South Africa to join the 6N in 2024?

[Fan with smartphone]

Said it before and I’ll say it again. Biannual World Cup. Do it.

[artaneboy]

Said it before and I’ll say it again. Biannual World Cup. Do it.

What- twice a year!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blockhead]

Said it before and I’ll say it again. Biannual World Cup. Do it.

What- twice a year!?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yknow he meant Biennial AB.

[blockhead]

For those against change, don't forget that its only 20 years ago that it was the 5 nations and every weekend one team didn't have a game. Bringing a giant into the competition would be a major coup. Although I would worry about the other teams down under.
Would it mean that Cheetahs and Kings (already aligned with the northern season) become more attractie to international saffas?

[Fan with smartphone]

Said it before and I’ll say it again. Biannual World Cup. Do it.

What- twice a year!?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yknow he meant Biennial AB.

Agh! A salutary lesson in semantics for me!
Have never said it before, but I’ll say it now. Biennial World Cup. Do it.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

For those against change, don't forget that its only 20 years ago that it was the 5 nations and every weekend one team didn't have a game. Bringing a giant into the competition would be a major coup. Although I would worry about the other teams down under.
Would it mean that Cheetahs and Kings (already aligned with the northern season) become more attractie to international saffas?

I just about remember those days and hated when Ireland had a weekend off.

I don't care much about the Lions these days but it would ruin that as well wouldn't it? Not only would it ruin the novelty of playing South Africa, but Australia looks to be in real trouble.

November internationals would be affected too for the same reasons.

There are loads of reasons that I just can't see it happening in this format. I almost think that certain stakeholders are pushing a terrible idea so that a World League seems more palatable.

[artaneboy]

What- twice a year!?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yknow he meant Biennial AB.

Agh! A salutary lesson in semantics for me!
Have never said it before, but I’ll say it now. Biennial World Cup. Do it.

That’s how you learn.

Can’t see the point of a RWC every two years. A lot of disruption for not much benefit.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fan with smartphone]

I’d make the case that there is benefit to it, or at least could be.

1. World cups make a big heap of money. Always leave them wanting more I hear you say. Overexposure. Perhaps, and yes the lions would have to go. But nationalism is so hot right now and the lions have had their day.

2. The demand is there to host the thing even just among the currently established teams. France and South Africa had it relatively recently and want it again. Rugby Australia would love it again. New Zealand would like to host it every year. The states? Could be done - they want it and world rugby wants to go there. We had our noses badly put out of joint by not getting it. If England wanted it again....it’s 24 years away at least by that reckoning. (it won’t be because money will talk).

3. Emerging markets. I thought Japan was a bit of a disaster, but those out there said it was great. And it did seem to have a big impact, so hey - that’s a win. There are various unestablished markets that world rugby would presumably love to tap into. There is limited scope for that in a errrr...quadannual or quadrennial or whatever World Cup.

4. For the players. So many good players miss out on even the chance to play in one through injury and careers are short. And then it’s soooo heavy when playing in it. Like the mourning in New Zealand after France bate em. The 4 more years George gregan line. Like George had a point there. It’s a hell of a long wait. Our own travails with the quarter final. It can still be really, really important but just not completely life-defining if it doesn’t go the way you hoped.

5. Get rid of 4 year cycles. Live in the the now folks.

6. Protect the 6 nations. This may reduce some of the primacy of the 6 nations, but I suspect it will be the least imperfect of the proposed changes you see over the next while. And it’ll maintain the 6 nations as is, but still give Georgia or Germany or whoever else can field honestly eligible players a chance at improving. I see the 6 nations staying a bit like the Ulster football championship, an ugly cousin but gritty and fiercely contested; the rugby championship more like the Munster hurling championship, massive scores and boys shooting balls of fire out their arse. In a biennial World Cup the Pacific Islanders and teams from outside the establishment have a more level playing field.

6. Demarcation from ‘club’ game. It needs thrashed out but you can leave the room that’s needed for the club game to work around. I think it could be done. Maybe that’s blissfully naive.

Maybe it’d end up asking the goose that lays the golden egg to lay too many eggs. I dunno, but one suspects that CVC will be battery farming that goose one way or another. And what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I’d love to continue but I’m all out of goose analogies.

[Oldschoolsocks]

I’d make the case that there is benefit to it, or at least could be.

1. World cups make a big heap of money. Always leave them wanting more I hear you say. Overexposure. Perhaps, and yes the lions would have to go. But nationalism is so hot right now and the lions have had their day.

2. The demand is there to host the thing even just among the currently established teams. France and South Africa had it relatively recently and want it again. Rugby Australia would love it again. New Zealand would like to host it every year. The states? Could be done - they want it and world rugby wants to go there. We had our noses badly put out of joint by not getting it. If England wanted it again....it’s 24 years away at least by that reckoning. (it won’t be because money will talk).

3. Emerging markets. I thought Japan was a bit of a disaster, but those out there said it was great. And it did seem to have a big impact, so hey - that’s a win. There are various unestablished markets that world rugby would presumably love to tap into. There is limited scope for that in a errrr...quadannual or quadrennial or whatever World Cup.

4. For the players. So many good players miss out on even the chance to play in one through injury and careers are short. And then it’s soooo heavy when playing in it. Like the mourning in New Zealand after France bate em. The 4 more years George gregan line. Like George had a point there. It’s a hell of a long wait. Our own travails with the quarter final. It can still be really, really important but just not completely life-defining if it doesn’t go the way you hoped.

5. Get rid of 4 year cycles. Live in the the now folks.

6. Protect the 6 nations. This may reduce some of the primacy of the 6 nations, but I suspect it will be the least imperfect of the proposed changes you see over the next while. And it’ll maintain the 6 nations as is, but still give Georgia or Germany or whoever else can field honestly eligible players a chance at improving. I see the 6 nations staying a bit like the Ulster football championship, an ugly cousin but gritty and fiercely contested; the rugby championship more like the Munster hurling championship, massive scores and boys shooting balls of fire out their arse. In a biennial World Cup the Pacific Islanders and teams from outside the establishment have a more level playing field.

6. Demarcation from ‘club’ game. It needs thrashed out but you can leave the room that’s needed for the club game to work around. I think it could be done. Maybe that’s blissfully naive.

Maybe it’d end up asking the goose that lays the golden egg to lay too many eggs. I dunno, but one suspects that CVC will be battery farming that goose one way or another. And what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I’d love to continue but I’m all out of goose analogies.

Sounds like you’re goosed...







I’ll get my coat

[Morf]

I’d make the case that there is benefit to it, or at least could be.

1. World cups make a big heap of money. Always leave them wanting more I hear you say. Overexposure. Perhaps, and yes the lions would have to go. But nationalism is so hot right now and the lions have had their day.

2. The demand is there to host the thing even just among the currently established teams. France and South Africa had it relatively recently and want it again. Rugby Australia would love it again. New Zealand would like to host it every year. The states? Could be done - they want it and world rugby wants to go there. We had our noses badly put out of joint by not getting it. If England wanted it again....it’s 24 years away at least by that reckoning. (it won’t be because money will talk).

3. Emerging markets. I thought Japan was a bit of a disaster, but those out there said it was great. And it did seem to have a big impact, so hey - that’s a win. There are various unestablished markets that world rugby would presumably love to tap into. There is limited scope for that in a errrr...quadannual or quadrennial or whatever World Cup.

4. For the players. So many good players miss out on even the chance to play in one through injury and careers are short. And then it’s soooo heavy when playing in it. Like the mourning in New Zealand after France bate em. The 4 more years George gregan line. Like George had a point there. It’s a hell of a long wait. Our own travails with the quarter final. It can still be really, really important but just not completely life-defining if it doesn’t go the way you hoped.

5. Get rid of 4 year cycles. Live in the the now folks.

6. Protect the 6 nations. This may reduce some of the primacy of the 6 nations, but I suspect it will be the least imperfect of the proposed changes you see over the next while. And it’ll maintain the 6 nations as is, but still give Georgia or Germany or whoever else can field honestly eligible players a chance at improving. I see the 6 nations staying a bit like the Ulster football championship, an ugly cousin but gritty and fiercely contested; the rugby championship more like the Munster hurling championship, massive scores and boys shooting balls of fire out their arse. In a biennial World Cup the Pacific Islanders and teams from outside the establishment have a more level playing field.

6. Demarcation from ‘club’ game. It needs thrashed out but you can leave the room that’s needed for the club game to work around. I think it could be done. Maybe that’s blissfully naive.

Maybe it’d end up asking the goose that lays the golden egg to lay too many eggs. I dunno, but one suspects that CVC will be battery farming that goose one way or another. And what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I’d love to continue but I’m all out of goose analogies.

1. Many of the countries NZ, England only barely made their money back or at least it was by evaluating every $ spent through hotels etc to get a net gain. WR take a big lump sum upfront just like FIFA.
2. If RWC are twice as often do you think premium prices for accommodation/camper vans/tickets etc would be as palatable? Which creates an issue with point 1.
3. If it did actually work financially do you think tier 1/top of tier 2 would be happy to give Uruguay or Samoa a RWC? Lose out on that cash? Unless it was Russia/China/Middle East buying it . . . .
4. If it's not as special it's not as much pressure/hype. One point is contrary to the other there. Cherry picking the benefits of both sides of the coin i'd suggest.
5. Tests/tours scheduled years ahead give nations pretty guaranteed income to budget for. This includes RWC money. Which to be fair could be more with biennial RWCs.
6. Really hard to see your argument here. If there is more high level international rugby should the TV and ad revenue be more or less? Even if the same pie of both is 50% bigger it still lessens the 6N contribution which of course takes focus off for national unions, coaches and by extension players.
6.2. More test rugby = more club rugby? Hard to work that equation.

[Peg Leg]

I struggle with the heartbreak every 4 years, every 2 would be too much.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[artaneboy]

I struggle with the heartbreak every 4 years, every 2 would be too much.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Now- that’s a REAL argument! I want to forget the bloody thing now for two years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blockhead]

For those against change, don't forget that its only 20 years ago that it was the 5 nations and every weekend one team didn't have a game. Bringing a giant into the competition would be a major coup. Although I would worry about the other teams down under.
Would it mean that Cheetahs and Kings (already aligned with the northern season) become more attractie to international saffas?

I just about remember those days and hated when Ireland had a weekend off.

I don't care much about the Lions these days but it would ruin that as well wouldn't it? Not only would it ruin the novelty of playing South Africa, but Australia looks to be in real trouble.

November internationals would be affected too for the same reasons.

There are loads of reasons that I just can't see it happening in this format. I almost think that certain stakeholders are pushing a terrible idea so that a World League seems more palatable.

Each European team would only play them at home every two years. Shouldn't have too much affect on the Nov games. Someone on another thread is proposing a WC every two years!
Just make sure Italy or Scotland have the weekend off for round 6.

[Fan with smartphone]

I’d make the case that there is benefit to it, or at least could be.

1. World cups make a big heap of money. Always leave them wanting more I hear you say. Overexposure. Perhaps, and yes the lions would have to go. But nationalism is so hot right now and the lions have had their day.

2. The demand is there to host the thing even just among the currently established teams. France and South Africa had it relatively recently and want it again. Rugby Australia would love it again. New Zealand would like to host it every year. The states? Could be done - they want it and world rugby wants to go there. We had our noses badly put out of joint by not getting it. If England wanted it again....it’s 24 years away at least by that reckoning. (it won’t be because money will talk).

3. Emerging markets. I thought Japan was a bit of a disaster, but those out there said it was great. And it did seem to have a big impact, so hey - that’s a win. There are various unestablished markets that world rugby would presumably love to tap into. There is limited scope for that in a errrr...quadannual or quadrennial or whatever World Cup.

4. For the players. So many good players miss out on even the chance to play in one through injury and careers are short. And then it’s soooo heavy when playing in it. Like the mourning in New Zealand after France bate em. The 4 more years George gregan line. Like George had a point there. It’s a hell of a long wait. Our own travails with the quarter final. It can still be really, really important but just not completely life-defining if it doesn’t go the way you hoped.

5. Get rid of 4 year cycles. Live in the the now folks.

6. Protect the 6 nations. This may reduce some of the primacy of the 6 nations, but I suspect it will be the least imperfect of the proposed changes you see over the next while. And it’ll maintain the 6 nations as is, but still give Georgia or Germany or whoever else can field honestly eligible players a chance at improving. I see the 6 nations staying a bit like the Ulster football championship, an ugly cousin but gritty and fiercely contested; the rugby championship more like the Munster hurling championship, massive scores and boys shooting balls of fire out their arse. In a biennial World Cup the Pacific Islanders and teams from outside the establishment have a more level playing field.

6. Demarcation from ‘club’ game. It needs thrashed out but you can leave the room that’s needed for the club game to work around. I think it could be done. Maybe that’s blissfully naive.

Maybe it’d end up asking the goose that lays the golden egg to lay too many eggs. I dunno, but one suspects that CVC will be battery farming that goose one way or another. And what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I’d love to continue but I’m all out of goose analogies.

1. Many of the countries NZ, England only barely made their money back or at least it was by evaluating every $ spent through hotels etc to get a net gain. WR take a big lump sum upfront just like FIFA.
2. If RWC are twice as often do you think premium prices for accommodation/camper vans/tickets etc would be as palatable? Which creates an issue with point 1.
3. If it did actually work financially do you think tier 1/top of tier 2 would be happy to give Uruguay or Samoa a RWC? Lose out on that cash? Unless it was Russia/China/Middle East buying it . . . .
4. If it's not as special it's not as much pressure/hype. One point is contrary to the other there. Cherry picking the benefits of both sides of the coin i'd suggest.
5. Tests/tours scheduled years ahead give nations pretty guaranteed income to budget for. This includes RWC money. Which to be fair could be more with biennial RWCs.
6. Really hard to see your argument here. If there is more high level international rugby should the TV and ad revenue be more or less? Even if the same pie of both is 50% bigger it still lessens the 6N contribution which of course takes focus off for national unions, coaches and by extension players.
6.2. More test rugby = more club rugby? Hard to work that equation.

There’s definitely not much support for this idea it seems, but thanks for engaging morf and the rest of you. It doesn’t seem a runner, but on 1....I think they do make money. Like why are these nations so keen to get it again? New Zealand did make a bit of a song and dance about not making enough, but I’d suggest that may have had more to do with them playing a bit of the poor mouth for negotiations on future monies. As far as I’m aware England and Japan claimed a healthy profit - despite the big wadge of cash paid up front to world rugby, which I’ve heard described as the main financial driver of the game worldwide. I’m open to correction on any of that.

2. Yes I think some of the bells and whistles financially could go, but you’d still have full stadia and tv money. And I’d suggest that is where it is at.

3. A biennial World Cup wouldn’t be going to Uruguay or Samoa. China, Russia, even Germany or Middle East...I think it’s potentially plausible at some point. But it doesn’t have to go there. There is demand within the existing traditional nations.

I’m starting to feel like I’m tilting at windmills a bit here and am putting forward a crazy idea so I’ll leave it there, but I do think LRIP is right - this isn’t the last of the crazy ideas you are gonna see over the next while.

[Ruckedtobits]

TV money, Spinsorships & Host Nation initial donation are the big money for World Rugby. The Host Nation takes almost everything els. E.g. tickets, corporate packages etc.

[Morf]

RWC is one of the things that works most well/least unwell in rugby.

A lot of other things to tackle on the agenda first.