It won't happen but in the long term, a two tier system with promotion and relegation would help the developing nations to gain on the establishment.
If you look back at how long France took to get on a level footing, and Italy more recently, you have to understand that it takes decades, not a few years to truly compete. The money will come, especially if Russia are involved.
The best solution imho is two tiers, 5 teams in each (so yes, probably Italy, maybe Scotland, maybe even one of the others if they have a bad year, will end up in the lower tier) and the four highest ranked teams join them in tier 2. It's probably predictable that Italy spend a lot of time yo-yoing between the two levels and that maybe one other team (Georgia as it stands) might be swapping most years; but think about it. If Italy pull out a big win somewhere, they keep in the top 5 and send someone else down - over the 15 years of the 6 nations, Italy were not bottom 6 times. The lower teams then start getting the "bigger" opponents which will help profile and development, the team that's on the lower tier has a chance to blood new players, implement style, change coaches etc and hopefully redevelop.....but at some point someone is going to do them and head up to the big boys....Similarly, the team that comes up will only have to pick up one big result - knock off one of the establishment in front of a noisy home stadium as Italy have done - and then they stay up and have a second year in the top with the big guns to further enhance their team and profile, and know that it might not be the other old 6N team coming back up.
There's no reason why within a few years it might not be Wales, France, Ireland, Italy, Georgia in the top 5 (yeah had to put England down - sorry!!! but given the game today! etc) and England and Scotland might put Romania, Spain and Russia to the sword in level 2; but can you imagine the magnitude of the game at Murrayfield to get back to the top??
It would take a long development time; and it would need a level of commitment from the top 6 that I don't believe is there; but it will make European and World Rugby stronger and that can only be a positive thing.
Most suggestions I've heard involve the smaller teams in their own league and a playoff (usually 2 legged) to see if they can get into the top. This is, I feel, too unlikely to see movement to the top flight (I'd wager once in 10 years) and the following year, it's tough to see the team that has gone up not go straight back down.
Make it one up, one down, no excuses, no get out clauses (and no bloody European club tournament calling shots!) and it will work. Teams will stay on the gas every game in both tiers, every game matters more, and as time goes on (we're talking uber-long term) then tier 3 comes in or you expand it to tiers of 6; possibly 6 in the top and 8 lower down.
I hear good things about German rugby, how much are they going to throw at the idea that they can play their way into a 2nd tier, and on the back of a good season, be playing in the top flight....they'd push like mad. Russia would throw money at the national team and buy in the players to develop a club game if they saw the same prize.
As I see it there are more benefits than problems....touring big SH sides would be more likely to play some of the current tier 2 sides if they knew they were more hardened to playing at a better level. The likes of Samoa, Tonga, USA, Uruguay, Japan, Namibia can come and play 3/4 tests against similar calibre opponents in established rugby stadiums and in front of big crowds. If the game grows, how long before we see Moscow stadium hosting the all blacks?? THAT is what world development should be about.
As I'd mentioned, it's going to take the big boys to take the hit early on; and given that a lot of the higher echilons are still an old boys club and bowing down to the Guiness and Heineken dollar, it won't happen, but something like it SHOULD....
