Rugby as a World sport - and nimbyism

First topic message reminder :

I suspect that most posters here want to see Rugby growing globally (its a common argument on the lines of "if we want to see the game expand".

But as soon as anyone suggests a method of expanding the game, the nimbys turn up in their droves making wild accusations about imagined obsessions and bias against the 'other' sides and teams.

So. In what ways can Rugby Union can be encouraged and assisted expand to a global level without some teams and some nations having to take a hit? I'll leave it to you to provide suggestions and I look forward to being enlightened...

It happened mid last year about July, just going off memory.It was big news down in this part of the World and in the Islands samoa especially.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:EBOP, when you say 'Celts' to whom do you refer? Are you lumping Scotland, Wales and Ireland together? Not sure what your beef is here.

Yes, Ireland Wales and Scotland all together.

But I wouldn't lay all the nimbyism on the 'Celts' auk.

Up here if you wanted to shove 'apenny at a local fete, there would always be objectors. And then the H&S impact forms and getting it authorised for the use of pre-decimal legal tender (cont'd p94).

First one I saw in google...

http://www.samoaobserver.ws/index.php?view=article&id=35022%3Airb-kilts&option=com_content&Itemid=61

Regarding the 6N as I have stated I would like to see Georgia added.

Regarding the reluctance to break it up, as competition, this is perfectly understandable as it is the rock than sustains Professionalism in the Pro12 nations.
Not sure destroying professionalism in those countries, which two divisions of 4 teams as has been suggested would do, could benefit rugby in other European nations. Just the opposite.

Also looked up the stats re 6N countries playing against Rumania, who are the country who have been around, in Europe, at the 2nd level the longest.
The 3 Celtic nations have played them 29 times in total, England have palyed them 4 times ever. Maybe England should play more games against lesser European nations ?

The Pro12 countries have given Italy a leg up by bringing in club sides into their league.

As history has shown (France and Italy) the way to get other nations to improve it needs a top down approach hence my Georgia suggestion. A way to do this is to play 2nd tier European nations more which would result in playing Tri Nation team less - are the SH ready for the drop in income ?

aucklandlaurie wrote: It happened mid last year about July, just going off memory.It was big news down in this part of the World and in the Islands samoa especially.

But what exactly was the proposal ?

"England have palyed them 4 times ever. Maybe England should play more games against lesser European nations ?"

Geoff forget about inetrnational matches. England has a league that utilses forign talent- that is the building block for world rugby.

Maybe your leagues should incorporate forign talent?

mystiroakey wrote:"England have palyed them 4 times ever. Maybe England should play more games against lesser European nations ?"

Geoff forget about inetrnational matches. England has a league that utilses forign talent- that is the building block for world rugby.

Maybe your leagues should incorporate forign talent?

Excellent idea mystir, but focusing on tier two individuals.

Geoff
Did you read EBOP's post?

In Europe I think every country should 'adopt' another country. That means helping out their adopted country in upskilling their coaches, letting the players from the adopted country train with some of their players and organising tours and games between teams from both countries. Its a long term strategy so the 'adoption' stage should last at least 5 years.

It would also help the smaller nations have a say in the running of rugby.

Rugby is growing in many countries. Spain, Belgium, Germany etc and you'd think with all the Eastern Europeans in Ireland and Britain that some of them will go home and start clubs. Some countries are on the brink of being competitive and if the 6 nations really wanted it they could have a few more teams at Georgias level in 5 to 10 years time.

If one or two of the wealthier European nations took to rugby it would give the game a big financial boost. Not just in Europe but around the world.

The South Africans should have closer links to Holland regarding the promotion of rugby.

A European cup should also be introduced every 4 years. The top teams can put in their A teams until the weaker teams catches up.

I just did - it so full of invective and hyperbole I am still unclear what exactly was being proposed. It comes across as a diatribe to be honest.

Surely somewhere, in plain English, the proposal is written down

profitius wrote:In Europe I think every country should 'adopt' another country.

The South Africans should have closer links to Holland regarding the promotion of rugby.

They are too far away mate, we already have close links to Namibia, Zimbabwe and Argentina

biltongbek wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"England have palyed them 4 times ever. Maybe England should play more games against lesser European nations ?"

Geoff forget about inetrnational matches. England has a league that utilses forign talent- that is the building block for world rugby.

Maybe your leagues should incorporate forign talent?

Excellent idea mystir, but focusing on tier two individuals.

As long as the English and French do the same no problem

profitius wrote:A European cup should also be introduced every 4 years. The top teams can put in their A teams until the weaker teams catches up.

It would have to after the end of the season but sure why not

EBOP wrote:First one I saw in google...

http://www.samoaobserver.ws/index.php?view=article&id=35022%3Airb-kilts&option=com_content&Itemid=61

Looks like a childish attack on the Celtic nations about being afraid of the Pacific Islanders.

In reality, nobody wants to see players jumping from one country to the next. Thats nonsense and it makes a mockery of international rugby.

biltongbek wrote:

profitius wrote:In Europe I think every country should 'adopt' another country.

The South Africans should have closer links to Holland regarding the promotion of rugby.

They are too far away mate, we already have close links to Namibia, Zimbabwe and Argentina

German players go to South Africa too from the German WILD academy, I read before. It makes you wonder if they had to go to SA or wanted to go there.

geoff998rugby wrote:

profitius wrote:A European cup should also be introduced every 4 years. The top teams can put in their A teams until the weaker teams catches up.

It would have to after the end of the season but sure why not

It could be or eventually takes place instead of the 6 nations or autumn interntionals.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2010/12/01/pacific-rugby-gets-the-yellow-card-from-irb/
Well, the other one was Samoan and english is not their first language. Here's another. Just type in 'pacific island rugby eligibility veto' and see what you get. We aren't making this up, it happened. Surprised many don't know about this, kept it hush hush up north huh?

6 nations every 2 years.

full on european cup every 2 years.

geoff998rugby wrote:I just did - it so full of invective and hyperbole I am still unclear what exactly was being proposed. It comes across as a diatribe to be honest.

Surely somewhere, in plain English, the proposal is written down

I'm sure there is a copy in IRB headquarters somewhere, I find it incredible that you didnt know anything about the incident, New Zealand is going to have the IRB revisit the motion later this year or next year.

The bottom line is, and you may be surprised to hear it, but in some quarters the celtic nations as regarded as contributing very little to the game of rugby, in a positive way that is.

geoff998rugby wrote:I just did - it so full of invective and hyperbole I am still unclear what exactly was being proposed. It comes across as a diatribe to be honest.

Surely somewhere, in plain English, the proposal is written down

Fundamentally Geoff it was a proposal to allow dual-qualified international players to turn out for Tier 2 or lower nations even if they'd previously played for a tier 1 one, after serving a stand down period.

There was some debate on here about it last year.

I see SA stood against it as well. Shame on SARU.

biltongbek wrote:I see SA stood against it as well. Shame on SARU.

There's some ex-Boks who could make a big contribution to Namibia or Zimbabwe too.

True. I don't think there are many though. If they do leave SA they mostly go to europe for a paycheck.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:I just did - it so full of invective and hyperbole I am still unclear what exactly was being proposed. It comes across as a diatribe to be honest.

Surely somewhere, in plain English, the proposal is written down

Fundamentally Geoff it was a proposal to allow dual-qualified international players to turn out for Tier 2 or lower nations even if they'd previously played for a tier 1 one, after serving a stand down period.

There was some debate on here about it last year.

Sorry in that case I am against it too - once you play for one country that should be it.

Makes a mockery of International sport otherwise.
No one makes them play for NZ or Australia.
On a practical note I think their long term development is better served playing up and coming players rather than older players anyway.

Biltonbek given your stance elsewhere your view surprises me.

Geoff
Just the sort of reply I'd expect.

But tell me what harm did it do when Michael Jones or Inga Tuingamala not only played for the ABs but also for samoa, not only that they even went back and coached Mnau samoa, its called giving back to your Islands of heritage and your ancestory, would it really hurt you that much????

profitius wrote:

EBOP wrote:First one I saw in google...

http://www.samoaobserver.ws/index.php?view=article&id=35022%3Airb-kilts&option=com_content&Itemid=61

Looks like a childish attack on the Celtic nations about being afraid of the Pacific Islanders.

In reality, nobody wants to see players jumping from one country to the next. Thats nonsense and it makes a mockery of international rugby.

A curate's egg of a post if ever there was one profitus.

It' been a long-held belief of mine that IQ quals regulations are far too flimsy (but that's another matter).

But if the nation then formally releases the player from the IQ clause, and can be useful to a T2 nation, then that seems to me the decent and honourable thing to do.

biltongbek wrote:I forgot to mention we also send a lot of players to play in other backyards as well, even in their biggest stadiums in their national colours, so we are pretty much helping everyone.

So maybe that makes us. EBY

Everyone's back yard.

actually I think you'll find that most saffers are IET

In Everyones Teams

geoff998rugby wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:I just did - it so full of invective and hyperbole I am still unclear what exactly was being proposed. It comes across as a diatribe to be honest.

Surely somewhere, in plain English, the proposal is written down

Fundamentally Geoff it was a proposal to allow dual-qualified international players to turn out for Tier 2 or lower nations even if they'd previously played for a tier 1 one, after serving a stand down period.

There was some debate on here about it last year.

Sorry in that case I am against it too - once you play for one country that should be it.

Makes a mockery of International sport otherwise.
No one makes them play for NZ or Australia.
On a practical note I think their long term development is better served playing up and coming players rather than older players anyway.

Biltonbek given your stance elsewhere your view surprises me.

Geoff, purely from helping these tier two nations it can't be a bad thing, you look at the tier two nations, they have little resources, they lose their talented players purely because there are better opportunities for their parents or themselves in other countries.

Remember I am talking about tier two nations who by virtue of teir ecenomies will not be able to put a professional structure together even if they wanted to

damage_13 wrote:

biltongbek wrote:I forgot to mention we also send a lot of players to play in other backyards as well, even in their biggest stadiums in their national colours, so we are pretty much helping everyone.

So maybe that makes us. EBY

Everyone's back yard.

actually I think you'll find that most saffers are IET

In Everyones Teams

I would prefer.

EF

Everyone's favourites.

apart from the U20s

I think England are gonna win 2:1 btw!

back on topic.

While Asia and the US are un-tapped markets there are plenty of European countries that need help and have the potential to grow far faster.

Mostly ex-eastern Bloc states but by god have you seen their Forwards!?

Georgia fielded a pack in one rwc that looked like 5 shaved Gorillas in national kit and Romania I think had a kicking lock who could kick the ball into touch from the other end of the pitch (couldn't hit the side of an aircraft carrier though)

Yep the growth is gonna come from eastern europe, and possibly( hopefully)western europe as well

I dont think a few players past their prime playing for a second nation would make a big difference to be honest.

If you really want to change the game this is little more than tokenism.

So you want a real upheaval:

NH
16 team HC
32 team Amlin - (20 teams from the 3 senior leagues 12 others)
Every November all 6N sides play at least 1 International against a 2nd tier European side (less games against the Tri Nations)
Add Georgia to the 6N asap
Every 4 years a European Cup of the top 12 Nations (Top tier sides would play 'A' teams)
A limit of 2 International players per team, coming from other nations - every team in the 3 senior leagues.

SH
Drop the number of existig clubs from 15 to 12
A limit of 2 International players per team, coming from other nations.
Add in a team from Tonga, Fiji, Samoa and Argentina
Every year the Tri Nations play at least 1 International against a 2nd tier side - a Pacific Island or Japan (less games against the top European nations)
Every 4 years a SH Cup including the Tri Nations and the above plus Japan (yes I know they are in the NH !)
(Tri Nations sides would play 'A' sides)

Worldwide
Restrict Residency to 5 years
Require a Residency qualification of 3 years for Grandparents

Off the cuff but that would make a real difference rather than a piece of tokenism that dilutes the integrity of International rugby

Every November all 6N sides play at least 1 International against a 2nd tier European side (less games against the Tri Nations).

That or encourage/legislate all tier 1 teams to have an A side that will tour and play at least two internationals vs Tier 2 nations

To me the greatest obstacle to world rugby is club rugby. See how many players globally are being swallowed up by the leagues like France and Japan. Secondly, see how much time the Heineken etc and Super XV take up of the rugby calendar and then see how much time is devoted to test rugby.

In order to grow rugby globally, you have to concentrate on the national teams and nurture their own club environments rather than topping up someone else´s. Sevens has an international circuit that involves national squads on an equal basis. I'm certainly not advocating abolishing club rugby. But we need to set aside clear windows for club and test rugby that are compatible between the hemispheres and not blur the lines between them.

Portnoy wrote:

profitius wrote:

EBOP wrote:First one I saw in google...

http://www.samoaobserver.ws/index.php?view=article&id=35022%3Airb-kilts&option=com_content&Itemid=61

Looks like a childish attack on the Celtic nations about being afraid of the Pacific Islanders.

In reality, nobody wants to see players jumping from one country to the next. Thats nonsense and it makes a mockery of international rugby.

A curate's egg of a post if ever there was one profitus.

It' been a long-held belief of mine that IQ quals regulations are far too flimsy (but that's another matter).

But if the nation then formally releases the player from the IQ clause, and can be useful to a T2 nation, then that seems to me the decent and honourable thing to do.

As I said, I' against it.

Supposing it was passed and the players were allowed play for another country. Wales played Samoa and Fiji in the world cup so what benefit would it have been for Wales to play stronger teams? What if Wales lost a match against one of them? That would open up a can of worms considering the differing rules between both teams.

Profitius

However you dont seem to mind that Samoa has less voting rights and presence at the IRB than wales do you ? or would that be an example where differing rules is a good thing?

geoff998rugby wrote:I dont think a few players past their prime playing for a second nation would make a big difference to be honest.

If you really want to change the game this is little more than tokenism.

So you want a real upheaval:

NH
16 team HC
32 team Amlin - (20 teams from the 3 senior leagues 12 others)
Every November all 6N sides play at least 1 International against a 2nd tier European side (less games against the Tri Nations)
Add Georgia to the 6N asap
Every 4 years a European Cup of the top 12 Nations (Top tier sides would play 'A' teams)
A limit of 2 International players per team, coming from other nations - every team in the 3 senior leagues.

SH
Drop the number of existig clubs from 15 to 12
A limit of 2 International players per team, coming from other nations.
Add in a team from Tonga, Fiji, Samoa and Argentina
Every year the Tri Nations play at least 1 International against a 2nd tier side - a Pacific Island or Japan (less games against the top European nations)
Every 4 years a SH Cup including the Tri Nations and the above plus Japan (yes I know they are in the NH !)
(Tri Nations sides would play 'A' sides)

Worldwide
Restrict Residency to 5 years
Require a Residency qualification of 3 years for Grandparents

Off the cuff but that would make a real difference rather than a piece of tokenism that dilutes the integrity of International rugby

I like your ideas, I would make some alterations though.

I would incorparte 12 teams in the 6 nations but have a promotion/relegation for two teams ever year(yep i know people will jump on me like a fly on s... for that- but still

the above would only happen every 3 out of 4 years- euro cup on the other year.

In my mind residency/place of birth should be the only factor in reagrds to what team you play for- nothing else

Geoff
Have you ever wondered why none of samoas requests dont include any of your ideas, I'll tell you why because you dont have a clue about what your talking about.

Do you not think that things like bringing a Pacific Island team into the Super xv hasnt been fully explored before now? or would you be the first person to think of it?

They are initial ideas - how they would work would be in the detail.
Some may work some may not. They are some off the cuff thought I believe are worthy of discussion

The Islands would quite clearly need financial support from the Tier 1 nations to make such an idea viable.

Thank you for introducing rudeness to what should an interesting exchange of views. A 55 year old should conduct themselves like a 55 year old not a 15 year old

aucklandlaurie wrote: Geoff
Have you ever wondered why none of samoas requests dont include any of your ideas, I'll tell you why because you dont have a clue about what your talking about.

Do you not think that things like bringing a Pacific Island team into the Super xv hasnt been fully explored before now? or would you be the first person to think of it?

Ouch, that comes off a tad aggressive in tone mate.

Geoff, just fyi, Samoa were offered the chance to submit a bid for the 15th spot in Super Rugby (that ultimately went to the Melbourne Rebels), but they decided not to apply.

come now boys, lets play fair please.

No bother - in my experience cheap shots are, largely, in the domain of those with a closed mind

aucklandlaurie wrote: Profitius

However you dont seem to mind that Samoa has less voting rights and presence at the IRB than wales do you ? or would that be an example where differing rules is a good thing?

All teams should have equal voting rights. I want the game to grow as much as anyone. A few new top international teams would be great for rugby.

The problem with the PI teams is they're tiny countries and have no money. Although its not about money, it cannot be overlooked. Their neighbours in Super rugby and the tri/4 nations won't have them because of this too.

Kiwireddevil wrote: Geoff, just fyi, Samoa were offered the chance to submit a bid for the 15th spot in Super Rugby (that ultimately went to the Melbourne Rebels), but they decided not to apply.

Maybe the way it was put together didn't work for them.
A different model might succeed. I am sure they would need financial support and this would, initially, hurt the Tier 1 nations.

If we are truly to expand the game a lot of sacred cows are going to have to change/go.
However we must not throw the baby out with the bath water and destroy that which works both in terms of supporter interest and financial income. A very difficult balancing act.

I dont believe, that any Tier 1 nation, is prepared to go far enough to change things in the short term.
My proposal for example requires France to only have 2 players per team who are non French internationals - they are never going to agree to that.

profitius wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Profitius

However you dont seem to mind that Samoa has less voting rights and presence at the IRB than wales do you ? or would that be an example where differing rules is a good thing?

All teams should have equal voting rights. I want the game to grow as much as anyone. A few new top international teams would be great for rugby.

All countries - all 95 affliated nations.
Will never work

geoff998rugby wrote:

Kiwireddevil wrote: Geoff, just fyi, Samoa were offered the chance to submit a bid for the 15th spot in Super Rugby (that ultimately went to the Melbourne Rebels), but they decided not to apply.

Maybe the way it was put together didn't work for them.
A different model might succeed. I am sure they would need financial support and this would, initially, hurt the Tier 1 nations.

If we are truly to expand the game a lot of sacred cows are going to have to change/go.
However we must not throw the baby out with the bath water and destroy that which works both in terms of supporter interest and financial income. A very difficult balancing act.

I dont believe, that any Tier 1 nation, is prepared to go far enough to change things in the short term. My proposal for example requires France to only have 2 players per team who are non French internationals - they are never going to agree to that.

I fear you're right there. There's all too many examples in recent history of all the Tier 1 nations quite happily trying to look after #1.

geoff998rugby wrote:

profitius wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Profitius

However you dont seem to mind that Samoa has less voting rights and presence at the IRB than wales do you ? or would that be an example where differing rules is a good thing?

All teams should have equal voting rights. I want the game to grow as much as anyone. A few new top international teams would be great for rugby.

All countries - all 95 affliated nations.
Will never work

Yep, if all 95 countries have equal voting powers rugby may not be controlled by the top ten nations, eh?

Geoff

Excuse me, you were the one that introduced rudeness to the discussion, dismmissing Tuilaepa saileles remarks as invective and hyperbole, and coming across as diatribe.

This is someone who speaks English as a second language, not every one is educated in English as finely as you, but that doesnt give you the right to decide that their opinions dont count.

If you want to accuse me of rudeness then fine, but dont discount the chance that I can more than reply in a likewise manner.

As far as the six nations is concerned rather than relegate why not promote? Why not have a 7 nations with the 7th place being taken up by the winner of the 2nd tier European nations cup from the previous year? It would be a great incentive for the lower ranked teams and surely one extra match each against 'lesser' opposition isn't going to hurt too much.
Actually that's a stupid idea as the team 'promoted' wouldn't be able to take part in the qualifying competiton for the next year. Right back to the drawing board!!!