Beaumont vs Pichot

[hugonaut]

Does anybody have any strong views on this contest?

Personally speaking, I come down very heavily on Beaumont's side. I think he is a decent man and as honest as you are going to get in this sort of organisation, and I think that he has the best interests at heart of the rugby I care most about.

To my eyes, Pichot is redolent of Michel Platini in so many regards. A talented player, captain and golden-boy type who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw. I'm afraid that I don't buy for a second that he is in rugby for the benefit of all the small nations ... I just think that he is an ambitious chap with a massive ego.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Lions [some people really love it], but his idea that the Lions should tour the Americas is farcical and shows blatant self interest. Between them, Argentina, USA, Canada and Uruguay won 3 matches out of 16 in the World Cup. There's no mid-week teams in those countries who wouldn't get cleared out by 60+ points. I've no doubt that what is billed as 'a tour of America' would actually be a three-test series against Argentina. Argentina is a great country ... but it'd be a pointless destination for a Lions tour. They've only won 5 of 42 Rugby Championship games since 2012 ... that's the same number of games that Italy has won in the Six Nations in the same number of years.

[mildlyinterested]

Beaumont.

[Dave Cahill]

Pichot is a self-interested spoofer. His involvement with the farrago that is USA Rugby should rule him out of consideration of any post above milk monitor.

I must however take back one previous criticism I had of him. The Autumn before last he posted up numbers showing how many 'non-nationals' were playing for each team during their autumn series'. The numbers for Ireland made no sense. Even counting guys like Jamie Heaslip and Jordi Murphy as overseas players it didn't add up. But recently I realised what he had done and his numbers were entirely correct. He had counted a number of UK born players in the Irish total. Can anyone guess what part of the UK they were from?

So, I retract my criticism of his inability to do simple addition, and replace it with the criticism that the he literally doesn't know very much about Rugby.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Pichot is a self-interested spoofer. His involvement with the farrago that is USA Rugby should rule him out of consideration of any post above milk monitor.

I must however take back one previous criticism I had of him. The Autumn before last he posted up numbers showing how many 'non-nationals' were playing for each team during their autumn series'. The numbers for Ireland made no sense. Even counting guys like Jamie Heaslip and Jordi Murphy as overseas players it didn't add up. But recently I realised what he had done and his numbers were entirely correct. He had counted a number of UK born players in the Irish total. Can anyone guess what part of the UK they were from?

So, I retract my criticism of his inability to do simple addition, and replace it with the criticism that the he literally doesn't know very much about Rugby.

SoCoDu?

[Dave Cahill]

Another apology, it was actually two more autumns previous! Looks my its my ability to remember numbers that needs work!

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I don't really like Beaumont based mainly on the fact that he seems to be scrambling to appease the fans of some of the stuff that Pichot is arguing for. I think he's a classic example of someone who could have done more with his time and is now pitching ideas that will never come to pass.

But I really don't like Pichot. I don't quite agree that he's in it for his ego, I remember as a player he would always give out about how Argentina were treated and suspect that he really does have a chip on his shoulder that the elite don't care about anyone else. But he comes across as a compete gobshite with no substance or plans behind what he says. He's child-like in the way he latches on to shiny new ideas and just says "'let's do it" without any thought behind it whatsoever.

I've always been of the opinion that it's very important to try and grow the game but that the way to do it is grow suitable partnerships slowly in emerging territories and that rocking the boat in established areas (the 6N being the big one) is a terrible way to do it. Pichot doesn't seem to have any concept of the knock on effect of tearing down the establishment or that money was at a premium and will be even more so now. That's another thing that bugs me about this election. How can either of them run on policies that are now redundant due to the global recession?

The one good thing about Pichot is that I suspect he would be so incompetent that he wouldn't be able to put any plans into action if he does get it.

[Peg Leg]

Does anybody have any strong views on this contest?

Personally speaking, I come down very heavily on Beaumont's side. I think he is a decent man and as honest as you are going to get in this sort of organisation, and I think that he has the best interests at heart of the rugby I care most about.

To my eyes, Pichot is redolent of Michel Platini in so many regards. A talented player, captain and golden-boy type who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw. I'm afraid that I don't buy for a second that he is in rugby for the benefit of all the small nations ... I just think that he is an ambitious chap with a massive ego.

I'm not the biggest fan of the Lions [some people really love it], but his idea that the Lions should tour the Americas is farcical and shows blatant self interest. Between them, Argentina, USA, Canada and Uruguay won 3 matches out of 16 in the World Cup. There's no mid-week teams in those countries who wouldn't get cleared out by 60+ points. I've no doubt that what is billed as 'a tour of America' would actually be a three-test series against Argentina. Argentina is a great country ... but it'd be a pointless destination for a Lions tour. They've only won 5 of 42 Rugby Championship games since 2012 ... that's the same number of games that Italy has won in the Six Nations in the same number of years.

Just not sure you can compare the two at all, completely different skill sets for wildly different positions.
Obviously very different eras of the game too.
Knowing you Hugo, you have loads of stats etc. but I'm still bitter about your spook like Brad Thorn announcement.
Entirely different players, it'd be like trying to compare the Tadg Furlong and Zinzane Brooke. Stupid poll

[hugonaut]

I don't really like Beaumont based mainly on the fact that he seems to be scrambling to appease the fans of some of the stuff that Pichot is arguing for. I think he's a classic example of someone who could have done more with his time and is now pitching ideas that will never come to pass.

But I really don't like Pichot. I don't quite agree that he's in it for his ego, I remember as a player he would always give out about how Argentina were treated and suspect that he really does have a chip on his shoulder that the elite don't care about anyone else. But he comes across as a compete gobshite with no substance or plans behind what he says. He's child-like in the way he latches on to shiny new ideas and just says "'let's do it" without any thought behind it whatsoever.

I've always been of the opinion that it's very important to try and grow the game but that the way to do it is grow suitable partnerships slowly in emerging territories and that rocking the boat in established areas (the 6N being the big one) is a terrible way to do it. Pichot doesn't seem to have any concept of the knock on effect of tearing down the establishment or that money was at a premium and will be even more so now. That's another thing that bugs me about this election. How can either of them run on policies that are now redundant due to the global recession?

The one good thing about Pichot is that I suspect he would be so incompetent that he wouldn't be able to put any plans into action if he does get it.

Very well put Ronk. I agree with pretty much everything you've said there.

For me, geography is the more important basis for a sustainable tournament than television money. Rivalries are more pointed, ergo matches are more meaningful. Keep travel costs down as much as you can, and more fans will go to games.

I am also completely convinced that with regards to TV coverage, the best way to grow the game is to get matches on terrestrial TV. That is exactly the opposite approach to how rugby across the world has tried to operate in the last 10 years. They have tried to include teams in the same competition from the other side of the world – for example, the Jaguares in Super Rugby, the Cheetahs and Queens in the Pro14, and they have taken the game off free to air TV to a huge extent.

The viewing numbers are huge for terrestrial TV compared to non-terrestrial TV. If you want to 'grow the game', which from my perspective means getting more people playing it and more people watching it, then you have to put matches on free TV. TV money will drop immediately, players and other professionals involved will get less money [initially] but you build a much bigger – and wider – audience. If you have a bigger audience, logically you should get better sponsorship deals from major corporations. So obviously less TV money up front, but hopefully offset to an extent by more sponsorship money.

Players' salaries will go down initially, but in a relatively short period of time, their public profiles will go up ... and in a slightly longer period of time the money they earn from endorsements will go up.

So my view is that the last decade of 'progress' - more PPV, wider geographical areas covered by tournaments – has not really been progressive at all. It has been an experiment which has seen some progress, but as much regress. That's not to say that it has been a waste of time, because if you don't try new things, you won't find heretofore unexplored positives. But you also have to recognise when new ideas don't work, and discard them.

[neiliog93]

I agree with most of the comments here but would have some concerns that Beaumont and Laporte would excessively privilege the interests of the wealthy English and French clubs and their league associations.

I also like the idea of some kind of club world cup. A one-off annual match between the winners of the European Cup and Super Rugby seems unlikely due to conflicting seasons, geographic distance, timezone difference for T.V., and most importantly the fact that it would exclude most teams and generate little revenue. I saw Lancaster musing about the possibility of doing a big club world cup once every four years (rather than every year which might adversely affect or even jeopardise the existence of the European Cup), and I think it would be great.

You could copy the old 24-team H Cup format in some respects - ten clubs from Europe (with one guaranteed from each 6 Nations country), ten from Super Rugby (with one guaranteed from each Super Rugby country), one from Japan, one from either Argentina or Italy's domestic competition, one from North America, and one club from Rugby Europe Championship countries (Georgia, Russia, etc.).

Then you seed the teams and have six groups of four. Within each group of four, everyone plays each other once. The six group winners and two best runners-up advance to the quarter-final, meaning the maximum number of games played by one team would be six.

It would be very difficult to organise but if enough money were on the table, agreement might be reached, especially in the context of ongoing efforts to find an integrated global season.

[RavenhillRaider]

Aye pichot's attitude strikes me as a man wanting to make a name for himself rather than making sure the best interests of the game are served.

Considering the impact due to COVID-19 on the sport, i think we will need the steady hand in beaumont to rebuild the sport.

I see rugby league in the UK has got a cash boost from the uk gov to keep the sport going.

[paddyor]

Beaumont wins

[Ruckedtobits]

Beaumont wins

......and 6N & Autumn internationals income will not be dividied out to keep SH unions solvent just yet.

[dropkick]

Beaumont wins

......and 6N & Autumn internationals income will not be dividied out to keep SH unions solvent just yet.

I read that the NZRU have over $100m in reserve. I don't know if it's NZ dollar or US. They make more money per year than any of the Celtic unions so it's a bit rich of them to be looking at NH unions' money especially when NH unions invested in stadiums. I think their league below super rugby is semi pro. Nice to have if you can afford it.


They also seem to be the most vocal in calling for a world league which is basically a way of getting their hands on NH money. I don't blame them for trying but it's up to the NH nations to stop it.

[JB1973]

The AB's are the biggest hypocrites in the game.

Frankly I have had enough of their endless whingeing and self serving attitude

If they really cared about pi rugby and expanding the game, why aren't they lobbying for japan and a pi side to join an extended tri/quad nations?

If they really care about extending pi player base why do their top private schools hand out sports scholarships to promising pi players and then the ab's cap them


If moving the 6 nations helps us then fine lets do it if It hurts us , well tough luck we are not going to damage ourselves

It's not our fault if rugby in the sh is dying on it's backside, we have our own problems to sort out and they must be top of our agenda

I'd like to see a two division british and irish league more than a world league for test nations

[Dave Cahill]

New Zealand have an estimated €49 million in reserve, but the current situation will wipe that out and more - its expected to cost them €55 million in lost revenue.

The Celtic Nations earn more from the television rights to the 6 Nations in SANZAAR than the SANZAAR nations earn from The Rugby Championship.

Its actually quite hard to work out how much money the IRFU actually has - they are constantly moving things around. For example, they sold the revenue from the naming rights sale to Aviva to a third party for a lower sum of cash upfront on the basis that they could get more out of less in cash than they could out of more in instalments. They used the money (c€28million) from the sale of the Newlands Cross site to buy their offices as they would save more than €28million on rents.

The next Lions tour will be the first under a new participation agreement that rebalances revenue in a more equitable manner. The last agreement was signed at a time (95-96) when people weren't even sure if there would be international rugby in the future, let alone touring sides, so all the risk was with the hosts - SANZA - that's all changed now, International Rugby is the biggest game in town and the Lions are the biggest players in that game.

[Dave Cahill]

It's not our fault if rugby in the sh is dying on it's backside, we have our own problems to sort out and they must be top of our agenda

A game of rugby is only as viable as the opposition. The NH needs the SH to be viable as opposition as much as the SH needs the NH's cash

[JB1973]

It's not our fault if rugby in the sh is dying on it's backside, we have our own problems to sort out and they must be top of our agenda

A game of rugby is only as viable as the opposition. The NH needs the SH to be viable as opposition as much as the SH needs the NH's cash

The ab's and co will just need to drop the wages they are paying, as far as I can see they do nothing to help other sh nations and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into allowing the pumas to join the then tri nations.

How often do the ab's , aussies and boks tour the pi nations and play test matches there?

If we have to have see the ab, boks and aussies play in the ai less often that's a price I'm willing to pay, Wales will still sell out if they have play home nations in the autumn. I'd quite fancy a trip to Dublin or Edinburgh in the autumn to watch a game tbh

Or else the tri nation side can do what the lions do and have a proper tour in 1 nation where they play the regions,provinces in the mid week

A three test match tour of each british and irish nation every 4 years , we can rota between them.

The tri nations sides wanted the game to fully pro, well in a pro sport whoever has the cash calls the tune and that is the European nations

I don't wish to sound callous but that's just how it is, the ab's can't call the shots if the European nations have the purse strings,

They need to pipe down telling everyone else what they need to do, and listen for once.

I find their lack of humility annoying , yes they are a superb rugby team and have been for years but they are also incredibly precious and arrogant at times


I seem to recall in the early 2000's the tri nations teams publically courting England and France and were more than willing to throw the celtic nations and Italy under the proverbial bus

[Dave Cahill]

The ab's and co will just need to drop the wages they are paying, as far as I can see they do nothing to help other sh nations and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into allowing the pumas to join the then tri nations. As opposed to the benevolent munificence of the six nations to the other Rugby Europe teams? Everyone has to dragged kicking and screaming into anything involving UAR, they're a shambles. And remember, the UAR had to be equally dragged into the Tri-Nations, they have traditionally seen themselves as 'European' rugby nation and far preferred a Brussels based Six Nations entry


How often do the ab's , aussies and boks tour the pi nations and play test matches there? Considerably more often than any of 6 nations tour the likes of Georgia or Spain. Georgia has hosted one full international against a Six Nations team. One. Ever. (Scotland, last summer)

If we have to have see the ab, boks and aussies play in the ai less often that's a price I'm willing to pay, Wales will still sell out if they have play home nations in the autumn. I'd quite fancy a trip to Dublin or Edinburgh in the autumn to watch a game tbh They might the first year, but after the third game against Ireland/scotland/england/france/italy in the space of year, I'd say there'll be a huge drop off in interest

Or else the tri nation side can do what the lions do and have a proper tour in 1 nation where they play the regions,provinces in the mid week

A three test match tour of each british and irish nation every 4 years , we can rota between them.

The tri nations sides wanted the game to fully pro, well in a pro sport whoever has the cash calls the tune and that is the European nations

I don't wish to sound callous but that's just how it is, the ab's can't call the shots if the European nations have the purse strings,

They need to pipe down telling everyone else what they need to do, and listen for once.

I find their lack of humility annoying , yes they are a superb rugby team and have been for years but they are also incredibly precious and arrogant at times


I seem to recall in the early 2000's the tri nations teams publically courting England and France and were more than willing to throw the celtic nations and Italy under the proverbial bus NZ wanted England and France, Australia wanted England and Ireland, South Africa didn't care as long as it got to play the Lions - SA only really cares about playing NZ and the Lions

[JB1973]

How often do the ab's , aussies and boks tour the pi nations and play test matches there? Considerably more often than any of 6 nations tour the likes of Georgia or Spain. Georgia has hosted one full international against a Six Nations team. One. Ever. (Scotland, last summer)


Wales have played tests in Spain Romania and Portugal over the years, plus we have toured tonga , samoa and Fiji

In fact I'd wager we have played more tests in places like tonga and samoa than the all blacks boks and the aussies have combined?

To my my memory neither the aussies or south Africa have ever toured there and the ab's have only ever played one game in samoa?


An extra ai game vs England will always sell out, and an extra irish/Scottish game every 3 years would sell out as well

the ab's are the biggest draw for wales I grant you that but England home is as big draw as sa and aussies and they'd bring a lot more away fans.


I'm not saying the home nations are flawless by any measure, but the all blacks are in no position to pretend to be the moral guardians of the game and some of the rubbish Hansen has come out with recently is nauseating

[paddyor]

I think the PIs is probably a dead end in terms of growth. Might seem harsh but waht's the eventual goal? They don't reall have the market to support a full team and the best players will likely take the big day in Europe even moreso than the rest of the SH players.

Maybe a slightly left field idea but what about truncating the challenge cup and bringing in some of the national sides. Granted Spain is full of French players who play in France but getting them competition against the weakest euro sides would surely be of more benefit.