SA Rugby, NZ to push for global season

[TRF_heineken]

That's not true, our large domestic tournaments - the ITM Cup, The Currie Cup and the NRC are played during the international season. The ITM Cup have pulled all internationals out of those teams and the Currie Cup did the same for the first time last year (it was running alongside the World Cup). We have just arranged that Super Rugby, the closest thing we have to a European Champions Cup in the SH, happens when there are no international matches. From what i can see from the fixtures For the ECC are also not over international periods. Its the exact same thing in the North and South.

And to add to that, All Springbok contracted players are not allowed to play more than 5 consecutive matches during the Super Rugby, to prevent burn-out by the time the international window is open.

 

[smartcooky]

How? If NZ boycott those test matches, what will they do instead

For New Zealand and Australia, a fourth Bledisloe Cup match every year for 12 years will make a lot more than a Lions Tour, easily.

When we were running a 4th Bledisloe match in Hong Kong or Tokyo, the NZRU and ARU split $5 million between them for each match. Multiply that by 12, and that's a cool $60 million. The last Lions tour netted Aussie less than $20 million

Thats not a NH problem though. You're essentially saying the NH should move seasons to suit the SH.

Where did I say that?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the SH should compromise a bit so the NH season could be tidied up a bit. Like for instance, have the summer tours straight after or just before the 6 nations. That would leave the rest of the season for club rugby and once a club don't make the playoffs it would allow NH players over a months extra rest. As it is, they might not make the league playoffs but still have to wait around for the tour down under.

We've already compromised, now its time for the NH to some to the table and negotiate in good faith

Take a look at the four semi-finalists of the last RWC - all the Rugby Championship teams (and that must really have chapped some arses up your way). If you want the 6N to continue to be the Division Two of International Rugby, then carry on burying your head in the sand and pretending there's nothing wrong.

 

[stus768]

For New Zealand and Australia, a fourth Bledisloe Cup match every year for 12 years will make a lot more than a Lions Tour, easily.

When we were running a 4th Bledisloe match in Hong Kong or Tokyo, the NZRU and ARU split $5 million between them for each match. Multiply that by 12, and that's a cool $60 million. The last Lions tour netted Aussie less than $20 million



Where did I say that?



We've already compromised, now its time for the NH to some to the table and negotiate in good faith

Take a look at the four semi-finalists of the last RWC - all the Rugby Championship teams (and that must really have chapped some arses up your way). If you want the 6N to continue to be the Division Two of International Rugby, then carry on burying your head in the sand and pretending there's nothing wrong.

$30m over 12 years compared to $20m for a one off isn't that great an exchange. Plus you have the tourism that the lions creates and it's all home games. Also play too many NZ Aus games and people get bored of the same thing. I think you're massively underestimating the value of the Lions.

 

[Tony Manx]

$30m over 12 years compared to $20m for a one off isn't that great an exchange. Plus you have the tourism that the lions creates and it's all home games. Also play too many NZ Aus games and people get bored of the same thing. I think you're massively underestimating the value of the Lions.

And overestimate the importance of international rugby!

 

[Peat]

Take a look at the four semi-finalists of the last RWC - all the Rugby Championship teams (and that must really have chapped some arses up your way). If you want the 6N to continue to be the Division Two of International Rugby, then carry on burying your head in the sand and pretending there's nothing wrong.

This.

I'm all for the NH to negotiating very hard to get what we want out of this, but what we should want is to advance our game, not continue in the same wondrous rut for ever.

 

[profitius]

For New Zealand and Australia, a fourth Bledisloe Cup match every year for 12 years will make a lot more than a Lions Tour, easily.

When we were running a 4th Bledisloe match in Hong Kong or Tokyo, the NZRU and ARU split $5 million between them for each match. Multiply that by 12, and that's a cool $60 million. The last Lions tour netted Aussie less than $20 million

The Lion tour netted them around $35m not to mention the boost it gave the sport there. Playing 4 matches a season against the same team will only turn off the fans. Theres no way that can be sustained long term.

We've already compromised, now its time for the NH to some to the table and negotiate in good faith

Take a look at the four semi-finalists of the last RWC - all the Rugby Championship teams (and that must really have chapped some arses up your way). If you want the 6N to continue to be the Division Two of International Rugby, then carry on burying your head in the sand and pretending there's nothing wrong.

Everyone acknowledges that the 6 nations is low quality and the rugby is lower quality than super rugby. The structure of the season is part of the problem. Its hard to make a team cohesive when theres a gap of months between games.


I appreciate that NZ are getting squeezed by the European teams financially. There has to be another way around it. Most unions are being squeezed financially because of wages inflation caused by the English and French clubs. Its those clubs that should be targeted. Unions spend money developing players and the clubs just snatch them without any cost.

 

[stus768]

The big issue is the 6 nations CEO. Who has stated that he thinks it's ridiculous to suggest changing the six nations in any form.

Unless it's adding more Friday games.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I appreciate that NZ are getting squeezed by the European teams financially. There has to be another way around it. Most unions are being squeezed financially because of wages inflation caused by the English and French clubs. Its those clubs that should be targeted. Unions spend money developing players and the clubs just snatch them without any cost.

It's inevitable that Top 14 and Premiership clubs will gobble up top international players from around the globe such is their financial superiority. The Pro 12 bent over for them and granted their wishes in the EPCR and monumentally shifted the financial balance in their favour. It'll take some radical concessions all around to ensure international rugby isn't compromised. It's about clubs and Unions coalescing and sharing power to grow both levels of the game.

1. European League can draw huge money, help player welfare and grow the game on that continent.
2. Global season aligning Europe and Super Rugby so that each competition is an almost exact replica played at the same time.
3. World Club champion to be declared at the end of every season or as a curtain raiser to a new season a la the Community Shield or the Rugby League equivalent.
4. England and NZ go in line with SA and Oz and end their outright ban (though can keep a limited ban) on selecting foreign based players since a player based in NZ plays the same number of club games as a player based in France for example.

European Unions compromise by shifting to a summer season but they gain in terms of player welfare and a share in a Euroleague. European clubs compromise by shifting to a European league but gain through a money spinning World Club Cup and accessing current internationals from all Unions boosting the value of their competitions. Sanzarg compromise by relaxing their foreign player rule but gain by ensuring competitive teams travel for the June test window.

 

[AlynDavies]

This debate happens every year since professionalism. The last time it happened clubs in Wales and England were asked about a possible move to summer rugby, and as almost ALL clubs grounds are council owned they were not allowed to play rugby on their pitches during the summer. Many also share with cricket grounds so different sports clubs use the facilities at different times of year. To give you an example Kenfig Hill RFC asked permission from the council to play a pre-season friendly in the last week of August and were told no by the council as the league season starts in September. It was a no go, the other major part of the debate is it was thought that players numbers would drop off to a large degree if we moved to summer rugby.
Australia are unwilling to alter their season as they would be head to head with cricket and rugby league meaning Union would pretty much die off.

I don't think much would really happen if South Africa and New Zealand pulled out of touring to the UK. In reality simply increasing the Six nations to a 10 game home and away format would easily cover any lost money from losing those games.

New Zealands other suggestion about sharing gate receipts is another no go. I don't understand why they didn't get the message last time. The 6 nations voted no! Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Italy fund professional rugby from their income from international games, Argentina probably do as well. Under New Zealand's plan, New Zealand would get a bit more money, but there would be no professional rugby in 4 of the 6 nations as a result. Considering New Zealand already have enough money for 5 professional super rugby teams and a semi pro ITM cup competition, against Scotland and Italy trying to remain competitive with only 2 professional teams, while Wales and Ireland have four. Bluntly put, the 6 Nations made bigger and better stadiums for their national rugby teams, where as New Zealand have small stadiums and insist on moving games all over their country.

Nothing New Zealand can do can make up for the financial advantage that the French and English clubs have, just accept reality and understand that marginal international players will move on for the money, while making sure you keep players who have the caliber of Richie Mcnaw and Dan Carter. If New Zealand NEED more money then surely the answer is to tour in November and play midweek games, taking a bigger squad, an alternate idea is to merge the 6 and 4 nations into one league and play the games at an agreed point in a season.

 

[ratsapprentice]

This.

I'm all for the NH to negotiating very hard to get what we want out of this, but what we should want is to advance our game, not continue in the same wondrous rut for ever.

This.

 

[nickdnz]

It's inevitable that Top 14 and Premiership clubs will gobble up top international players from around the globe such is their financial superiority. The Pro 12 bent over for them and granted their wishes in the EPCR and monumentally shifted the financial balance in their favour. It'll take some radical concessions all around to ensure international rugby isn't compromised. It's about clubs and Unions coalescing and sharing power to grow both levels of the game.

1. European League can draw huge money, help player welfare and grow the game on that continent.
2. Global season aligning Europe and Super Rugby so that each competition is an almost exact replica played at the same time.
3. World Club champion to be declared at the end of every season or as a curtain raiser to a new season a la the Community Shield or the Rugby League equivalent.
4. England and NZ go in line with SA and Oz and end their outright ban (though can keep a limited ban) on selecting foreign based players since a player based in NZ plays the same number of club games as a player based in France for example.

European Unions compromise by shifting to a summer season but they gain in terms of player welfare and a share in a Euroleague. European clubs compromise by shifting to a European league but gain through a money spinning World Club Cup and accessing current internationals from all Unions boosting the value of their competitions. Sanzarg compromise by relaxing their foreign player rule but gain by ensuring competitive teams travel for the June test window.

Hold on; why would NZ compromise their foreign player rule again? That has nothing to do with the issue. The rule is set to offer an incentive to retain top players in domestic rugby. The need to do so does not diminish because of a global season.

I don't think much would really happen if South Africa and New Zealand pulled out of touring to the UK. In reality simply increasing the Six nations to a 10 game home and away format would easily cover any lost money from losing those games.
Nothing New Zealand can do can make up for the financial advantage that the French and English clubs have, just accept reality and understand that marginal international players will move on for the money, while making sure you keep players who have the caliber of Richie Mcnaw and Dan Carter. If New Zealand NEED more money then surely the answer is to tour in November and play midweek games, taking a bigger squad, an alternate idea is to merge the 6 and 4 nations into one league and play the games at an agreed point in a season.

Utter gibberish.

Increasing the 6 Nations to home and away games, would result in making more concessions to their own rugby calendar and the international windows. So in essence what you are advocating is changing something which is fundamentally broken, in the most incompetent and petulant way possible.

Both NZ and South Africa are trying to make changes to something which is broken. In the last June series (2014); Super Rugby had to be interrupted in order to play against a weakened opposition. Who unsurprisingly lost because the current format throws their slim chance of being competitive out the door.

What is stunning to me is that two unions propose changes which could improve the same as a product, and it's met instantly by some people with "we don't have to change anything, you can't make us, it's your problem". It's like we all must always eat a turd sandwich instead of ham and cheese, because you might have to share the crust..

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Hold on; why would NZ compromise their foreign player rule again? That has nothing to do with the issue. The rule is set to offer an incentive to retain top players in domestic rugby. The need to do so does not diminish because of a global season.

I've highlighted the key word for you!

The power of French and English clubs is increasing. For them to agree to a global season, they'd have to get something in return. Access to current internationals from all nations is a carrot for them.

Australia's foreign based player rule is a good example to follow. A limited number of established long time internationals are rewarded with fat contracts by moneyed up European clubs without jeopardizing their international careers. Up and comers who want to wear the Qantas Wallabies or AIG Blacks jerseys still have to ply their trade at home.

 

[nickdnz]

I've highlighted the key word for you!

The power of French and English clubs is increasing. For them to agree to a global season, they'd have to get something in return. Access to current internationals from all nations is a carrot for them.

Australia's foreign based player rule is a good example to follow. A limited number of established long time internationals are rewarded with fat contracts by moneyed up European clubs without jeopardizing their international careers. Up and comers who want to wear the Qantas Wallabies or AIG Blacks jerseys still have to ply their trade at home.

Not going to happen. It is a compromise which harms New Zealand's already limited ability to retain players and could destroy the domestic game. Players currently already have options for overseas sabbaticals. Clubs like Ulster can already offer enough to lure one of the brightest 23 year old prospects from the ABs, to make it easier and cheaper would be suicide.

These issues aren't linked - and there is no way an international calendar is worth compromising NZs only way to remain competitive when trying to retain players.

 

[smartcooky]

4. England and NZ go in line with SA and Oz and end their outright ban (though can keep a limited ban) on selecting foreign based players since a player based in NZ plays the same number of club games as a player based in France for example.

I agree with most of the rest of your post but not this

If a Super Rugby player plays every game in the regular season and his team makes the final and he players every play-off game, the maximum number of Super Rugby matches he could play would be 20 matches. Add to that if the player is not an All Black he is likely to play ITM Cup, a maximum of 11 matches under the same "all matches" scenario circumstance. Total 31.

However, the reality is that no player plays all matches, most NZ players play no more than 25 SR + ITM matches in a season, and then, the season ends in the last week of October, so the non-All Black SR+ITM Cup players get three months off, and the ITM-only players get seven months off.

All Blacks do not play ITM Cup at all unless there are special circumstances and then only at the behest of the All Black management. e.g. managing a player's return from injury in getting him game time/match fitness. The All Black coaching staff also manage their players' playing time in Super Rugby. The result of that is the even All Blacks generally play no more than 26 matches in a season (including tests) Brad Thorn holds the record for most playing time in a calendar year; 2107 minutes. This is the equivalent of 26.3 matches; he started in 27 of them and came on as a sub/replacement in 3, total 30 matches). Compare that with the Welsh player (can't remember his name) who played 45 matches, or Freddy Michalak who played 50 matches (admittedly his own choice when he played a season with the Natal Sharks)

Also, so long as selecting players from overseas clubs involves the Club owning the contract and the NZRU negotiating with the clubs for releases, this is never going to happen. The NZRU will never put itself in a position of having to be beholden to arseholes like Mourad Boudjellal, Max Guazzini and Nigel Wray.

 

[Lancashire Nick]

The domestic season in the UK is a mess .................... Players switch from club games in a domestic league, to international games, to club games in a European competition, and back again ................. Important club games take place with half the first choice players unavailable due to international commitments .................... And nobody knows on what day, any of these matches are likely to take place.

A switch to summer rugby would give an opportunity to reschedule everthing (perhaps similar to the Southern Hemisphere) ................. Pre season training in February, a domestic club competition from March to July, overlapping with a European competiton from May to mid-August. Perhaps the 6 Nations can be the last weekend in August plus September, leaving October and November for World Cups and International tours ................... December and January is time for a break.

In addition, it is possible that attendances will be increased at those times when soccer isn't being played; and the warm weather might encourage a more open/handling style of rugby.

One down side, Rugby League in the UK has switched to summer, to match the Australian season; and it appears to have ruined the International game, with players going on tour at the end of a long season, when their bodies are wrecked.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

http://www.the42.ie/mourad-boudjellal-european-super-league-2671582-Mar2016/

^
The above would bring the European club scene in line with Super Rugby in terms of game played and make a global calendar easier to implement.

 

[Lancashire Nick]

http://www.the42.ie/mourad-boudjellal-european-super-league-2671582-Mar2016/

^
The above would bring the European club scene in line with Super Rugby in terms of game played and make a global calendar easier to implement.

When the top 4 teams in each country disappeared to play in the European Super League, I'd worry about the teams left behind, even if there was promotion and relegation, the domestic competitions would be very much lower tier, and played before 3 men and a dog.

 

[Timbo]

Restructuring the N.Hemisphere will be insanely difficult. When you actually sit down and add up all the games that need playing, periods of rest, pre-season etc, there just simply aren't enough free weekends to make it work. We need to reduce the amount of rugby being played, but I can't see how that happens given the vested interests involved. The clubs, TV and the Unions have become accustomed to the level of income the sheer number of games has brought them.

Just focussing on the English structure: we need a minimum 24 free weekends to fit in The Premeirship, a further 9 weekends for European rugby, 7 for six nations, 3/4 for Autumn internationals and 3/4 for summer tours. Throw in a 4/5 week preseason and a 4/5 week rest period...of course, some of these can overlap but then that brings in to question the legitimacy and primacy of the competition i.e Premiership weekends falling on Six nations weekends with a lot of teams missing their best players.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

When the top 4 teams in each country disappeared to play in the European Super League, I'd worry about the teams left behind, even if there was promotion and relegation, the domestic competitions would be very much lower tier, and played before 3 men and a dog.

I agree. What's left of the Premiership, Top 14 and Pro 12 will be of no interest under Mourad Boudjellal's plan. What would need to happen to salvage those leagues would be for them to join together as a 2nd division with promotion/relegation to/from the top tier. I'm not sure it'd fly.

That said, Boudjellal's plan has a lot of merit to it. We need to stop following the destructive soccer season lay out and follow one that's more suitable for the demands of rugby.

 

[gaston le gaff]

The idea is not all that bad,not sure about the world club one though, the big problem would be finance air travel most weekends, large hotel bills etc etc.( how many clubs from the pro 12 could afford that sort of expense throughout a season) i watched the interview live and what he said about the domestic leagues that are left it would give the chance for many more younger players to get involved in the 3 domestic divisions, i personally like the idea but to get everyone to agree would be ni on impossible.