Right - unfortunately this yet again demonstrates how little you seem to appreciate how international rugby is vital.
For a start - you want to close down all tests outside a Rugby World Cup. Well what you don't seem to appreciate is that it is the international games which FUND domestic rugby in many countries. No All Blacks matches means no domestic rugby in NZ - really beneficial of the tier two players in the NPC which would have to be cancelled from the money made in All Blacks tests. Well done.
Never once did I say we would close down tests outside the Rugby World Cup, I said we need three tests windows a year and they need to be unified between the hemisphere's.
I'll repeat it
1. A test window for major tournament's i.e. Six Nations/Tri-Nation's/RWC etc...
2. A Spring test window; and
3. A Fall test window
When it's a RWC year Tri-Nations and Six Nations are cancelled
Canada never gets any exposure to tier 1 sides and even minimal exposure to tier two - as all their qualifying matches have to be played within a short window (the logistic of which are nearly impossible). I agree, I think Canada getting no exposure to any tier 1 teams as they have to qualify for the cup can only be beneficial to second tier rugby
.
Yet more fallacious argumentation from you and your Kiwi arrogance really shines through on this one. Canada doesn't get any tests for the same reasons the US doesn't get any tests... rugby is run like an Oligarchy in that the Tier-1 nations only want to play each other as it makes them more money then playing a Tier-2 nation hence why NZ wasn't willing to giveup a lucrative match against a Six Nations side to play a test against the USA within the international window. Again logistics aren't very hard, simply a matter of will power.
Why should RWC earnings go to the clubs? Guess what - without the money from the RWC countries like Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Namibia, Georgia etc don't get money put into the grass routes or into those players developments. If the clubs really felt so hard done by the Rugby World Cup, then they should make sure they don't sign players who are part of development schemes organized by the IRB. Or better yet, maybe they should be made to compensate the IRB for money they have already put into developing those players.
I'm sorry - but there is something wrong with you if you think any tier 2 rugby will benefit purely based on the charity of private clubs.
Again your taking my argument and spinning it. Ever heard of the idea of revenue sharing? Not all the money from a RWC should go to the clubs but they need to be considered as stakeholders along with the national unions. The RWC 2007 in France made 90 Million Euros in profit. Why didn't the clubs receive some of that money.
I agree with you that nations like Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Namibia need funding support from the IRB but if nations like Romania, Georgia, Canada, USA and Japan were given proper tests against Tier 1 oppositon regularly and at home, we would make enough money to run our national program in a self-sustaining manner. Our national programs are unsustaining because we are forced to travel to play all our games and we rarely get major international tests.
In defence of Canada, anytime we tour Europe we always play at least one game against a Tier 3 side. In recent years we have played Belgium, Portugal, Spain and Russia. How many Tier 2 have the All Blacks, England, France, Australia, South Africa played in a test window?