though T2 nations need more not less. They feel WR is a T1 super union rather than a world governing body.

by WELL-PAST-IT Tue 28 Apr 2020, 2:17 pm

Rugbypass is saying that European Rugby has voted and en-mass for Beaumont, there was apparently 100% support for him

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 2:19 pm

Just to be clear I am for a 1 union one vote policy but it will speed up the fall of professional domestic rugby and strenghten the tilt away from Oceania and the PIs to other countries.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 2:28 pm

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Rugbypass is saying that European Rugby has voted and en-mass for Beaumont, there was apparently 100% support for him

Not really surprised. While European Rugby nations might have issues with the 6 Nations they feel that as T2 nations they put the most into their unions to build their Union but get no reward for it from WR. They are fed up with WR building up nations that are way behind them or the constant benefits the PIs get for tests in the AIs while WR doesn't do anything to help them get any games against T1 nations. They also weren't impressed that when Geogia got an automatic spot for Japan that WR took one of the 2.5 spots they had and gave it to the PIs.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 2:35 pm

Wouldn't all of that feed into support for pichot?

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 2:59 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wouldn't all of that feed into support for pichot?

No. They would see him as keeping the PIs, and Japan ahead of Europe and then putting more funding into the American 6 Nations. At least with Beaumont they might have got a deal. They also know with their 4 votes can form a better block with the 6 Nations that would get them things in return. I wouldn't be surprised to see the 6N working with the B6Ns to find something that helps both. CVC is well aware of the money in Europe and will know that is the best way to grow the value of their investments. Getting sponsership from Russian state (As an example) companies to sponsor the European international league would help improve 6 Nations income too. A bigger European pot works for everyone in Europe. Voting for the Russian WC would help. (I am torn on that as if Russia get it it will be well funded but ...)

50 votes in WR which means only 4 votes needed to block /pass anything.
I think it is still as follows.
6 nations 18
Georgia 1
Rominia 1
Europe 2

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 3:03 pm

They may see that if they've not read or listened to him bit on what hes said that doesnt seem to be the case. You may be right in that Beaumont has offered something. A few posts ago people were bemoaning those sort of arrangements in fifa.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 3:30 pm

The European teams may have raised the issue that WR funds other nations professional teams but won't help any in europe

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 4:33 pm

I'm still confused as yo why they would then stock with the guy who hasn't changed anything over the guy who has said he wants to distribute money more widely.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 5:38 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm still confused as yo why they would then stock with the guy who hasn't changed anything over the guy who has said he wants to distribute money more widely.

Because they have a chance with a 6N candidate. They have no chance with Pichot. Add in the part of the deal with RA voting for Pichot is the 2027 is now between Russia and Australia. Russia will have 24 teams Australia most likely won't. Pichot WR will recommend Australia.

by 123456789. Tue 28 Apr 2020, 5:40 pm

The status quo is not that bad for the European teams. If you move to a promotion-relegation world league model then they have a small window to enter a tournament they probably couldn't afford to participate in. If we move to a 12 team Nations League then you're looking at the Six Nations, the Rugby Championship, Japan and Fiji. To break into that 12 then Georgia (or Romania, Germany, Portugal, Russia etc.) are in a battle with Samoa, Tonga, Canada, USA, Uruguay and Namibia for that play off spot. Pichot wants to fund Brazil to get there too. The chances for them to progress within that Championship are slim, Georgia are lightyears off competing with New Zealand, South Africa and England. There's the cost side of it, although presumably the wealthier Unions would be paying for that. Which adds the second question, if Scotland were to get relegated, as one of the financially stable Unions with a bit of money, would we be expected to pay for Georgia to fly around the world while we travel to Romania?
On the flipside of that, if they can get the Six Nations to agree a play-off then they get into a local tournament. While they're still years off of the traditional Five Nations they know from Italy that Scotland are going to be beatable every three years, and that if Wales and Ireland have a whole host of injuries, with a bit of luck, they can be beaten. They'll know that France can implode. They'll also know they are entering a financially strong tournament with a relatively secure future. Better the devil you know.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 6:05 pm

Georgia were also told from/after 2020 they would get 2 tests a year against T1 nations (No doubt the 6Ns). They weren't best please after WR promising these extra game they find out WR was planing to not give them any T1 games for 10 years.

Georgia would much rather be added to the 6N rather than have Italy drop out (going by underage could as likely be Scotland, Ireland or Wales).

As I have said previously if the B6N were offered to have one team join the 6Ns but not be a shareholder they would take it as they would probably triple their funding overnight from increased attendances, sponsership etc. They would then happily have the playoff system. They want to increase their pot not make the 6 Nations smaller

The B6N does not auto relation to the C6N as they understand that each level the standard drops and you must earn your place at each level.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 6:41 pm

But brendan its pichot who is saying he wants to change the imbalance and beaumont who is very quiet about it. I keep coming back to the fact you dont seem to be basing your opinion on anything other than it's good old Bill.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 6:42 pm

And I agree with that 123. There are a fair few who see the status quo as a good thing.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 7:58 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:But brendan its pichot who is saying he wants to change the imbalance and beaumont who is very quiet about it. I keep coming back to the fact you dont seem to be basing your opinion on anything other than it's good old Bill.

A Russian WC means a 24 team WC means 2 extra spaces for the B6N. It means more money in the Russian team and more public interest. That means more professional opportunities for B6N players. It means more money for B6N teams and for europe as a whole. With Bill that is still possible.

Due to the deal struck between Argentina and Australia a Pichot WR will only support Australia and they will do all in their power to make it happen. Japan made loads of money Russia would be simillar. So no one person will make sure the WC is in Oz the other could grow the game

Russian Army are getting more involved in Rugby which opens the game to a much bigger audience in Russia.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Apr 2020, 8:31 pm

A vote for bill is a vote for a Russian world cup? Have to admit I've not seen him say that.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 8:32 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:A vote for bill is a vote for a Russian world cup? Have to admit I've not seen him say that.

Never said it was, I said a vote for Pichot is a vote for Australia

by Sponsored content