Alex92

Jul 18 2010, 11:06 AM

As of the 2013 World Cup it would be nice to see:
2014: Pacific Cup winners join 2015 Four Nations
2015: European Cup winners join 2016 Four Nations
2016: Atlantic Cup winners guaranteed place in 2017 World Cup.

My reasoning behind this is because every four years there is a World Cup and so a Four Nations is not viable in that slot of 2017, however the winners of the Atlantic Cup should have some reward of an equal international status.
And all three cups should be an annual event simply have the qualification rotate, you could have whichever cup sends qualifiers be the only one played each year, but we need to keep internationals healthy, so all three zonal cups annual, with major-stage international qualifications rotating between the three of them.

Alex92

Jul 18 2010, 01:37 PM

Your idea is well founded, however rugby league's international teams can be counted on two hands and a foot, where as the FIFA scale is obviously so much bigger, just not sure whether the well-thought-out soccer scheme would work on a smaller scale (my idea was also to simply work with existing schemes of European, Pacific, Atlantic Cups & 4 Nations, as opposed to starting again).

Alex92

Jul 18 2010, 11:06 AM

As of the 2013 World Cup it would be nice to see:
2014: Pacific Cup winners join 2015 Four Nations
2015: European Cup winners join 2016 Four Nations
2016: Atlantic Cup winners guaranteed place in 2017 World Cup.

My reasoning behind this is because every four years there is a World Cup and so a Four Nations is not viable in that slot of 2017, however the winners of the Atlantic Cup should have some reward of an equal international status.
And all three cups should be an annual event simply have the qualification rotate, you could have whichever cup sends qualifiers be the only one played each year, but we need to keep internationals healthy, so all three zonal cups annual, with major-stage international qualifications rotating between the three of them.

Alex92

Jul 18 2010, 11:06 AM

As of the 2013 World Cup it would be nice to see:
2014: Pacific Cup winners join 2015 Four Nations
2015: European Cup winners join 2016 Four Nations
2016: Atlantic Cup winners guaranteed place in 2017 World Cup.

My reasoning behind this is because every four years there is a World Cup and so a Four Nations is not viable in that slot of 2017, however the winners of the Atlantic Cup should have some reward of an equal international status.
And all three cups should be an annual event simply have the qualification rotate, you could have whichever cup sends qualifiers be the only one played each year, but we need to keep internationals healthy, so all three zonal cups annual, with major-stage international qualifications rotating between the three of them.

Rugby League Nut

Jul 19 2010, 11:14 AM

Alex92

Jul 18 2010, 11:06 AM

As of the 2013 World Cup it would be nice to see:
2014: Pacific Cup winners join 2015 Four Nations
2015: European Cup winners join 2016 Four Nations
2016: Atlantic Cup winners guaranteed place in 2017 World Cup.

My reasoning behind this is because every four years there is a World Cup and so a Four Nations is not viable in that slot of 2017, however the winners of the Atlantic Cup should have some reward of an equal international status.
And all three cups should be an annual event simply have the qualification rotate, you could have whichever cup sends qualifiers be the only one played each year, but we need to keep internationals healthy, so all three zonal cups annual, with major-stage international qualifications rotating between the three of them.

If I haven't said so already welcome to the RLP forums Alex92.

Richard Lewis released an 10 year international schedule a few years back which confirms to an extent on what you have posted.

I agree with you in regards to the Atlantic cup they must find a way to make it more important. Even if the winner of the cup enters the Pacific Cup in the year that a Pacific team has entered the Four Nations (like this year). That's why it's crazy the Pacific Comp has been shelved until next year.

druzik

Jul 19 2010, 11:45 AM

You don't want to over do things, like having the 4 Nations every year. What that does is effectively de-value the worth of a tournament, what you want is to have a tournaments once every four years.

So what you have is this:
2013: World Cup
2014: Qualification for Regional Championships
2015: Regional Cham;pionships, WC Qualifiers start
2016: RLIF Cup and Federation shield, WC qualifiers continue
2017: World Cup

Rugby League Nut

Jul 19 2010, 12:01 PM

druzik

Jul 19 2010, 11:45 AM

You don't want to over do things, like having the 4 Nations every year. What that does is effectively de-value the worth of a tournament, what you want is to have a tournaments once every four years.

So what you have is this:
2013: World Cup
2014: Qualification for Regional Championships
2015: Regional Cham;pionships, WC Qualifiers start
2016: RLIF Cup and Federation shield, WC qualifiers continue
2017: World Cup

The only thing I disagree with is your 4 nations statement.

If it wasn't for the tri / four nations we would still be in the international wilderness. Due to this 5 year cycle we will see the Four Nations more then we will after 2013.

Outside the World Cup the Four Nations is a great money spinner and advertisment for RL at the top level. I hope they expand it when the time is right for another nation to step up and compete against the big three and win.

From 2013 we will see the Four Nations (or an expanded version) played twice in every four year cycle which I think is the right balance.

What I do agree with is your qualification schedule. That's why the 2008 version was so succesful because most teams had been playing qualifiers since 2006. That's why the automatic inclusion of many teams was a bit of a shock but like everything the RLIF need to find a balance between costs and games.

By reducing the amount of teams playing qualifiers they reduce the over all cost of the World Cup and set it up to have every chance of making $$$ which is what the 2013 WC must do. But it could sacrifice the quality of games. Lets hope all the other nations have International games in 2010, 2011 and 2012 so they get the required practice in before 2013.

Quote:

 

Actually 4 Nations is not that great a money spinner, last years only broke even.

Quote:

 

You look at the current Pacific and Europena nations cup formats and they too are very restrictive to which nations can play. The Atlantic Cup does not even get a mention or rating in the 4 Nations... they should at least get some sort od chance to try and qualify no?

Quote:

 

The lustre of the tri/4 nations is starting to come off a bit. because we have it every year, and in the end its only New Zealand, England and Australia that will real any monetary benefits form it... not the international game as a whole.

Quote:

 

I know its all looks rosy that PNG are in there and next year the European champs will get in, but really look under the surface and there is not that much difference to the international scene to what we have had the last 10 years.

druzik

Jul 19 2010, 01:56 PM

No, I spoke about this with Tas over beers earlier this year, basically the tri and 4 nations have only ever broken even at best. Sponsors have been the biggest issue to come by as the sport is not seen to be giving enough exposure just in two countries.

The idea of the euro and pacific cup being the quals into the 4 nations was to start giving RL a much broader international flavour and to start exposing more nations to the top flight.

Italy and Serbia may have gotten pasting but they started to provide that international flavour and this year Alitalia were to come on board. Getting rid of Italy took away that sponsorship dollars. In the end sponsors are not looking at the results but where their products get exposed. For them its better to have their product seen in areas like the Balkans, Middle East and Italy and UK, not just the UK where they probably already have a saturated market... I bet the Euro Cup will struggle for sponsorship again this year... it will have the rugbyleague.com guys as the main sponsors and I know from people who worked with them how dodgy they are. Once again it wont make money.

When England got beat by 50 points in the WC by Australia and also last year had 40 points put on them...should we kick them out of the 4 nations? No other sport worries so much on scores and people perceptions as rugby league. Its such a weird mentality RL fans have. They want change but at the same time are terrified of it.

Where have you seen the Australia v England being advertised? Certainly not in Australia, I have seen nothing. I guarantee you that the majority of NRL fans are not aware that there is a 4 nations at the end of the year... all they care about is the NRL and Grand final now. Australia hasn't even confirmed if it will play its PNG XIII match this year yet! I have seen no hotel and game packages being advertised for this year anywhere, no sponsorship released yet, nothing. The English might have something up there, they seem to give more of a damn about the sport internationally.

By excluding nations just because they get beaten initially will never promote them to any higher level. Players only improve by being exposed to the better players and nations. Remember that in Cricket when Sri Lanka came in they were written off, but they were persisted with over a 20 year period and have become a successful nation.... the same needs to be done in Rugby league. Otherwise we will always be in a perpetual catch 22. We don't allow nations to play because they get beaten, so they don't get better by not having quality opposition, so they don't get to play better games because they'd get beaten, and so don't improve because etc.... see the pattern.

Certainly its in a better position to 2000, no denying that, though even there we went from 16 to 10 teams, and certainly the 2013 WC already has its critisisims and flaws that all the hardened internationalists are jumping up and down about. But we need to have other tournaments other than the WC to showcase the talents of many other nations. Its why you have regional tournaments that include all the top nations. A pacific cup with Australia, New Zealand and PNG playing... these can be run relatively cheap and profits maximised. Exmaple, you say that Fiji made the Semis, now di we see anything in australia to showcase this Fijian performance? We didnt see any Australia v Fiji rematch, we didnt even get the Pacific cup shown live, just highlights and on a bad time of day on TV too. Bemobile, vodafone and other companies whioch are the major sponsors in the pacific would have pumped more money knowing that Fiji and PNG were to play Australia and NZ in a major tournamenst and get exposure on the TV's there.

But all that happened in 2004 was that regular tours were replaced with a tournaments... a step forward in my oppinion, but it took other nations on their own back, not the RLIF to start to do things for themselves. The game has many nations playing now... but does that mean its healthier? Most Nations are struggling to stay a float, we have seen this year already the collapse of Belgium, Estonia are almost gone, and Latvia are on the rocks too. Portugal has dispaeared as well. Nothing has been hard from the Moroccans and the Russians have schisimed into 3 factions showing just how bad things were there when everyone was painting a rosy picture.

PNGRFL is split ion two, Samoa, Tonga, don't want to let the world know what the hell is going on in their back yards and pop up from time to time at the end of the year to play a game or two.

I have put my hand up for some many of these nations to help them, I even when out last year and helped Tas and the Samoans and Cook islanders prep for the Pac Cup qualifier, made contacts and all and after a month of talking, and trying to get info out of them what they want and need , they stop talking. As soon as you say can you send me domsetic season results they all clam up... so what is someone like myself who has spent so much of my spare time at great expense trying to help nations to do but despair.

Like I said it all looks rosy, but scratch under the surface its still run in a shoddy way as always. A whole sale change needs to come, and many see it must be done. I have been on the ground with many many nations, I have seen how they struggle, I have spoken with officials in these countries and the federations and they have seen what they need.

Rugby league never backs itself despite everyone saying its such a great product. For once we need to grow a spine and just persist with it.

Quote:

 

No, I spoke about this with Tas over beers earlier this year, basically the tri and 4 nations have only ever broken even at best. Sponsors have been the biggest issue to come by as the sport is not seen to be giving enough exposure just in two countries.

Quote:

 

The idea of the euro and pacific cup being the quals into the 4 nations was to start giving RL a much broader international flavour and to start exposing more nations to the top flight.

Quote:

 

Italy and Serbia may have gotten pasting but they started to provide that international flavour and this year Alitalia were to come on board. Getting rid of Italy took away that sponsorship dollars. In the end sponsors are not looking at the results but where their products get exposed. For them its better to have their product seen in areas like the Balkans, Middle East and Italy and UK, not just the UK where they probably already have a saturated market... I bet the Euro Cup will struggle for sponsorship again this year... it will have the rugbyleague.com guys as the main sponsors and I know from people who worked with them how dodgy they are. Once again it wont make money.

Quote:

 

When England got beat by 50 points in the WC by Australia and also last year had 40 points put on them...should we kick them out of the 4 nations? No other sport worries so much on scores and people perceptions as rugby league. Its such a weird mentality RL fans have. They want change but at the same time are terrified of it.

Quote:

 

Where have you seen the Australia v England being advertised? Certainly not in Australia, I have seen nothing. I guarantee you that the majority of NRL fans are not aware that there is a 4 nations at the end of the year... all they care about is the NRL and Grand final now. Australia hasn't even confirmed if it will play its PNG XIII match this year yet! I have seen no hotel and game packages being advertised for this year anywhere, no sponsorship released yet, nothing. The English might have something up there, they seem to give more of a damn about the sport internationally.

Quote:

 

By excluding nations just because they get beaten initially will never promote them to any higher level. Players only improve by being exposed to the better players and nations. Remember that in Cricket when Sri Lanka came in they were written off, but they were persisted with over a 20 year period and have become a successful nation.... the same needs to be done in Rugby league. Otherwise we will always be in a perpetual catch 22. We don't allow nations to play because they get beaten, so they don't get better by not having quality opposition, so they don't get to play better games because they'd get beaten, and so don't improve because etc.... see the pattern.

Quote:

 

Certainly its in a better position to 2000, no denying that, though even there we went from 16 to 10 teams, and certainly the 2013 WC already has its critisisims and flaws that all the hardened internationalists are jumping up and down about. But we need to have other tournaments other than the WC to showcase the talents of many other nations. Its why you have regional tournaments that include all the top nations. A pacific cup with Australia, New Zealand and PNG playing... these can be run relatively cheap and profits maximised. Exmaple, you say that Fiji made the Semis, now di we see anything in australia to showcase this Fijian performance? We didnt see any Australia v Fiji rematch, we didnt even get the Pacific cup shown live, just highlights and on a bad time of day on TV too. Bemobile, vodafone and other companies whioch are the major sponsors in the pacific would have pumped more money knowing that Fiji and PNG were to play Australia and NZ in a major tournamenst and get exposure on the TV's there.

Quote:

 

Like I said it all looks rosy, but scratch under the surface its still run in a shoddy way as always. A whole sale change needs to come, and many see it must be done. I have been on the ground with many many nations, I have seen how they struggle, I have spoken with officials in these countries and the federations and they have seen what they need.

Quote:

 

Rugby league never backs itself despite everyone saying its such a great product. For once we need to grow a spine and just persist with it.

Rugby League Nut

Jul 19 2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

 

No, I spoke about this with Tas over beers earlier this year, basically the tri and 4 nations have only ever broken even at best. Sponsors have been the biggest issue to come by as the sport is not seen to be giving enough exposure just in two countries.

This is news to me All media reports said they made some $$$.

Quote:

 

The idea of the euro and pacific cup being the quals into the 4 nations was to start giving RL a much broader international flavour and to start exposing more nations to the top flight.

Which I agree is the right thing to do at this stage.

Quote:

 

Italy and Serbia may have gotten pasting but they started to provide that international flavour and this year Alitalia were to come on board. Getting rid of Italy took away that sponsorship dollars. In the end sponsors are not looking at the results but where their products get exposed. For them its better to have their product seen in areas like the Balkans, Middle East and Italy and UK, not just the UK where they probably already have a saturated market... I bet the Euro Cup will struggle for sponsorship again this year... it will have the rugbyleague.com guys as the main sponsors and I know from people who worked with them how dodgy they are. Once again it wont make money.

I see what your saying but isn't France, Wales, England and Scotland a platform to build from? Any tournamnet lives or dies via TV ratings and sponsors (If it can get itself onto TV) That why the 2009 version might have had a good spread but now the tournament is damaged goods (Much like the 2000 WC) and it will take some smart marketing to get it to where it needs to be.

Everything you say makes sense if the international game had truckloads of money to play with........but it doesn't and we need to live within our means or we will be back to where we were in 2000.

Quote:

 

When England got beat by 50 points in the WC by Australia and also last year had 40 points put on them...should we kick them out of the 4 nations? No other sport worries so much on scores and people perceptions as rugby league. Its such a weird mentality RL fans have. They want change but at the same time are terrified of it.

No because we all know they had an off game and didn't have 50+ put on them every game they played in the WC. Druzik I think your missing the point it doesn't matter what you I or the RLIF think. It's the people who pay to see the games and the TV broadcasters that pay to televise the game and the Sponsors. None of them wan't to be involved in a tournament that brings bad publicity. That's just the way the world turns and it will not change any time soon until RL has more then 3 nations that can compete at the top level. That's why France and Wales are key to the international game moving forward.

Quote:

 

Where have you seen the Australia v England being advertised? Certainly not in Australia, I have seen nothing. I guarantee you that the majority of NRL fans are not aware that there is a 4 nations at the end of the year... all they care about is the NRL and Grand final now. Australia hasn't even confirmed if it will play its PNG XIII match this year yet! I have seen no hotel and game packages being advertised for this year anywhere, no sponsorship released yet, nothing. The English might have something up there, they seem to give more of a damn about the sport internationally.

Wrong mate! Foxsports has had adverts (Saw one at half time between Penrith and Parra game) Bigsports Breakfast and Sports Today have both had ads every day over the last two weeks pushing packages for the Melbourne game.

I am not in Brissy but wouldn't be surprised if the final has been getting a plug up there.

Quote:

 

By excluding nations just because they get beaten initially will never promote them to any higher level. Players only improve by being exposed to the better players and nations. Remember that in Cricket when Sri Lanka came in they were written off, but they were persisted with over a 20 year period and have become a successful nation.... the same needs to be done in Rugby league. Otherwise we will always be in a perpetual catch 22. We don't allow nations to play because they get beaten, so they don't get better by not having quality opposition, so they don't get to play better games because they'd get beaten, and so don't improve because etc.... see the pattern.

We have the structure now via the Pacific and European Cups. If nations are good enough they will get a crack and other might get a chance via WC's. I wish we could get 40,000 to and Australia V Russia game but we would be lucky to get 5,000 becuase people won't pay to see a flogging. I wish it wasn't true but it is.

Quote:

 

Certainly its in a better position to 2000, no denying that, though even there we went from 16 to 10 teams, and certainly the 2013 WC already has its critisisims and flaws that all the hardened internationalists are jumping up and down about. But we need to have other tournaments other than the WC to showcase the talents of many other nations. Its why you have regional tournaments that include all the top nations. A pacific cup with Australia, New Zealand and PNG playing... these can be run relatively cheap and profits maximised. Exmaple, you say that Fiji made the Semis, now di we see anything in australia to showcase this Fijian performance? We didnt see any Australia v Fiji rematch, we didnt even get the Pacific cup shown live, just highlights and on a bad time of day on TV too. Bemobile, vodafone and other companies whioch are the major sponsors in the pacific would have pumped more money knowing that Fiji and PNG were to play Australia and NZ in a major tournamenst and get exposure on the TV's there.

I new we would agree on something We had 15 teams in that World Cup (16th Team NZ Maori was part of the reason why the tournament copped a hiding and to me is not a legit team)

Yes I am not a fan of the 2013 qualifying process but i am a fan that it has been expanded to 14 nations (2 more then expected) and we need to look at the positives that tournamanet could provide long term. Who know it might make more money then the 2008 version which would see more money pumped back into the international game.

The video footage of the Pacific Cup was poor hence why we saw a highlights package. I agree that it should have been shown live into Australia. Their might be some hope yet with Samoa v Tonga later this year and possible internationals against Pacific nations in the leadup to the Four Nations.

Quote:

 

Like I said it all looks rosy, but scratch under the surface its still run in a shoddy way as always. A whole sale change needs to come, and many see it must be done. I have been on the ground with many many nations, I have seen how they struggle, I have spoken with officials in these countries and the federations and they have seen what they need.

They will continue to struggle unless the game can make more money. That is just the reality of RL in the World Stage. We need to build the profile of the game world wide. It's starting to happen but has a long way to go and any restructure of international matches will still require $$$ to fund which we just don't have.

Quote:

 

Rugby league never backs itself despite everyone saying its such a great product. For once we need to grow a spine and just persist with it.

Yes it has and has been bitten hard on many occasions. 2000 WC comes to mind. After the 1995 Tournamnet confidence was high and the RFL where keen to do it all again in an expanded format. They did exactly what your talking about and backed the product to the hilt. We all know where international league ended up after that.

Grow a spin yes but be reckless? No thanks give me the steady as she goes any day until the International game can stand on it's own two feet which at this stage it's struggling to do so!

Like always Dru I love how passonate you are about the international game. I just think sometimes we can all get carried away with what should be done instead of looking at what we can afford to do.

Quote:

 

If money was made it was small and not significant enough to do anything for the international game in general. Its not the $40 million or so that SoO manages to make each year.

Quote:

 

Well yes and no, last years Euro Cup was meant to be a platform to build from, but as always in RL we did a knee jerk reaction rather than persist with a good idea. Look at the Union 6N with Italy. When they came in they were the easy beats but over the years have built up their profile at home and in Europe and slowly are getting closer and closer to knocking off one of the top teams. Its what should have been done with the Euro cup.

Quote:

 

As it is we have France, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.... then nothing for how long. after next year a European Cup has not been called and when it is who will be in that... the same four teams? how do the Italians and Serbains and Lebanese etc... break into this elite four? How do they improve if they don't have any regular opportunities to play better teams... and finally when they do get a chance, get a couple big scores put on them and so get dropped again and we are back to square one? this has been the pattern for 100 years in rugby league.

Quote:

 

Look at the opportunity in Italy that we have missed out this year. Despite their fracturing they have been able to get TV coverage. No imagine if they were able to get the Euro cup games covered. italian games live and the other on delay. As I have said other sports manage to be able to sell themsleves no problem, i.e. Union, so why cant we with a better product.

Quote:

 

Like you say Rugby league needs to make money, but from all the tournaments. I know it doesn't have the truck loads of money, but we can't rely on the WC to fund the game solely once every 4 years. Out of the $5 million from the 2008 WC already over $2 million has been spent! Spent and not recovered in any capacity. So is this how we will run the sport, make some cash and then whittle it away and be brike again? What happens if the 2013 WC we get another situation like 2000 with train strikes and bad weather hampering crowds? Do we want to go back 10 years again... I certainly don't, that is why I push so hard for not having all the eggs in one basket.

Quote:

 

OK fox has it, cool... but there is nothing on FTA. The Footy shows are not pushing it at all in any way. There is nothing in the newspapers or anywhere. But I'll take your word its on Fox.

Quote:

 

How is it that soccer and Union are able to convince TV networks and media services to cover their games even when there are massive pasting in their sport? The Fiji tour of Australia where they lost 49-3, I did not see one article where they said it was a waste of time, instead they talked it up. If it was RL it would be vilified and shown as proof that IRL is a joke... which is rubbish.

Quote:

 

2013 should have been either 12-16 teams... 14 just makes us look silly and this just goes to show the silly power distribution we have in the game between the ARL and RFL... we have no independence which is the biggest problem we face.

Quote:

 

The way things are we will never make big money, We will be dependent on the WCs to make money then it gets whittles down on tournaments that make no money because they don't get the proper exposure to make money by not having the major nations playing, the money will go on the development of nations that in the end will not get a game against the major nation. for example Fiji and South Africa. Money from the WC has gone to these nations. $300,000 to Fiji and less so to South Africa. Now SA is only playing games against amateur and student sides, Fiji is getting runs at the moment against second string Samoan and PNG sides. They don't get the chance to improve. with $300,000 Fiji should have won the Pac Cup last year but didn't. The question has to be asked is this the best way of spending our limited resources. Shouldn't we be trying to create money by maximising the other tournaments.

Quote:

 

The 4 Nations should be a stepping stone but it seems that its not making lots of moeny and we really dont leave square one. The issue with the 2000 WC was that it did make money but the RFL used it to pay off its own debts and so the bottom line it was that it ran the loss... It was a criminal thing the RFL did IMHO. But in 1995 that is when we should have made the strike. IRL was on such a high, and we should have taken the initiative then, we had blown the RUWC out of the water, But that is histroy I guess.

Quote:

 

At the moment the way things are done, we will never make money outside of the WC and we wont grow outside of the 4 Nations. There is no clear path for any other nations to move up the ranks at the moment.

northamericanfootynews

Jul 20 2010, 10:09 PM

I believe this is a legit question, especially due to the fact the fully professional RLIF idea gets brought up all the time. But, I want to know where the money to pay these guys is coming from? Especially considering we supposedly aren't making much on current tournaments and it would take a bit of money to employ a full time professional board, leaving less money to actually go towards development.

northamericanfootynews

Jul 21 2010, 06:41 PM

Sort of like asking what came first the chicken or the egg?