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 Old Man Tue 28 Apr 2020, 8:43 pm

Why would a Russian RWC be 24 teams?

by 123456789. Tue 28 Apr 2020, 8:46 pm

Australia want to take expansion slowly, the Eastern Europeans are intent on Russian things

by Old Man Tue 28 Apr 2020, 9:12 pm

Surely Russia doesn’t decide how many teams participate?

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 9:25 pm

WR said they were looking at 24 teams for in 2027 or 2031 and would be working on improving the next group of teams.. If Russia where hosts in 2027 it would make sense to do it that one so Russia would be able to get more wins.

Also if the Nations League were to come in they would have to include all the T2 teams.

by Old Man Tue 28 Apr 2020, 9:39 pm

OK, thanks.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 9:50 pm

There was suggestion of France being 24 but it was deemed to short notice and not enough time to improve for those countries. Adding Spain and Portugal (going on current form) would be a standard of Uraguary and better than Namibia and Canada. Hong Kong would be a bit worse than Namibia as would Chile, Kenya would be a bit further back. Romania are rebuilding but they would be as good as the USA or Uraguary once rebuilding is done. The Netherlands who just missed out on going up to the B6N are also a team on the up who could make 2027.

by 123456789. Tue 28 Apr 2020, 11:10 pm

According to the rankings the extra four teams would be Portugal, Romania, Spain and Hong Kong. An additional three European teams hardly suits Pichot's agenda. Let's be honest they are going to be no better than Russia were last time around and they were utterly hopeless. I've watched a couple of third tier English league games this year and I don't think some of the Russian players would have been out of place at that level.
In terms of how that tournament works out. One solution would be to go to the pre-Champions Cup model of 6 groups with the winner qualifying from each group and the two best runners up going through. If you accept that Namibia, Uruguay, Russia and Canada are pretty useless as it is, then add four more pretty useless team then the two best runners up would be based on which Tier One teams were lucky enough to have two useless teams in their group. The alternative would be to have four teams of 6. That would mean an additional 15 matches. Most of which would have little retail value. With all due respect the Iberian derby would hardly raise a large TV audience anywhere.
The real question is, when will rugby learn that enlarging tournaments does very little to benefit nations and instead dilutes the product. If the tournament instead went down to sixteen teams with the Tier One sides, Japan, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, the USA and Georgia with a secondary knockout stages would provide more high quality games and interest for viewers. As it is, twenty teams seems like a fair compromise that widens rugby to a new audience while providing a genuinely high quality event.
In the long term a 32 team world cup with a round of 16 is something worth aiming for but that would require a doubling in the number of genuinely competitive rugby nations. The sad fact is that for a country to become a genuinely competitive rugby nation takes either a large economy or an engaged rugby population - in most cases it takes both. Argentina are the only country to regularly beat the traditional top 8 nations. In the last decade even that has become less common, between 2000 and 2010 they won 28 Tier One games, in the last ten years they won eighteen and they've had more opportunities. Italy haven't beaten a Tier One side since November 2016. Georgia have never beaten a Tier One team Fiji average a win against a Tier One side every two or three years. Samoa haven't managed since 2014. Tonga beat Italy in 2016 which barely counts and Scotland in 2012. Japan are starting to buck that trend, because they have a strong economy and a significant number of people engaged in the sport.
Extending tournaments to expedite development doesn't work and instead damages the overall product. It's an uncomfortable truth and a vaguely depressing one. Accepting it means we can look at ways to actually fix the situation rather than squeezing more teams into the same size window and diluting the product. World Rugby should look to ensure the Pacific Nations, that provide 15% of pro players, have access to their top players for international matches. The USA and Georgia are the top sides outwith the RC, 6N ad Pacific Nations Cup. The challenges are very different in both cases. America has a large economy and a largely disinterested population. Georgia has a small economy and an interested public. In both cases they border other members of the top 20, cultivating the Northern American market and the Eastern European market slowly but surely is the key. Not rushing in more sides.

by Brendan Tue 28 Apr 2020, 11:59 pm

The USA has alot of imports and is really only at the level of Spain and Portugal. Samoa and Tonga are vetting further away from T1 with every year and can struggle to even beat T2 European sides in the AIs and are probably behind Georgia (and nowhere close at u20).

My solution would be have a T2 competition that has next ranked 16 teams that didn't auto Quaility for the WC. It gives them meaningful games and the top 8 teams would qualify. Namibia are going backwards at a rate of knots yet are so far ahead in Africa they Quaility. Canada is also going backwards fast enough but again there is no one behind them so they go to the playoffs. Hong are hard to gauge but aren't as good as their ranking suggests.

A second solution is improve u20 tournaments. Only one country from each Region can compete in the second Tier. Plus host and relegsted T1 team. That means currently only one of Samoa or Tonga can compete at it, so hard for players to put themselves in the shop window. Without the underage games they fall more behind the bigger nations.

by Cyril Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:07 am

A lot of patronising bollox going on here.

Italy should be removed from the 6 Nations. No promotion until they (or Georgia etc) are worthy.

Massive reduction in pointless international fixtures - club games should be paramount as they are the lifeblood in the current climate.

International games (this and next season, including the Lions) to be cancelled to ensure that domestic games take place.

by 123456789. Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:24 am

So just to be clear to save rugby we need to cut off the bits of rugby that make money and instead focus on the element that is haemorrhaging it instead? Sounds like a plan. I really hope you're not a Doctor. Patients would come in dying and you would prescribe decapitation to save them.

by Cyril Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:32 am

No, we need to concentrate on the lower levels, the parts that make the higher levels exist in the first place. I understand that some of you only watch internationals and that’s ok.

Cutting the number of fixtures in international rugby is the only way forward. Especially pointless ones (ie Italy in the 6Ns).

No need to be a d*ck either 123456789. Thanks

by 123456789. Wed 29 Apr 2020, 1:14 am

I don’t only watch the internationals but I do know that the international game brings in the money and that’s what keeps the game going. There’s a symbiotic relationship between the two aspects of the sport. The main problem here is money, the main source of money in rugby is the international side. Cutting that off would destroy the game.

Apologies if you thought that was a bit much, I was only having a laugh.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 6:46 am

Sorry brendan you're jumping around a tad too much for me! Far too much guessing with not too much at all based on what pichot and beaumont are actually saying. Pichot says he wants money spread more easily and you're jumping to well people should vote for Beaumont to have better funding. Do not follow your logic at all.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 6:59 am

The problem with that plan Cyril is a helluva lot of money comes from internationals. I wouldn't mind italy dropping out if it meant someone else coming in and then continued relegation and promotion. What's needs is more games spread to more nations. It may well mean we don't play australia every year and I dont mind that.
It may well be that we have fewer internationals and fewer club games: again pretty fine with that when you consider the impact on players.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 8:37 am

Cyril wrote:No, we need to concentrate on the lower levels, the parts that make the higher levels exist in the first place. I understand that some of you only watch internationals and that’s ok.

Cutting the number of fixtures in international rugby is the only way forward. Especially pointless ones (ie Italy in the 6Ns).

No need to be a d*ck either 123456789. Thanks

Would you be in favour of the RFU cutting funding to the PRL as that is elite level and put that money into grass roots.

Italy more than pay their way. Are you happy for the loss of income caused by going to a 5 nations to be taken out of English Rugby

by Cyril Wed 29 Apr 2020, 8:41 am

Reply to 7 1/2

We don’t have enough good teams in Europe for a 6 Nations though. Georgia are worse than Italy if anything. Italy are going backwards at a rate of knots and won’t win a game in the championship for a long time now that the other blues have improved.

It’s tough on Italy, but it’s supposed to be an elite competition. Argentina are in a similar position in the south and regularly get thrashed as well. It’s not a charity.

I’d also be loathe to give further funding to any of Fiji, Samoa and Tonga until they sort out the corruption that runs through their governing bodies.

by Cyril Wed 29 Apr 2020, 8:44 am

Brendan, yes and yes. Especially the 2nd as the loss of income based on ditching Italy would be far outweighed by the benefit of losing a dead rubber and reducing the number of international games.

by Irish Londoner Wed 29 Apr 2020, 8:49 am

Cyril wrote:A lot of patronising bollox going on here.

Italy should be removed from the 6 Nations. No promotion until they (or Georgia etc) are worthy.

Massive reduction in pointless international fixtures - club games should be paramount as they are the lifeblood in the current climate.

International games (this and next season, including the Lions) to be cancelled to ensure that domestic games take place.

The problem with taking Italy out of the 6Ns is that is effectively it would kill professional rugby in Italy, which is hardly consistent with the stated aim of both candidates to "grow the game" - Georgia for all the talk - hype? - have come nowhere near the position Italy did to get asked to join the 6Ns in the first place. There could be a mechanism to expand the 6Ns in the future - maybe starting with more European T2 sides getting Tests either against full teams or the Saxons/Wolfhounds teams to develop them to a level where they become at least as good as Italy.

With regard to Pichot what concerns me is that he's talking about spending other people's money - there are no proposals as to who is going to pay out millions for the TV coverage of the World League and in the post CV19 business world I don't it's likely that many businesses with a world wide reach are going to have a couple of hundred million to spare to sponsor what is effectively an experiment - if his proposal to drop the US team in goes through it'll be the death of rugby in America as they are not going to watch - and pay to watch - the US team get bigly walloped by the T1 sides on a regular basis.

With regard to prioritising the club game, the club game doesn't exist at a professional level without the international game - apart from Exeter every single club in England relies on funding from the RFU, and the same applies to the PRO14 countries and their respective unions. Also to be blunt people go into high level sport to represent their country not a team, no young player dreams of playing for Bath without also dreaming of playing for England or even more The Lions. There maybe does need to be a reset in the club game - I still think CVC will ultimately push for a two division/conference B & I league as that's the only possible way they can extract more funding from the TV companies.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 8:57 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry brendan you're jumping around a tad too much for me! Far too much guessing with not too much at all based on what pichot and beaumont are actually saying. Pichot says he wants money spread more easily and you're jumping to well people should vote for Beaumont to have better funding. Do not follow your logic at all.

What is the guessing.
Pichot backed by SANZAAR, Billy is backed not just by the 6 Nations but every country in Europe.
Pichot wants an Australian WC in 2027 and Argentina withdrew their bid when Australia backed Pichot (goes against his helping the little man). Billy has not come out in favour of either country by his actions.
Pichot wants better distribution of money but hasn't pledged what or how all we know is he wants it from the 6 Nations. Billy is the status quo (even according to Pichot) so there won't be a wealth Transfer from the 6 Nations who have had to work hard and do alot of restructuring to make what they have.
Pichot head of the South American Arm of Forester's mining company (with no experience). Forester is the Billionarie currently funding the Force. He also picked up a role in US rugby the same time the American 6 Nations is decieded on. Are you ok with this? I would have massive concerns on what other things He might use WR for to leverage for himself. To the best of my knowledge Billy had a boring past and just progressed the normal way. Please let me know if I am wrong.

Do you dispute any of these facts. On this basis I think Bill is best for Ireland, the 6 Nations, and the developping European nations. They all seem to agree with me as all of them voted as I would of.

I am against Bill on the Nations League and denying T2 countries any T1 games for 10 years. I think as a governing body this is terrible that they came up with it. But Pichot is for this aswell so it doesn't affect my choice.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 9:06 am

What comes first Cyril? The chicken or the egg. Teams need regular top level games. That means less glamorous nz vs englands and more games against the likes of georgia etc. Across 6 nations and wider obviously.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 9:07 am

So I go back to the same point brendan if the smaller teams in Europe feel aggrieved in not getting enough money and games why back beaumont? Russia doeant even come into this.
I do get some people want to protect their nest eggs as we saw recently with the rfu proposals on fairer compensation for youth player development shot down.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 9:21 am

With the figure of 6.7billion which was talked about for 10 years is so far outside reality that I can't see how it would work. If WR and Nations were counting on this money (SH and developing Nations) then they would have been just as disappointed in the Nations League as they are with it not happening

That's 670m per year.

From Soccer the premier league gets £8.75m per live game, Seria A as the 4th most expensive gets £2.27/€2.61m per game.

If the 6.7b was for just T1 of the Nations League (T2 wont add to much) and all games will be shown that's 66 games (I think). That would be 10m (i think USD) per game. If the 6 Nations and Rugby Championship can't currently do that what hope is there that Japan v Fiji or italy v Argentina would come close to that figure. Where is all this money going to come from.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 9:23 am

I get your point of view Brendan. Protecting ireland s place and money in the world of rugby. Just dont think that's top or should be for wr.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 9:31 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:So I go back to the same point brendan if the smaller teams in Europe feel aggrieved in not getting enough money and games why back beaumont? Russia doeant even come into this.
I do get some people want to protect their nest eggs as we saw recently with the rfu proposals on fairer compensation for youth player development shot down.

I see you don't disagree with any of my points.

If under Bill things carry on as they are they feel it would be better than what Pichot' s actions would suggest.

Russia Definately comes into it. Did you gloss over the point of Argentina withdrawing their WC bid for Pichot to get Aus to back him. How can any WR RECOMENDATION not be for Australia with Pichot as head.

If Russia got the WC they would pump more money into Rugby thus more money for the B6N.

Again you gloss over the dodgy dealings do you think people feel He would be in other people's pockets.

You aren't listening to any points I made. The fact every country in Europe voted for Bill says all you need to know. Not one of the 40 odd countries felt they could support Pichot. Pichot said he sent every nation his proposals so either the 40 didn't believe him or they weren't very good.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 9:34 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:I get your point of view Brendan. Protecting ireland s place and money in the world of rugby. Just dont think that's top or should be for wr.

Its fine you feel that. WR didn't care when the 3N and Super Rugby were worth so much more than what the Celtic Nations were pulling in and the massive pain they took to turn things around. It wasn't WR problem then and the SH miss management isn't WR problem now. But for some reason WR seem to think it is now.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 9:49 am

I just passed over your points Brendan as it's simply implying that Beaumont is trustworthy and pichot isnt. Just not based on anything so saw no point in agreeing or disagreeing. Which dodgy dealings for instance has Beaumont done? Or is it only the south American who you point fingers at?
In relation to the current strategy of world rugby youd have to think that Beaumont is the one who helped move it there. As for the past I dont know who you feel grievances towards. We pretty much wont agree on what we want from wr as you want primarily to have ireland cement their place and not be threatened.

by tigertattie Wed 29 Apr 2020, 9:54 am

Think there’s a few things that need clarified here

1. Both Italy and Georgia are not very good. It really wouldn’t matter which one was in the 6Ns at this moment in time, they'll be pretty humped each game. If you do open the 6ns to a playoff to stay/go up, Italy would win the playoff 98 times out of 100 right now. So its a bit of a moot point, leave Italy there or you consign another country to the rugby graveyard.

2. People are still going on about how Japan have "made it". They haven’t! They spent a fortune and a whole year preparing their national team to be competitive at their own world cup. I'm not a betting man but right now I'd stick a tenner on Japan to lose every game they play against a tier 1 side for the next 2 seasons with even Italy probably having a better chance of beating them.

3. You've got far more chance in growing rugby in Russia than you do in the US. Russians will watch anything on tele where they get to see their team, not necessarily winning, but roughing up another. The Americans on the other hand will not watch a sport where the Americans don’t win. That’s why the play "world series" baseball, invented the games of basketball and even their own version of "football". They made games that no one else played so they would win. Crikey even American films about Vietnam have America winning! If the US rugby team get dropped into an Americas version of the 6Ns, then the yanks may pick it up until the pumas destroy them. If the Pumas stay in the RC and America play against Canada, Brazil, etc, then the yanks may start to get behind it. To chuck the US into a "world league" with NZ, SA, etc, nope. The Americans wont watch and the money won’t flow!

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:09 am

I pointed out Pichot' s dealing. I haven't heard anything on Bill, if he had some I knew of would have listed them.

If both candidates stand for the same point then if I disagree with them it makes no difference as either way I am getting that. If there was a third candidate who stood for stopping WR overstepping it's reach then I would support them. But that isn't the choice.

I have no grievence that Ireland had to sort itself out. I think it worked out for the best I just dislike different standards depending on go the nation in question is.

by Old Man Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:20 am

With regard to prioritising the club game, the club game doesn't exist at a professional level without the international game - apart from Exeter every single club in England relies on funding from the RFU, and the same applies to the PRO14 countries and their respective unions.

That is the reason why I said Clubs need to reduce player salaries in order to become financially sustainable.

by Old Man Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:21 am

Pichot wants better distribution of money but hasn't pledged what or how all we know is he wants it from the 6 Nations.

How do we know he wants it from the Six Nations?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:28 am

Lifted this from bbc sport biltong:

I am going to be blunt. They all want more incomes and a better game. Everyone wants the same: income, and a better product. We all have a common agenda," he said.

"So it is a question of putting World Rugby to the service of the game. It's not about World Rugby or the Six Nations or Sanzaar determining, it is about how we put everything to the service of the game.

"It's complex, and it is not going to be easy, but if you have a different mindset in the organisation, then it is easier."

'I am not an anarchist'
Pichot says the Six Nations currently holds too much power in the world game, with the northern hemisphere unions fierce defenders of the status quo, but he stresses he wants the tournament to continue to flourish going forwards.

"I am not an anarchist who wants a revolution of everything," Pichot insisted.

"I want the Six Nations to be really successful, but you have to be generous with the people beside you.

"Six Nations feel with me that I am threatening their product, I am not. But I am saying they have to be more equal and more generous.

"I don't want to cut the Six Nations, I want to make it bigger. I want an Irish sold in Tunisia, a Wales shirt in Canada or China. That is the growth of the game.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:29 am

And that quote goes hand in hand with what hes said all the way through. He needs a 2 way honest conversation on his proposals both across unions and leagues/clubs.
It's not picked up much traction but his desire for better computer games is a simple, obvious and great idea.

by Old Man Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:30 am

I think there is a misconception in the redistribution of TV revenue.

It is illogical that tier 2 teams and even some tier 1 teams expect to get better revenue for test matches.

If a broadcaster is only prepared to pay $500 000 per match then that is all there is to share.

As for gate revenue, that is the only way I see revenue split and then again depending where the match is played and who is playing it.

A fair split for these matches in gate revenue makes sense purely because there are two teams playing at the venue.

So something like a 60/40 or 70/30 split depending who the opponent is will make sense.

The nations league to me is a no go, just don’t see the benefit of it. Keep Six Nations and RC, set in place tiers below those for regions so relegation and promotion is possible. Then bring back three test tours, Unions can decide whether they would like to tour a country or not.

These tours in my view will make big money, the tradition of tours must be sustained.

Allow the Lions to decide who they want to tour, you cannot force them to tour somewhere they don’t want to, that is a unique setup which the B&I Lions must negotiate themselves.

by Old Man Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:35 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lifted this from bbc sport biltong:

I am going to be blunt. They all want more incomes and a better game. Everyone wants the same: income, and a better product. We all have a common agenda," he said.

"So it is a question of putting World Rugby to the service of the game. It's not about World Rugby or the Six Nations or Sanzaar determining, it is about how we put everything to the service of the game.

"It's complex, and it is not going to be easy, but if you have a different mindset in the organisation, then it is easier."

'I am not an anarchist'
Pichot says the Six Nations currently holds too much power in the world game, with the northern hemisphere unions fierce defenders of the status quo, but he stresses he wants the tournament to continue to flourish going forwards.

"I am not an anarchist who wants a revolution of everything," Pichot insisted.

"I want the Six Nations to be really successful, but you have to be generous with the people beside you.

"Six Nations feel with me that I am threatening their product, I am not. But I am saying they have to be more equal and more generous.

"I don't want to cut the Six Nations, I want to make it bigger. I want an Irish sold in Tunisia, a Wales shirt in Canada or China. That is the growth of the game.

As far as the power goes I do agree to a certain extent, but in a lesser percentage so does the SANZAAR nations, having those ten countries run rugby isn’t healthy to the point they provide a glass ceiling to the rest.

Pichot saying Six Nations must be more fair is BS, If tournament A gets bigger TV revenue than tournament B, tough cookies, redistributing that revenue is illogical.

If he thinks Georgia for example should benefit by the tune of a couple of million pounds from the Six Nations TV revenue he is smoking something I want.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:35 am

So he wants the 6 Nations to be successful but help those beside them. He doesn't say those under them (T2) he means equals T1 or the 4 SH nations. hardly expanding the game just expanding the RC nations

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 10:42 am

In his wider quotes he does talk of the Spains of the world so he is talking about lower level teams.

I disagree biltong and think it should be shared better or at least teams be open to fairer distribution of matches and match fees for turning up to play away. Something similar in football is now raising its head again. Risdale a former chairman of leeds has echoed others in calling money from the premier league to filter down.

by Irish Londoner Wed 29 Apr 2020, 11:05 am

Old Man wrote:Pichot wants better distribution of money but hasn't pledged what or how all we know is he wants it from the 6 Nations.

How do we know he wants it from the Six Nations?

Because no one else has any ?

by Irish Londoner Wed 29 Apr 2020, 11:18 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lifted this from bbc sport biltong:

"Six Nations feel with me that I am threatening their product, I am not. But I am saying they have to be more equal and more generous.

"I don't want to cut the Six Nations, I want to make it bigger. I want an Irish sold in Tunisia, a Wales shirt in Canada or China. That is the growth of the game.

What does the "more generous" mean - if the 6Ns are making money beyond what is needed to hold the game doesn't that get investing back into the host RFU's? It's not like the RFUs are spending it on Ferraris and hookers (well maybe not all of it Very Happy

) So the Pichot proposal is that the money earned by the 6Ns RFUs is diverted to support rugby around the world instead of back into the domestic game - my club can't get a grant for some new tackle bags because the RFU have to give the money to a club in Tonga?

Good luck in keeping your post to any RFU alickadoo who signs up to that one !

I don't want Irish shirts sold in Tunisia or Wales shirts in Canada - I'd quite like to see Tunisia shirts selling in Tunisia and given that they regularly qualify for World Cups, Canada shirts selling in Canada !

by Irish Londoner Wed 29 Apr 2020, 11:20 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:In his wider quotes he does talk of the Spains of the world so he is talking about lower level teams.

I disagree biltong and think it should be shared better or at least teams be open to fairer distribution of matches and match fees for turning up to play away. Something similar in football is now raising its head again. Risdale a former chairman of leeds has echoed others in calling money from the premier league to filter down.

As a Leeds fan, I'd strongly suggest that quoting Peter Ridsdale as an example of financial expertise is not the road to go down !

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 11:20 am

Its global world now londoner.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 11:48 am

I am against sharing gate receipts as a whole but in favour of giving the away team x numbering tickets to sell as they please. It's more expensive to live in England so price per ticket needs to be higher than in South Africa. It means each country gets the same tickets for away games. If Tonga would prefer to sell their (say as an example) 5k of tickets to English fans for more money so be it.

If you go 70/30 you don't take into account the extra costs to run Twickenham v Eden Park.

Countries can be punished for having bigger stadiums or owning their own stadium v a state run stadium given to the hosts at a discount.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 11:57 am

That's fine if England were touring Spain and Samoa in the coming years as theyd keep the money etc. Dont think I've seen england proposing that though.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:07 pm

When NZ only sell out home games for Australia each year at home but England and Ireland sell out every game at home regardless of who plays. Then we can see that some NZ fans come to see the game subject to the opposition but England and Ireland have enough fans to fill their stadium who are there to see their nation play.

If we are sharing gate receipts then what about sponsership, bar takings etc.

Give each away team the same fee for attending a match. It solves everything but it won't spread the money enough.

How much is the NZ match fee these days.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:15 pm

I wouldn't mind a set amount for touring sides at all. As you indicate New Zealand are in demand and so can do it. Some of the rest are scrabbling for crumbs.

Watching the 2001 euro final on bt at the moment. Speed of the scrums is great that d be a nice think for wr to enforce again.

by Irish Londoner Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:34 pm

Brendan wrote: Give each away team the same fee for attending a match. It solves everything but it won't spread the money enough.

How much is the NZ match fee these days.

i'd love to be a fly on the wall when the RFU tells the NZRFU that they're getting the same as Tonga from now on....

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:39 pm

Irish Londoner wrote:
Brendan wrote: Give each away team the same fee for attending a match. It solves everything but it won't spread the money enough.

How much is the NZ match fee these days.

i'd love to be a fly on the wall when the RFU tells the NZRFU that they're getting the same as Tonga from now on....

Its the brave new world of everyone helping everyone. And sure WR will make sure everyone gets more so it's ok

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Apr 2020, 12:51 pm

You're right. Selfish is the way forward. Maybe the English and french need to start playing a bit more hardball and getting the higher slice of the pie. Only right thing to do.

by 123456789. Wed 29 Apr 2020, 5:27 pm

Daniel Schofield - Telegraph wrote:
Coronavirus outbreak is final nail in coffin of Super Rugby, a competition that once lit up club game

So, farewell Super Rugby. The golden goose of southern hemisphere rugby is going the way of the dodo.

Obituaries for Super Rugby have been written every few months for the past five years. Now the prognosis appears terminal. This season’s tournament is suspended and the prospect of a competition that criss-crosses four continents resuming during this pandemic is next to nil. Already, the main unions of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa, bonded with Argentina in a marriage of convenience called Sanzaar, are exploring their options.

The New Zealand Rugby Union has launched a review called “Aratipu”, meaning growth, into the future of Super Rugby and is investigating alternative competition structures. The most likely scenario will involve restarting domestic cup competitions in Australia and New Zealand this year before a trans-Tasman tournament launches next year. South Africa, meanwhile, will either need to go it alone with an all-singing Currie Cup or move closer to Europe’s embrace.

“I can’t see and they can’t see South Africa and Argentina being involved anywhere in the short-term along the way,” Paul McLean, the Rugby Australia chairman, told The Australian. “I think they know that the competition next year may be the competition they sell to their broadcasters [long-term].”

Of course, the coronavirus lockdown has delivered the fatal blow, but the patient had a severe underlying health condition. In years to come, Sanzaar’s constant meddling should become a case study of how to ruin a perfectly good sporting competition.

Once upon a time, Super Rugby was the pre-eminent club competition in the world. Created at the dawn of professionalism in 1995, it was made up of 12 teams, five from New Zealand plus four from South Africa and three from Australia. Beamed to the United Kingdom on Sky Sports, matches were appointment television for any rugby fan, even at an ungodly hour on Saturday morning.

The skill levels were far and away above anything seen in the Premiership at the time. As my colleague Charlie Morgan wrote recently, magicians such as Carlos Spencer entranced a generation of British children. Detractors labelled it as basketball rugby for its high scorelines and missed tackles, but that underplayed the breathtaking speed of the attacks. It may have been from below the Equator, but it felt like rugby from a different planet.

Then they started messing with the format and, like a four-year-old building a Lego structure, they could not stop tinkering. Add a couple of bits there, take one away there. The South African and Australian unions, eager for a bigger slice of the pie, got an extra franchise added in 2006 so the Super 12 became the Super 14. In 2011, a 15th team were added in the form of the Melbourne Rebels and the league was divided into three conferences.

To the fanciful promise of billion-dollar broadcasting contracts, three more teams – the Jaguares from Argentina, the Sunwolves from Japan and a sixth South African franchise – arrived in 2016.

The end product was an unholy mess. Australia and South Africa – because of their player drain – could not sustain 11 franchises between them. Results became increasingly uncompetitive. At one stage, Australian franchises lost 40 consecutive matches to Kiwi opposition in a 722-day period. The format too was hard to follow for the average punter.

By the time, Sanzaar tried to rectify their mistake by reducing the number of teams back to 15, the genie was out of the bottle. The public had ceased caring. Matches were being played in stadiums that were sometimes a quarter full. Even football was drawing more viewers in Australia than Super Rugby and less than a third of rugby league or Australian rules audiences.

With rugby as a whole finding itself at a crossroads, it would do well to heed the lessons from Super Rugby’s slow death. Quantity always dilutes quality and when you find a model that works do not mess around with it.

Looks like a move in the right direction. Although it looks like Argentina might be the fall guys in the restructuring, which won't go down well with Pichot. With Wales backing Beaumont it seems inevitable Pichot won't win anyway. I hope this isn't the end for Super Rugby but rather a chance to reboot into a genuinely elite competition of the 10-12 best teams in the Southern Hemisphere and Japan qualifying in a meritocratic way and playing in a knockout format.

by Old Man Wed 29 Apr 2020, 5:49 pm

I have been hoping Super Rugby ends since the Conferences started, hoping this is the end for Super Rugby.

by Brendan Wed 29 Apr 2020, 6:15 pm

I would be interested to see how this works out. Taking out SA money halves what it generates.

Also to see how the player rention might change.

At least SA would be able use their money to pay their players.

by Sponsored content