34 replies to this topic

[keighley]

There are number of emerging nations who have played international fixtures recently but who did not qualify for next years World Cup.

I can think of Serbia, Russla, Ukraine, Lebanon, Canada,Jamaica, Germany, Holland, Malta and South Africa for sure. Do the Chech republic and Norway also have teams.?

Seeing as how we have all the various grounds allocated to the RLWC fixtures, I think it would be a good idea to hold an emerging nations tournament at the same time as the RLWC and have double headers to many of the games with an emerging nations tournament game as a curtain raiser to the main RLWC game. Even the RLWC final could be a double header with the emerging nations final as a curtain raiser. It would also raise the profile of these countries around the world if the TV commentators could weave the results and existence of the subsidiary tournament into their main competition coverage.

I suppose cost would be an issue but we did it before in prevous world cups. I think it would be a great
way to showcase the range and breadth of RL expansion to the whole world and the highlight of their sporting lives for many of the participants.

[Evil Homer]

It's a nice idea, but it's not going to happen. The resources would be better invested elsewhere.

[keighley]

I don't think there is a better place to use funds than in international developement. Look at the exposure and profits the RU make from their international game. we can do it too. The last RLWC made a profit. I think the 4 nations did also.

It's too late for next year but I think it should be considered for future tournaments. If the 2013 cup is a huge commercial success the funds might be available to fund a subsidiary competition. In many countries the Govt. s fund their national teams in serious international tournaments. There might be some funds there. National airlines might help with travel costs or companies with sponsorships. Who knows. I think it's an idea worth looking at.

How do the teams in RLWC 2013 get funded. Does the RLWC fund their travel and accomodation or do they pay their own way.?

The RUWC funds major developments in their emerging nations from the proceeds of their world cup. Surely we could fund travel and accomodation at least ?

[Evil Homer]

Would you rather money went into flying a bunch of amateur players and teams to England to play in a series of glorified exhibition matches, or that money be spent on paying for development officers, balls and equipment in the countries themselves?

Like I said, if international RL had unlimited funds then an emerging nations tournament would be fatastic. But money is tight as it is, and there are far more beneficial ways to spend it at the present time.

Edited by Evil Homer, 24 May 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[brooza]

Isn't something along these lines already happening? What's happening at Bristol?

[Methven Hornet]

There are number of emerging nations who have played international fixtures recently but who did not qualify for next years World Cup.

I can think of Serbia, Russla, Ukraine, Lebanon, Canada,Jamaica, Germany, Holland, Malta and South Africa for sure. Do the Chech republic and Norway also have teams.?

Seeing as how we have all the various grounds allocated to the RLWC fixtures, I think it would be a good idea to hold an emerging nations tournament at the same time as the RLWC and have double headers to many of the games with an emerging nations tournament game as a curtain raiser to the main RLWC game. Even the RLWC final could be a double header with the emerging nations final as a curtain raiser. It would also raise the profile of these countries around the world if the TV commentators could weave the results and existence of the subsidiary tournament into their main competition coverage.

I suppose cost would be an issue but we did it before in prevous world cups. I think it would be a great
way to showcase the range and breadth of RL expansion to the whole world and the highlight of their sporting lives for many of the participants.

The teams in bold have already taken part in the full world cup via the qualification process so can hardly be classified as 'emerging'. A couple, Russia and South Africa, certainly, would be better described as 'submerging'.

I could see the reason behind the ENWC bck in 1995 - there were only 10 teams thought capable of competing in the full tournament, and the supplementary competition showed the possibilities for international competition - but I think that time has passed. Nations with a credible domestic and international presence can enter the full competition and see how far they can get; surely a much better prospect.

[The Future is League]

I don't suppose it would be viable, but could you have a 4 team tournament played over 4 weekends in France involving Morocco, Serbia, Germay and Italy, and have the 2 top teams of the mini table play for a cup on the 4th weekend?
At least spreading out the Tournament over them weekends would keep costs down for the players and officals, as in most cases they wouldn't lose too much if any work time.
The problem would be is how to maintain the interest over them 4 weekends for the fans.

[keighley]

Methven,

Let's not call it an emerging nations tournament then. Let's call it a "Shield Competition" for early casualties and others. If these nations were stong entities with strong financial underpinnings and playing strength then they would have no further need of such a tournament. They didn't qualify, so better luck next time might be in order. This is where Wales and France are at, sufficiently advanced to stand on their own and progress accordingly ( Yes, I know they didn"t have to qualify).

The likes of Serbia and Lebanon and the others are still in their infancy whether they competed in the qualifiers or not. I think their inclusion in such a contest would be great for them and the international game as a whole.

As for South Africa. They went to the USA and competed in qualifiers there against the US and Jamaica. They are still alive and kicking. Russia have just played in a tournament against Germany and Serbia. Like Mark Twain said " Rumours of my death have been greatly exagerated".or something like that.

Canada, has only just started a viable league but they seem really gung ho, see their website. I think it would be great for them to participate and be part of the RL international family. Likewise the other teams mentioned. I don't think just leaving them all to soldier on with no recogntion is a good policy. I think a policy of inclusion such as being invited to the WC, even if by the back door, would work wonders for their publicity and player development and give great encouragement.

Anyhow, it was just a thought. We can just ignore them and hope they take root or we can give them the oxygen of inlusion abd publicity and, hopefully, some funding and see if the seeds grow into strongest trees as a result.

[Methven Hornet]

Methven,

Let's not call it an emerging nations tournament then. Let's call it a "Shield Competition" for early casualties and others. If these nations were stong entities with strong financial underpinnings and playing strength then they would have no further need of such a tournament. They didn't qualify, so better luck next time might be in order. This is where Wales and France are at, sufficiently advanced to stand on their own and progress accordingly ( Yes, I know they didn"t have to qualify).

The likes of Serbia and Lebanon and the others are still in their infancy whether they competed in the qualifiers or not. I think their inclusion in such a contest would be great for them and the international game as a whole.

As for South Africa. They went to the USA and competed in qualifiers there against the US and Jamaica. They are still alive and kicking. Russia have just played in a tournament against Germany and Serbia. Like Mark Twain said " Rumours of my death have been greatly exagerated".or something like that.

Canada, has only just started a viable league but they seem really gung ho, see their website. I think it would be great for them to participate and be part of the RL international family. Likewise the other teams mentioned. I don't think just leaving them all to soldier on with no recogntion is a good policy. I think a policy of inclusion such as being invited to the WC, even if by the back door, would work wonders for their publicity and player development and give great encouragement.

Anyhow, it was just a thought. We can just ignore them and hope they take root or we can give them the oxygen of inlusion abd publicity and, hopefully, some funding and see if the seeds grow into strongest trees as a result.

I don't know is the short answer. We certainly shouldn't ignore them but I don't think we do at present. Nations in Europe seem to have an appropriate programme of fixtures, USA and Jamaica likewise, although the minor Pacific nations could do with a more concrete set of fixtures.

The problem as I see it is who to include. I agree that Emerging Nations is an awful name, but who are we targetting here? Wales failed to qualify for 2008 but it would have been ridiculous to have included them in a supplementary tournament. They would probably have won it hands down and that would, in reality, have been a reward for failure. One problem is that we can't include everyone who has a League presence, there are now just too many nations involved (the world cup in 1995 plus ENWC totalled 17 teams - just about everyone who played the game).

Countries that are taking their first tentative steps into the League world, like the few African nations who are interested? Then you might be providing a big, all expense paid trip for union players.

I will say this, though, the supplementary tournament in 1995 was an excellent addition to the whole show. It provided games just at the point when the rate of games was slowing, ie the semi-final stage. I drove down from Perthshire on that weekend to watch Scotland v Cook Islands at Castleford in the ENWC group match on the Friday evening, the England v Wales semi at Old Trafford on Saturday, Australia v NZ at Huddersfield on Sunday, then, to cap it all, the ENWC Final at Bury on the Monday evening before returning north in a hurricane straight after.

Slightly OT, what I would like to see sometime is some sort of tournament between league competitions of a similar standing. Scotland and Ireland would be too strong for Serbia if they were ever to meet, but how would rep teams made up of domestic league players only go on (ie no professional players). Could the Serbian League be a match for the Scottish League, or could the Lebanese League stand up to the All-Ireland League? Might be worth seeing.

[Evil Homer]

Why do you think South Africa are 'submerging' Methven? They have just been accepted as full members of the RLEF, adopted a new constitution which unifies the governing bodies there and appear to be stronger than ever.

RE: an emerging or supplementary tournament, it's quite simple. We either spend the money on staging such a tournament, which would be nice for players and fans but with little benefit long-term, or we spend the money on developing the sport at grassroots level in the countries, resulting in potentially great benefits long-term. It's a no-brainer really.

The Future is League, are you talking about during the World Cup? Why do you expect Italy to play in two competitions at once? What you have suggested is just this year's European Shield, but with Morocco replacing Russia. I'm not really sure what you are thinking with this.

[Matt J]

I think that the RLIF should look at the IRB and how they do their international tournaments.

I know the IRB have more teams to work with, but they have a tier system like at club level.

http://en.wikipedia....p_(rugby_union)

[keighley]

Homer and Methven,
Thanks for you well considered and thoughtful comments. I don t really disagree with you guys at all.

On the question of financial support, I would ideally like to help out developing nations and British grass roots if possible. I thought Sport England money and possibly profits from the Cup final and Grand final were for domestic development and profits from the WC and 4 nations, as creatures of the RLIF were for international development. Am I wrong on this?

[keighley]

Looking at the link provided by Matt J to the RU lower level shows how extensive a network they have. To me it emphasises how we must nuture and assist our lower level international teams or we might lose them.The competition is formidable . Our one plus is the superiority of our game on the field to RU. The Olympic 7s thing is also a bif filip to RU.

[Evil Homer]

On the question of financial support, I would ideally like to help out developing nations and British grass roots if possible. I thought Sport England money and possibly profits from the Cup final and Grand final were for domestic development and profits from the WC and 4 nations, as creatures of the RLIF were for international development. Am I wrong on this?

That's what is supposed to happen yeah. The biggest obstacle at the moment is the complete and utter incompetence of the RLIF. I'm not sure where the money from the last WC has gone, but seemingly very little has made its way to actual developing nations such as those mentioned in this thread. The RLEF funds a couple of part-time development officers and other things such as coaching and refereeing seminars, but I believe this money comes from the RFL/FFR13 and obviously is very limited. The rest of the time, developing nations are pretty much left to fend for themselves. Even for things such as the European Shield, I believe teams are forced to pay their own way which is why I don't think the emerging nations tournament as mentioned in the OP would ever really be a goer as things stand. The disinterest and disorganization of the RLIF is an absolute embarrassing joke to be honest, and it's amazing that the game is able to progress so well at international level despite this.

[Jeffles]

Evil Homer,

In another thread I published the RLIF Annual Report for 2011. Here's a link below:

http://rlifmedia.dyn...Report 2011.pdf

When you question where RLWC money has gone, refer to page 38 of that document. It shows where A$1.9m has been spent over the past two years, including $155k to the RLEF itself and other grants to nations, despite revenue from Test match levies being substantially less. As the report says, the balance of this is retained profits from the RLWC. Elsewhere in the report shows they have another A$1.8m in the bank (p.32). Add to this money that would have been spent in 2009 from the 2008 RLWC and we get an idea of where the money has been spent. I'm not saying the RLIF are beyond criticism. They certainly are not. Their publicity is poor, they dragged the chain in trying to join international sport organisation bodies, etc. But they operate with significant financial constraints as highlighted in the report.

Back to the topic at hand, I think an Emerging Nations tournament is too much of a financial outlay. Money would be better spent helping these countries build their domestic competition and produce coaching/referee literature and resources in the native languages of these nations. Moreover, I think the RL community in the UK is too small to support an additional tournament next year. It will spread itself too thinly, as it would in Australia.

[deluded pom?]

Having read Steve Mascord's recent article over at rleague.com, he reckons the Aussies are selling their international game TV rights independently of the RLIF which is contrary to what I thought would be happening. All TV rights to international matches should only be sold by the RLIF and any profits generated used accordingly.

http://www.rleague.c...le.php?id=43746

Second article down.

[Jeffles]

This is a legitimate problem. Nigel Wood's piece in the RLIF annual report says they need more non-RLWC income. TV income is a start but the RLIF do not own Test match broadcasts as a property because it's members have not conferred it on them. So even though the ARL say the RLIF can do that, it actually depends on the ARL (and toehr mebers) letting the RLIF handle something, which they do not own. The obvious reason is that it would deprive the ARL/NRL, NZRL and RFL of leverage it has over the RLIF. With the RLIF being a separate legal body, incorporated in its own right, the challenge is to get a legally binding agreement with member states to deliver a stake in TV broadcasts, otherwise, they will rely on the whim of a governing body to fund them,

[bowes]

I don't suppose it would be viable, but could you have a 4 team tournament played over 4 weekends in France involving Morocco, Serbia, Germay and Italy, and have the 2 top teams of the mini table play for a cup on the 4th weekend?
At least spreading out the Tournament over them weekends would keep costs down for the players and officals, as in most cases they wouldn't lose too much if any work time.
The problem would be is how to maintain the interest over them 4 weekends for the fans.

Russia, Serbia, Italy and Germany are already playing a tournament home and away over 2 years (2012 and 2013) so would be unnecessary duplication IMO

[nadera78]

Ownership of the 4N needs to be transferred to the RLIF, and the competing nations given a substantial fee for taking part in it, along with prize money. The profits go to the RLIF to be spent on development, the same way the RLWC profits are. In the future this can be extended to European and Pacific Cups.

The problem with all of this is the vested interests the big 3 have in keeping everything for themselves. They do this through finance but also through nabbing every halfway decent player and not ensuring there are sufficient events taking place for every nation.

[keighley]

Jeffles
I agree withm your and others points on finance. However, on spreading the game too thinly if such a lower tier tournament came to pass, that is why I suggested in my OP that the games be played as double headers with the senior World Cup game as the other fixture. The grounds and crowds would already be in place for the main game and the lower tier game would be just added to that original fixture.

The RLIF needs to be an autonomous body with jurisidction over international rugby league and should received funding from the WC and 4 nations with the big three getting a cut of the profits as suggested. It would take a decision from the big three for the greater good for this to happen and I agree there is not the will to do that, especially from the Aussies. The RLIF should also be in charge of rules changes. The Aussies changing the game as they see fit without input from anybody else needs to stop. The rules should be unified worldwide and the RLIF should be the people to administer this after due input from all parties.