Should the 6 Nations be an open competition (w/ relegations and promotions)?

[Peat]

SC is right that most of the unions sat on World Rugby, making the decisions about tours, won't disturb the Tier 1 Money Spinners, and I really like his idea about sending the likes of Georgia down south to play Super Rugby teams. You could probably get the likes of Leicester, Sarries and the Irish teams to offer the likes of Fiji and Tonga games in the north - or maybe even Uruguay and Namibia - come the Autumn too.

It's a huge shame the Churchill Cup has collapsed, that was a step in the right direction for everyone involved, but alas the money didn't work out (I think).

End of the day, it all comes down to money. Ugly, but true. And, as noted, the finances aren't exactly secure in a lot of rugby's strongholds as is.

Off the top of my head, the strategy for growing rugby in most tier 2 countries should be:

a) One big "Whoo! Everyone pay attention!" event a year (like the ABs visiting USA).
b) Provide assistance to create as strong a domestic league and coaching network as possible.
c) Be on the 2nd tier nations' team when it comes to securing player release from the big European league, with financial assistance if needed.

 

[goodNumber10]

NZ & AU's make well over a million for those out of window games.

It's a mutual agreement because we've the money and stadiums to benefit both parties.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Seeing as it already exists I doubt that you would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nations_Cup_(rugby_union)

You are having a laugh aren't you?


In Division 1, groups have 6 teams (meaning more matches and thus more travel), a significant fraction of the players are assumed to be professional or semi-professional (meaning that fixtures are, as often as possible, scheduled within the IRB's international fixtures time windows when clubs must release players for national duty), and only one team is promoted and one relegated every two years (meaning that the competitions are more stable).

How is that supposed to be either current or watchable.
Why don't we take up, Watching Trees Grow' as a sport.
No boys, that is not a second tier competition, that is at best a brain fart that should never be sniffed.

The top sides in 1A should have a yearly competition that runs for 7-8 weeks and offers an opportunity for a relegation game against the loser of the 6 Nations
Fly or die.

 

[smartcooky]

NZ & AU's make well over a million for those out of window games.

It's a mutual agreement because we've the money and stadiums to benefit both parties.

Err, no that is not quite true.

2002 was the last time that the test window allowed for four Autumn International matches to all be played within the test window. All four matches were scheduled by the IRB, not by the individual National Unions. From 2004 onwards only three IRB scheduled matches were within the new test window, and all of the revenues are retained by the host nations. A fourth Autumn International can be played and the terms for revenue sharing can be negotiated between the teams, but importantly, the clubs are only required to release players for three out of the four matches. The revenue shared matches so far have been...

2003 - NONE (RWC)
2004 - NONE
2005 v Wales (100 year anniversary match)
2006 v England
2007 - NONE (RWC)
2008 v England
2009 v Wales
2009 v The Barbarians
2010 v Wales
2011 - NONE (RWC)
2012 v England
2013 - NONE (played Japan as a fourth match)
2014 - NONE (played the USA as a fourth match)

No boys, that is not a second tier competition, that is at best a brain fart that should never be sniffed.

It is quite a half-arsed way of organising a competition, but then, look who organises it... FIRA_AER (oops they're now called "RugbyEurope"). As bunches of fat, backwards-thinking, gin-swilling old farts go, they make the RFU look positivelty modern and innovative!!

 

[j'nuh]

No, I'm just stating the obvious. The official window only allows for three matches, and those matches are arranged by the unions concerned along with World Rugby.

New Zealand, Australia and South Africa are big money-spinners for the 6N teams, and they all want a piece of that pie. If any of the SANZAR teams were to play Georgia instead of, say Wales, then the WRU would have to give up one Millennium Stadium full house. I cannot see them doing that willingly.

The home team is not the only team to make money out of a home fixture. SANZAR countries have their own domestic broadcasting deals, and I presume will get a cut of the ticket sales too. There is mutual benefit for both the 6N and SANZAR teams to play one another.

 

[barkinghooker]

Tier 2 nations may be offended at this but perhaps some of the home nations teams could have a 'B' team in the ENC. You know how Barcelona and Madrid have their reserve team in the second division ?

Having a B team in the ENC would give these teams exposure in our countries via television and it would be a scalp say Romania or Georgia beat the Saxons or Wolfhounds ?

The ENC could end up as a better product than the 6 nations because their unions do not have as much money going through the books and would be more open to changes to improve their competition and maybe one day down the line 'we' can join them.

 

[The Jones Boy]

It is quite a half-arsed way of organising a competition, but then, look who organises it... FIRA_AER (oops they're now called "RugbyEurope"). As bunches of fat, backwards-thinking, gin-swilling old farts go, they make the RFU look positivelty modern and innovative!!

I have no idea who the FIRA_AER (Rugby Europe) are but they need to sort out the competition so that the top six sides in the second tier have a competition that emulates the 6 Nations, preferably at the same or very similar time. The the loser from the top and the champ from the second tier can have a game in the weekend after both competitions are finished and we all get to see who will be filling the 6th spot in the 6Nations the following year, and who will be going back to European rugby purgatory.
Access to the 6Nations is a massive incentive for the lower teams.
Organising the second tier competition to a more focussed and intense level will only help the teams lower down to lift their game and restructure their support networks.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Tier 2 nations may be offended at this but perhaps some of the home nations teams could have a 'B' team in the ENC. You know how Barcelona and Madrid have their reserve team in the second division ?

Having a B team in the ENC would give these teams exposure in our countries via television and it would be a scalp say Romania or Georgia beat the Saxons or Wolfhounds ?

The ENC could end up as a better product than the 6 nations because their unions do not have as much money going through the books and would be more open to changes to improve their competition and maybe one day down the line 'we' can join them.

There are Summer tournaments like that in place. Not feasible during the club season though, pro 12 sides would be close to having to forfeit games because all their players are off in Georgia.

 

[The Jones Boy]

All the more reason to do it.
Clubs have Waaaay too much power in western Europe.
Country first.
Club second.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

All the more reason to do it.
Clubs have Waaaay too much power in western Europe.
Country first.
Club second.

That system only works if clubs are constantly producing players and by taking "the best of the rest" out of playing pools during the 6nations would leave sides, in the pro 12 France and England have a big enough player base, fielding glorified academy sides. It would produce a system that would slow down the production line in the NH leading to us losing greater ground on the SH. The only way, in my opinion, to allow second tier European sides catch up would be to install a worldwide season, that way the 6 and 4 nations can be played, the clubs can get their leagues (the French should be restricted to a four team play-off system) and the second tier sides could get one or two games a year against top sides. Continue this until they start winning games, likely to take around 20 years, and go from there.

Restricting player growth among pro 12 nations to send an unmotivated A side to Eastern Europe definitely isn't the answer.

 

[Peat]

There is about as much chance of persuading the Pro 12 nations to supply A teams to a competition going on at the same time as the 6N - wrecking the league and incurring additional costs of running a second national team - as there is of me accomplishing World Peace, having a threesome with Scarlett Johansson and Salma Hayek, launching a nuclear first strike on Moscow, buying Facebook and making my own 21 year old single malt by the end of today.

And I'm laid up with the flu, elsewise I'd have the better chance.

 

[smartcooky]

I think @The Jones Boy does not quite understand how the NH season works.

Unlike our arrangement in the SH (where Super Rugby takes a complete break while the June internationals are played, and the Super Rugby season is over before the Rugby Championship begins) in the NH, the Aviva Premiership, Pro 12 and Top 14 do not stop while the Autumn Internationals or the Six Nations are being played. Clubs already have to do without their top players for domestic matches being played on the same weekends as International matches. It would be completely unreasonable to expect them them to also do without their second level players.

 

[FrenchFan]

All the more reason to do it.
Clubs have Waaaay too much power in western Europe.
Country first.
Club second.

It's the other way round here from what I can see
The Federation here has waaay too much power.
and what are they doing with it? oops better not answer that one.
Clubs first
Country second.

 

[goodNumber10]

Err, no that is not quite true.

2002 was the last time that the test window allowed for four Autumn International matches to all be played within the test window. All four matches were scheduled by the IRB, not by the individual National Unions. From 2004 onwards only three IRB scheduled matches were within the new test window, and all of the revenues are retained by the host nations. A fourth Autumn International can be played and the terms for revenue sharing can be negotiated between the teams, but importantly, the clubs are only required to release players for three out of the four matches. The revenue shared matches so far have been...

2003 - NONE (RWC)
2004 - NONE
2005 v Wales (100 year anniversary match)
2006 v England
2007 - NONE (RWC)
2008 v England
2009 v Wales
2009 v The Barbarians
2010 v Wales
2011 - NONE (RWC)
2012 v England
2013 - NONE (played Japan as a fourth match)
2014 - NONE (played the USA as a fourth match)

How is that different to what i've said, NZ get paid in game soutside the IRB window.

I was under the impression that the eagles and japan games were also revenue splits (50/50 on tickets)

 

[smartcooky]

How is that different to what i've said, NZ get paid in game soutside the IRB window.

I was under the impression that the eagles and japan games were also revenue splits (50/50 on tickets)

I thought you were inferring that all the AIs were revenue splits... my bad.

Yes, the Japan and USA matches, (and the 4th Bledisloe Cup matches played a couple of years back in Japan and Hong Kong) were also revenue splits. I included them after I said NONE as there was no 4th Eurpoean AI for NZ in 2013 or 2014.

However, I think we're missing the actual point here. No NH National Union is going to want to lose the big 100% no split revenues they get from the an "in window" macth so that the Wallabies, Springboks or the All Blacks can go play in Tbilisi! This is why I think Georgia should tour to a SANZAR country during the June Tours and play Super Rugby sides

 

[goodNumber10]

I thought you were inferring that all the AIs were revenue splits... my bad.

Yes, the Japan and USA matches, (and the 4th Bledisloe Cup matches played a couple of years back in Japan and Hong Kong) were also revenue splits. I included them after I said NONE as there was no 4th Eurpoean AI for NZ in 2013 or 2014.

However, I think we're missing the actual point here. No NH National Union is going to want to lose the big 100% no split revenues they get from the an "in window" macth so that the Wallabies, Springboks or the All Blacks can go play in Tbilisi! This is why I think Georgia should tour to a SANZAR country during the June Tours and play Super Rugby sides

oh, agree, 100%

 

[barkinghooker]

How about a FIRA/rugbyeurope or whatever it's called have a summer European championship one year before a world cup or a year after . 16 team knockout cup . Maybe put a cap limit on the tier one teams ? Would the individual tier one nations lose money not touring that summer but actually head in to an international competition ? I think big sponsors would invest especially with the 6 nation teams involved ? I guess FIRA would make the most money but you'd assume they'd distribute it appropriately for the best of the game ?

I think for now the wooden spoon team should play whoever is top of the ENC in the summer .

 

[dragos03]

I don't know why some people are so afraid of a promotion-relegation playoff every year (or every 2 years) between the 6N wooden spoon and the ENC champions. The 6N team would still have a massive advantage over the ENC one (as they play tough matches every year not pointless games vs the likes of Germany in a public park). Funny that some people are concerned it could kill Italian rugby, keep protecting them while killing rugby in the rest of Europe instead. I think the ENC team would have very low chanches to win the playoff in the first years but it would be a huge boost for the sport in many countries by giving them something to aim for. Maybe the ENC champs would even be trashed in the first encounters, so what?

For the record, the last time my country has played a Tier 1 test outside the RWC was in 2006! And we will get no strong test to prepare for this World Cup either, it seems we will play Kenya in a warm-up! And despite the complete lack of meaningful games (our only decent opposition is Georgia once per year and the 2-3 tests we have been getting only recently in the autumn against other Tier 2 nations), Romania almost won against Italy at the 2007 RWC and against Scotland at the 2011 RWC. These close results have made them even more afraid to play against us since they know that a defeat would question their status.

Of course, Romania and Georgia can't currently produce the same revenues as the Six Nations do. But if the gate is opened, the revenues will increase a lot and interest will go up in other countries with big markets (like Spain or Germany). Eventually rugby would grow all over Europe and the 6N would earn several times more than they currently do.

 

[LiRFCMatt]

I don't know why some people are so afraid of a promotion-relegation playoff every year (or every 2 years) between the 6N wooden spoon and the ENC champions. The 6N team would still have a massive advantage over the ENC one (as they play tough matches every year not pointless games vs the likes of Germany in a public park). Funny that some people are concerned it could kill Italian rugby, keep protecting them while killing rugby in the rest of Europe instead. I think the ENC team would have very low chanches to win the playoff in the first years but it would be a huge boost for the sport in many countries by giving them something to aim for. Maybe the ENC champs would even be trashed in the first encounters, so what?

For the record, the last time my country has played a Tier 1 test outside the RWC was in 2006! And we will get no strong test to prepare for this World Cup either, it seems we will play Kenya in a warm-up! And despite the complete lack of meaningful games (our only decent opposition is Georgia once per year and the 2-3 tests we have been getting only recently in the autumn against other Tier 2 nations), Romania almost won against Italy at the 2007 RWC and against Scotland at the 2011 RWC. These close results have made them even more afraid to play against us since they know that a defeat would question their status.

Of course, Romania and Georgia can't currently produce the same revenues as the Six Nations do. But if the gate is opened, the revenues will increase a lot and interest will go up in other countries with big markets (like Spain or Germany). Eventually rugby would grow all over Europe and the 6N would earn several times more than they currently do.

Not Italian rugby... Scottish rugby at the moment!

 

[barkinghooker]

Not just Scottish Rugby. I think every country potentially could get the wooden spoon. Didn't France finish bottom a couple of seasons back ? I'm open to relegations or reformatting the whole European game to try and grow it's audience .