France may join expanded league Tri-Nations

[salivor]

I understand that Tonga gave France a walloping this year in some Federation Cup so shouldnt Tonga be ahead of France for inclusion in a tournament involving the big 3. Tonga would have more NRL & SL players to draw from than France would thus would be more competitive.

Not a bad point, Tonga certainly have potential and I remember them giving NZ one hell of a fright at the 1995 World Cup. France though do now have Les Catilans (sp?) in the ESL which means they can only improve from here on in.

Perhaps and idea would be to have 4 nations with France involved when the comp is played in the Northern Hemisphere and Tonga involved when the competition is in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

[borntoride]

I'm not against the idea of France being in this, who cares they aren't going to do anything. I think your getting well ahead of yourself with this russia and wales are both not going to be involved internationally bulsh*t. I concede wales may have some hope if they can get support from what is primarily a rugby union playing country. The catalans do have 14 players from overseas and thats all fact. I don't mind that it just points out that it's not really about french players though. Brendothejet, to me you just sound like a spoilt arrogant whiner, who has no idea about rugby league history in the U.K. The last time French team was introduced it lasted 2 years then it fell apart. Catalans are flash in the pan without a heap of ringins to keep them afloat.

 

[The Observer]

Nook, Italy were thrashed by everyone in the 6N between 2000 and 2005, and have just become more competitive under Berbizier. The 6N committee wisely kept the faith with Italy, so RLIF will be wise to do the same with France.

ParraEelsNRL, Russia is nowhere near joining the elite tier of nations. A combined Pacific Islands team would do better.

I agree with bringing France into 4N in 2009, but not with the 4 round format - its inadequate like the 1999 competition. The competition should be played on a home and away basis, not only to give a fair and equitable draw to all teams, but also to recognise that the home/away structure is the right long term format for elite tier test RL. It will allow for addition of more teams in the future (like Wales and the PI team).

The 4N should be staged home and away, without a final, to make every match count and not have a dead rubber:

October 16-18 (assuming SL final is still held on this week)
4N WARM UP TESTS
Australia Kangaroos vs PNG Kumuls - Port Moresby
NZ North vs South Origin
England vs Wales - Bridgend (players not involved in SL Grand Final or Preliminary Final)

October 23-25
RLIF FOUR NATIONS BEGINS
England vs France - Salford/Doncaster (new stadiums dedicated to RL)
New Zealand vs Australia - Christchurch

Oct 30-Nov 1
France vs England - Villeneuve
Australia vs New Zealand - Melbourne

Nov 6-8
Australia vs France - Newcastle/Townsville/Gold Coast/Gosford
New Zealand vs England - Wellington

Nov 13-15
Australia vs England - Brisbane
NZ vs France - Auckland

Nov 20-22
England vs New Zealand - COM Stadium, Manchester
France vs Australia - Toulouse (choice of RL, RU, soccer stadium)

Nov 27-29
England vs Australia - Wembley, London
France vs New Zealand - Aime Giral, Perpignan

For those who might complain about teams playing games after long haul travel or jet lag:
1) New Zealand Kiwis and individual players have done it in 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006.
2) Australia did it in 2004, drawing in NZ in Oct 16th in Auckland, then winning in London on Oct 23rd. Aus won the tournament.
3) Stacey Jones 2005. Flew back and fort repeatedly.
4) Australia and England has the easiest draw. The Roos would fly north then play France. After England's long haul flights, they'd play the Kiwis each time not Aus.
5) All teams would be able to rest/rotate their elite players against France. This year, the Kangaroos would have been better off being able to rotate players like King, Hodges, Thurston against a tean the calibre of France instead of GB/England. Concerns of player burnout would be pacified.

 

[Quidgybo]

Problem is that Tonga and the rest of the Pacific nations are worth virtually nothing to the game financially. And they likely never will. Combined, the populations of Fiji, the Cook Islands, Tonga and Samoa is a bit over 1m people. While in the short term some of these nations might be able to put a good national side on the field they aren't going to open a new market that pumps money back into the game. France has that potential even though they're starting from further back in terms of on field performance. If we can develop France to the point that it becomes a positive financial contributer to the game then it could very well be that money that makes it feasible to subsidise the development of the poorer nations to the next level.

The arguments for France and French clubs as opposed to fast tracking Tonga at international or Leigh at club level are very similar to the arguments for supporting the Melbourne Storm. Sure you could support another team in Sydney (Northern England) or you could draw a team from RL mad Mt Isa (Tonga) but neither does much for the game. They certainly don't provide a new market of millions of people for the game to sell itself to (and just as importantly its sponsors and television rights). While the market might be significantly tougher to crack than an existing territory or some poorer markets, the potential is so big that we only need to crack it just a small bit to reep a relative bonaza. That's the promise of RL in France.

Leigh.

 

[The Observer]

Mate Ma'a Tonga should be involved in an annual Pacific Cup, through which it can attempt to qualify for RLWC.

In the long term, a combined Pacific Islands team should be involved in elite tier RL. Quidgybo, the team could initially stage its home games in Sydney and Auckland, where there are expanding TV, spectator and consumer markets.

The first opportunity for a PI team should be in June 2007 - vs England/GB in the XXXX Test in England.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

I know Russia and some others are no where near ready.

I said in the future.:roll:

The arguments for France and French clubs as opposed to fast tracking Tonga at international or Leigh at club level are very similar to the arguments for supporting the Melbourne Storm. Sure you could support another team in Sydney (Northern England) or you could draw a team from RL mad Mt Isa (Tonga) but neither does much for the game. They certainly don't provide a new market of millions of people for the game to sell itself to (and just as importantly its sponsors and television rights). While the market might be significantly tougher to crack than an existing territory or some poorer markets, the potential is so big that we only need to crack it just a small bit to reep a relative bonaza. That's the promise of RL in France.

Thats the thing isn't it, France is waiting to take to the game, it has before, it could again, they already have deep roots with the game.

I still can't believe some think I want Russia involved now, I'm not that mad.

 

[borntoride]

Thats a fair point quidgybo and your right about it would be a big market. Unfortunately the melbourne storm analogy draws on a team which contains no melbournians. It's good to see the cosmopolitan nature of rugby league however. I hope it goes well i just doubt it will. Also the welsh team would be a part of great britain.

 

[Quidgybo]

I agree with bringing France into 4N in 2009, but not with the 4 round format - its inadequate like the 1999 competition. The competition should be played on a home and away basis, not only to give a fair and equitable draw to all teams, but also to recognise that the home/away structure is the right long term format for elite tier test RL. It will allow for addition of more teams in the future (like Wales and the PI team).

While you could run the four nations in the same number of weeks as the Tri-Nations it would require every team to play two extra matches. With the best players already pushing 37-39 matches a year (two trials, 24 clubs matches, Anzac Test, 3 Origins, 2-4 finals, 4-5 Tri-Nations), additional matches are really starting to become a big deal with the players unions (not to mention the clubs who pay the big money). And so is the shear length of the season with it starting in mid February and continuing to the last week of November. A single round four nations would allow them to reduce every team's commitments by one match and the length of the tournmanent (and the season) by three weeks. I suspect this might actually be playing a fair part in the moves to expand the tournament.

That all said, I agree that the two round format provides a better all round competition and more opportunity to spread the love. It is certainly my personal preference but I doubt that's what we'll see.

The 4N should be staged home and away, without a final, to make every match count and not have a dead rubber:

By taking away the final you take away the one guarantee that the tournament doesn't end with dead rubbers. Depending on results a team could be crowned champion after four straight wins leaving the last two weeks of the tournament as who cares. The final is what sets RL's Tri-Nations apart from the Union version. Even if one team has run away by the fourth week that still leaves the other two or three teams to jostle over the other final spot. Either way the tournament isn't decided until the final whistle of the final match.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

Thats a fair point quidgybo and your right about it would be a big market. Unfortunately the melbourne storm analogy draws on a team which contains no melbournians.

True but when discussing the merits of Leigh versus a French club, it's a perfect analogy.

Leigh

 

[borntoride]

While you could run the four nations in the same number of weeks as the Tri-Nations it would require every team to play two extra matches. With the best players already pushing 37-39 matches a year (two trials, 24 clubs matches, Anzac Test, 3 Origins, 2-4 finals, 4-5 Tri-Nations), additional matches are really starting to become a big deal with the players unions (not to mention the clubs who pay the big money). And so is the shear length of the season with it starting in mid February and continuing to the last week of November.

Leigh.

The length of seasons and injuries and things does take its toll on players, once again Quidgybo has a valid point. It seems like a strange possibility but seeing how the gridiron in the US is set up seems to work well for those guys. Could split league into separate quadrants, like New zealand, Queensland Sydney North Sydney south. This might reduce the injury toll and take strain off players. It would be a total revamp of the current system though and doubt would ever be seriously considered, but its just an idea.

 

[borntoride]

could stick melbourne with the Newzealand teams

 

[Quidgybo]

Quidgybo, the team could initially stage its home games in Sydney and Auckland, where there are expanding TV, spectator and consumer markets.

Sydney is a market of approximately 5m people. And it is no doubt an expanding TV, spectator and consumer market. But it isn't expanding by a city the size of Melbourne or a country the size France. And what's more it has been tapped by RL for some 98 years. We're not going to get huge leaps in support and financial returns from television and sponsors by taking additional games to a city that already hosts 8.5 first class teams, one or two origin matches, one or two tests and the Grand Final. Grabbing even small slices of places like Melbourne and France would put the game's annual growth in Sydney to shame. Whether it is a team representing the tiny population of Tonga or another couple of internationals played in Sydney, it does virtually nothing to grow the game either in support or financially.

The whole point is that Melbourne and France are huge markets that we haven't yet tapped (but we're starting to make real progress in Melbourne). They provide a whole new audience for television and sponsors to sell to and both will pay the game more money for the privilege. They won't pay more for a market they're already getting under their existing deals or for one they don't see as worth targeting. Or to use a slightly different example, Melbourne drew 900,000 viewers for this year's Grand Final. That's down to the presence of one team in a new market. No matter how many new teams you put in Sydney (or northern England) there's just not that many more people interested in watching RL that aren't already. It's those new eyes and wallets that places like Melbourne and France provide that will bring in the big money and gains in support.

Leigh.

 

[The Observer]

While you could run the four nations in the same number of weeks as the Tri-Nations it would require every team to play two extra matches. With the best players already pushing 37-39 matches a year (two trials, 24 clubs matches, Anzac Test, 3 Origins, 2-4 finals, 4-5 Tri-Nations), additional matches are really starting to become a big deal with the players unions (not to mention the clubs who pay the big money). And so is the shear length of the season with it starting in mid February and continuing to the last week of November. A single round four nations would allow them to reduce every team's commitments by one match and the length of the tournmanent (and the season) by three weeks. I suspect this might actually be playing a fair part in the moves to expand the tournament.

I'm aware of the issue of player fatigue and the number of games elite players participate in:
1) Limit Kangaroo players to participating in a maximum 4 or 5 tests after the GF. The Kangaroos played 7 post GF tests in 2004, 6 in 2005. As I said, senior Kangaroo squad members that have played a big season up to the 3/4 Nations, like Lockyer, Mason etc, can be rested from games against France and PNG.

The NRL clubs major concern is with Australian players. IIRC
the most games an elite Australian player racked up in recent seasons was Minichiello with 32 first class games in one season.

2) The length of the test season must be retained or expanded from here on, NOT contracted. If the NRL clubs want less games in the season for elite players, they could do what many parties have suggested, and short the NRL regular season to a 22 round competition. That means every team would lose one home game.

With 4N games shared between Europe and Australasia, the tournament becomes more attractive for sponsors, fans and the players. This could allow for enough revenue to compensate the clubs for the loss of one home game.

That all said, I agree that the two round format provides a better all round competition and more opportunity to spread the love.

Cool. Fans in all four countries will have the chance to watch every other team play on their home soil that year.

It is certainly my personal preference but I doubt that's what we'll see.

You may be right, but this is where the RFL, NZRL, FFR and interested Australian parties need to start setting a strategy for expanding international RL.

By taking away the final you take away the one guarantee that the tournament doesn't end with dead rubbers.

I disagree. The presence of the final in 2004 meant that GB won the most pool games but lost the tournament. The presence of the final in 2005 meant that Australia won the most games but lost a one off match and thus lost the series.

As for dead rubber, the presence of a final gave us a dead rubber GB-NZ game 6 in 2004. That refutes your point.

Depending on results a team could be crowned champion after four straight wins leaving the last two weeks of the tournament as who cares.

Even if one team has run away by the fourth week that still leaves the other two or three teams to jostle over the other final spot.

Aus could lose the last four, and NZ could win the last four, leaving it decided on points differential, meaning how they perform in every single game becomes crucial.

The final is what sets RL's Tri-Nations apart from the Union version. Either way the tournament isn't decided until the final whistle of the final match.

The final is not what sets RL's 3N apart from RU, its the quality of play. The presence of a final is contrived and a theft from cricket - its ok for a RLWC, but isn't unnecessary for 3N and test RL. In 2005, Kangaroos played the Kiwis four times in the season by having a final.

The addition of a final, in fact, diminishes test RL. The round robin tri nations aren't a means towards an end (the final) - they ARE the end. The Tri Nations should be the stepping stone towards getting 4, 5, then 6 national teams in the elite tier playing each other at home and away, each year.

 

[Sanchez]

for the sake of international league this has to happen. there may be blowouts but it will be worth it in the long run

 

[screeny]

for the sake of international league this has to happen. there may be blowouts but it will be worth it in the long run

Amen brother. It has to happen and the French can only improve.

Also, with protected status to SL clubs in the very near future France's junior base will grow.

4 nations, same number of games, just more variety and an additional (and rich) market. Perfection.

 

[Sanchez]

is there a case for png to be added aswell?

 

[pcpp]

is there a case for png to be added aswell?

No... they're not a fully developed nation and probably would add no real value to the tournament (eg. to international sponsors, to fans in England, France and Australia) even though RL is their national sport.

 

[Sanchez]

ok then so with france, would it still be play each team twice or just once

 

[yakstorm]

I am a huge fan of the home and away concept, as it adds a lot of value to the Quad-Nations tournament, which helps when drawing sponsors. If each nation is also guarenteed three games on home soil it also opens up more oppotunities for each nation to sign associate sponsors.

I'm not a huge fan of spliting naming sponsors up by nations, I'd rather someone like Gillette sticking around for the entire tournament, but I wouldn't mind the Australian tests being part of the Harvey Norman-PSP international season and NZ being part of the Lion Red international series and so on.

The more potential dollars each group can sign from the international season, the higher the leagues value the event and the more time and promotion they will give it.

Now as for there being 'too much' drain on players by having all the games at the end of the season, in addition to ANZAC and XXXX Tests, well why can't these be included as part of the Quad Nations?

I 't think the sponsors of the tournament would be over the moon if suddenly they got a test in the middle of NRL or ESL seasons, plus then after the grand final the entire RL focus finished on them. It also raises the value of these games.

Of course things will need to be considered such as preparation time for the players and so on, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

 

[borntoride]

Mid season tests would only add to fatigue, travelling across the planet for games then travelling back again. Unless they had a midseason break while all the tests took place. This might not work as fans wouldnt get to go to the local footy and it could be seen as disruptive to the season.