RWC19 "Stuff"
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
This was a one off incident which I am sure he regrets, my greater concern would be with his historic refereeing ability 
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
I hope it's me that's achieved the level of faux pomposity....a medal to be worn.
I assume it takes véritable pomposity to recognise such talent.
....I might get it printed on the back of my new away shirt... 
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
CMGC, makes perfect sense, however....
If we had ham we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
To Illustrate the point
In the 2 yrs leading up to WC year the 10 RC and 6N teams averaged between 10 and 13 Ints per year ( v top
In the same period the top tier 2 teams averaged against these same teams
Fiji 3
Tonga 1
Samoa 2
US 1
Japan 4
Canada 1
Georgia 1
Almost impossible to get any meaningfull experience or cash input with those figures.
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
You are right CMGC but the top-tier countries all have to either pay their contracted-players plus run the franchises that play them OR pay the players plus the private clubs who own them. For instance the RFU have to pay PRL squillions of pounds as part of the 8-year PRA for access to players etc;. If England didn't play the top nations they would be losing the high associated revenue from those matches, from TV and from England sponsors. Joe punter, Sky and O2 like matches v top tier countries not the emerging nations.
Sounds harsh but that is professional sport.
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
King Prawn Bhuna wrote:I hope it's me that's achieved the level of faux pomposity....a medal to be worn.
I assume it takes véritable pomposity to recognise such talent.
....I might get it printed on the back of my new away shirt...
Make sure you don’t get the letters done in the same colour as our jokey smiley emoji
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
GM - Agree with the gist of your reply but the change I would advocate is that the top 10 play more of their games against the next 5 in the rankings. E.G. Eng sell out Twickers if it is SA/ Argentina or Fiji. I fact I would rather watch Fiji than the others. If we play the 10 - 15 ranked teams more and they improve they will become bigger draws. However the loss in revenue from playing say Samoa rather than Oz I suspect is minimal. It is a shame that the WR plan for a more even mix of fixtures over the top 15 teams is not embraced by those who want the closed shop for the top 10. I also realise that the home team keeps just about all of the game take. This is partly why Eng/ NZ isn't played as NZ want a share fo the cash. Fine but this model HAS to evolve to a standard % share to allow the nations who play most games away to benefit more. Perhaps a 50/50 split on the TV money ?
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
I'd like to see something along the lines of CMGC's suggestion but I'm afraid I think its unlikely that the decision makers will agree to it.
In terms of finances England would like to play NZ, SA and Aus (and Arg if they are allowed 4 games) every year in the Autumn Internationals. Perhaps they can still sell out Twickenham for matches against the second tier but Sky won't pay as much for them and the media won't get so excited. Of course, that could change in the long run as the second tier improve.
In the short run it might be more realistic for the Saxons to regularly play second tier nations (I think someone already suggested this). If we get to the point where the second tier can beat the Saxons then it would be harder to deny them full internationals.
Re: RWC19 "Stuff"
I'm sure I read somewhere that when Fiji played the autumn internationals their squad was on something like 50 US dollars/day. There's an awful big gap from there to the 200K CMGC's suggesting would keep Fijian's at home, where the level of domestic competition is also somewhere behind the club/franchise level in UK/France/Aus etc....
Unless the Tier 1 nations are willing to give up more of their match day revenues, which is how the system works at the moment I think, I don't see a break to this impasse.
World Rugby dole out quite a lot of cash/support to Tier 2 countries, but I doubt it matches the incomes of the big unions.