WC 10 Teams, structure going bad

[Mathius Hellwege]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Ah cool. Couldn't remember. Wasn't a fan of them either to be honest, but at least they weren't as soul crushingly futile as 7th place and 9th place play off games. I mean, who goes to a World Cup and says... "what I'm really wanting to know is, who comes 9th?"       

You could work with 7 AQ to the next WC, then the game would be big

[17 stone giant]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Northern Ireland, of course, is not in Great Britain.

Yes, I'm well aware that it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but for the Olympics the popular name is Team GB and they use GBR and the commentators tend to just say Great Britain. But, yes, it's officially Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

None of the above changes the point I was making though.

[17 stone giant]

3 hours ago, crashmon said:

Lets look at team sports

1) Football :- England
2) Cricket :- England
3) Union :- England
4) Field Hockey :- England
5) Ice Hockey :- GB
6) Basketball :- GB

7) Netball :- England
8 ) Volleyball :- England (I think)

So its pretty much England apart from the US related sports

But I'm not concerned with what other sports do. They have their reasons, based on history, the need to compete as GB for Olympics entry, etc.

It's my opinion that a GB team works better for rugby league. If Scotland and Wales had made progress in the past 30 or so years (1995 was the last time I can recall Wales being good), I'd probably think differently.

But I haven't seen much progress, and I don't expect to see any in the next 30 years either.

[Sports Prophet]

I sympathise with the need for RLWCs to cut costs and maximise turnover. I am in favour of the WC showcasing the best playing the best and not the best playing the rest which would achieve the profitability needs above.

The 10 team 4x3x3 format however is antiquated and rubbish.

A Super Six WC would suit me just fine. Where the previous WC finalists pre qualify, the remaining nations must all go through a meaningful qualification process over the non WC years. I can immediately think of a couple of qualification formats which would be well suited to balancing quality, quantity and profit.

 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

Having thought about it we should just do what we did in 2013 

That was such a great tournament in every way 

[Mathius Hellwege]

15 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Having thought about it we should just do what we did in 2013 

That was such a great tournament in every way 

Could be an idea for 2034 as the decisions are made otherwise until then

[crashmon]

10 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

But I'm not concerned with what other sports do. They have their reasons, based on history, the need to compete as GB for Olympics entry, etc.

It's my opinion that a GB team works better for rugby league. If Scotland and Wales had made progress in the past 30 or so years (1995 was the last time I can recall Wales being good), I'd probably think differently.

But I haven't seen much progress, and I don't expect to see any in the next 30 years either.

I follow Union as well as League.  I've been on a Lions tour and it was probably the best sporting occasion I have attended (Ryder cup comes a close 2nd).  But I would never want to see a RU world cup featuring the Lions, I'd always want to see England in that.

For me the Brand is England not GB. GB just dilutes the sport in my opinion.  I'm not in favour of heritage teams either. I don't mind having a GB as well if the sport could support it, but right now International RL is on its knees. We need to stick with England and make it work.   Can always look at having GB starting again once International RL is strong (which will also take your 30 years probably)

[Damien]

17 minutes ago, Mathius Hellwege said:

Could be an idea for 2034 as the decisions are made otherwise until then

This is Rugby League. We had the decision made for a 16 team World Cup which was worked towards for years. That was torn up overnight. These things can and do change, usually on the whim of the latest NRL administration. 

[Gomersall]

21 hours ago, Damien said:

Lets not forget the format in 2008 was poorly received and we had 10 teams to simply get the World Cup started again. That was quickly increased to 14 teams, as the flaws were obvious and the administrators sought growth, which we then had two pretty successful and profitable World Cups with in 2013 and 2017.

 

I still haven’t seen published figures for the 2017 tournament. To my knowledge the Aussies promised a guaranteed profit that they skilfully failed to achieve. 

[Damien]

Just now, Gomersall said:

I still haven’t seen published figures for the 2017 tournament. To my knowledge the Aussies promised a guaranteed profit that they skilfully failed to achieve. 

Yes you are quite correct. I think it was still profitable, just as you say the Aussies reneged on the promised profit amount so it was less profitable than it should have been.

[Gomersall]

10 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yes you are quite correct. I think it was still profitable, just as you say the Aussies reneged on the promised profit amount so it was less profitable than it should have been.

That’s what apathy does for you.

[doc]

Letting the previous quarter finalists qualify for the next comp is such a dumb idea. Still think semi finalists would be better. Then there could be a proper qualifying tournament.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, doc said:

Letting the previous quarter finalists qualify for the next comp is such a dumb idea. Still think semi finalists would be better. Then there could be a proper qualifying tournament.

I think it was fine for a 16 world cup, which we had when that decision was made. Once we dropped to 10 though that qualification process should have changed.

[gingerjon]

26 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think it was fine for a 16 world cup, which we had when that decision was made. Once we dropped to 10 though that qualification process should have changed.

That would have meant more internationals and that is very much not what anyone involved in the game wants.

[Rovers13]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

That would have meant more internationals and that is very much not what anyone involved in the game wants.

On this subject jon, why do you believe that’s the case? (I agree btw). Is it because more national fixtures bring in more revenue or is it just a reluctance to stage internationals. 

[Mathius Hellwege]

11 hours ago, crashmon said:

I follow Union as well as League.  I've been on a Lions tour and it was probably the best sporting occasion I have attended (Ryder cup comes a close 2nd).  But I would never want to see a RU world cup featuring the Lions, I'd always want to see England in that.

For me the Brand is England not GB. GB just dilutes the sport in my opinion.  I'm not in favour of heritage teams either. I don't mind having a GB as well if the sport could support it, but right now International RL is on its knees. We need to stick with England and make it work.   Can always look at having GB starting again once International RL is strong (which will also take your 30 years probably)

Isn't it exactly the other way when we are weak?

Wales, Scotland, Ireland are out for WC (or could steal the French place and at least France has a domestic scene) while England needs every star to qualify at least for the semi finals

when international rugby league is strong enough for a 16-team World Cup and England is alone strong enough to compete without fear we vocab have the luxury to loose good players to Wales, Ireland, Scotland so that they can make a run

[Mathius Hellwege]

11 hours ago, Damien said:

This is Rugby League. We had the decision made for a 16 team World Cup which was worked towards for years. That was torn up overnight. These things can and do change, usually on the whim of the latest NRL administration. 

NRL always goes for smaller competitions (or none at all)

I am en expansionist at heart but the two times we used our host status to stage 16-teams WC we failed one time miserably, ridiculously (2000) and one time very badly due to a mixture of Covid/inflation and big mistakes like betting on the M62corridor.

Bigger WC only can arrive in the NH, hopefully under a good administration/management

[Anita Bath]

On 10/10/2023 at 17:46, crashmon said:

Austraila B?

I was thinking the Jillaroos.

[dealwithit]

The letter from Grant and the IRL is strong. While I don’t like 10 teams in 3 pools, we’ll all be happy if the strategy means more resources for developing nations.
Rather than WCs, I see Olympics as the primary way to obtain gov funding.  We seem to have distanced ourselves from this prospect. 
 

The union WC demonstrates the possibilities when a sport is ingrained in institutions — something RL lacks. In portugal, there’s tens of thousands of players with the universities providing a pathway to elite and professional rugby. In Australia, we can’t even get RL played in private schools. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by dealwithit

[Gomersall]

24 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

While I don’t like 10 teams in 3 pools, we’ll all be happy if the strategy means more resources for developing nations.

Is that likely though? Australia, especially, are notorious for not returning the kind of profits from WCs that the game needs or even they themselves promise.

[Dave T]

49 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

The letter from Grant and the IRL is strong. While I don’t like 10 teams in 3 pools, we’ll all be happy if the strategy means more resources for developing nations.
Rather than WCs, I see Olympics as the primary way to obtain gov funding.  We seem to have distanced ourselves from this prospect. 
 

The union WC demonstrates the possibilities when a sport is ingrained in institutions — something RL lacks. In portugal, there’s tens of thousands of players with the universities providing a pathway to elite and professional rugby. In Australia, we can’t even get RL played in private schools. 

It's very unlikely that a tournament this size will return more money. 

Gate receipts are a big income driver, along with the associated ancillary sales it drives, and that higher engagement and wider presence leads to higher sponsorship income. Sure costs have to be balanced out, but we do know that the last few World Cups have made money for the IRL's development. 

We know that an 18 game tournament is likely to deliver less than 300k, whereas a full scale tournament delivers over c400k, or even more. 

Plus we shouldn't forget the exposure, sponsorship and funding that individual nations get from actually playing in the WC. We can pretty much guarantee that while these 10 teams play in the WC, Greece and Jamaica will be sat twiddling their thumbs. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by Dave T

[Damien]

30 minutes ago, dealwithit said:

The letter from Grant and the IRL is strong. While I don’t like 10 teams in 3 pools, we’ll all be happy if the strategy means more resources for developing nations.
Rather than WCs, I see Olympics as the primary way to obtain gov funding.  We seem to have distanced ourselves from this prospect. 
 

The union WC demonstrates the possibilities when a sport is ingrained in institutions — something RL lacks. In portugal, there’s tens of thousands of players with the universities providing a pathway to elite and professional rugby. In Australia, we can’t even get RL played in private schools. 

The sport is absolutely no where near getting in the Olympics and is in no way close to meeting the criteria. It's decades of unprecedented worldwide growth away, in RL terms at least. It could double in size and it wouldn't get in.

I also can't see how this strategy means more resources to developing nations. A developing nation just getting to a World Cup opens up great funding and development opportunities. That opportunity has been taken away for practically all.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, dealwithit said:

Rather than WCs, I see Olympics as the primary way to obtain gov funding.

You'll be delighted then that there is no chance whatsoever of rugby league ever appearing as an established Olympic sport able to unlock that funding.

[crashmon]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

It's very unlikely that a tournament this size will return more money. 

Gate receipts are a big income driver, along with the associated ancillary sales it drives, and that higher engagement and wider presence leads to higher sponsorship income. Sure costs have to be balanced out, but we do know that the last few World Cups have made money for the IRL's development. 

 

If you keep fleecing the same fans to attend more games, then the average gates will probably decline, and you might make a bigger loss as fan attendance wil not cover the extra costs of the extra games.

in 2013 for instance Bristol was a sell out for two minor teams (cook islands vs USA), yet no games played anywhere near their last year in the WC

[Rovers13]

58 minutes ago, crashmon said:

If you keep fleecing the same fans to attend more games, then the average gates will probably decline, and you might make a bigger loss as fan attendance wil not cover the extra costs of the extra games.

in 2013 for instance Bristol was a sell out for two minor teams (cook islands vs USA), yet no games played anywhere near their last year in the WC

This for me needs to happen with our national game not just internationals. Take games to places we haven’t been to yet, maybe magic weekend instead of all in one place spread the games out like say one in Bristol one in Cornwall etc etc, yes it will cost money to take games on the road but for me to nationalise the game you need to try new things like this, yes it could fail of course but we need to be reactionary and just try things instead of just going with the it won’t work no point strategy that we’ve been doing for years.