World Rugby Board elections
-
@Bovidae said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Chris-B said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bovidae If Beaumont ended up with 28 votes, then maths tells us SA must have voted for Gus. And you'd imagine the Sanzar countries would have voted as a bloc.
I agree. The question is whether Africa voted with SA and if Oceania followed Fiji and Samoa or NZ and Aust.
Google says that the Asia rep is Ada Milby from the Philippines, the Oceania rep is Richard Sapias from PNG, and the Africa rep is Abdelaziz Bougja from Morocco.
See post above. Oceania voted Gus
-
Then fuck them too. Probably pay back for the SWs and the SANZAAR missed opportunity to extend the RC competition and bring both Japan and Fiji into the tent - those two votes would probably make the SANZAR bloc as strong as the 6N.
Another missed opportunity.
-
@booboo So you reckon Asia and Japan voted for Beaumont?
NZR's statement:
NZR Chair, Brent Impey said: “We have a great respect for Bill Beaumont as an individual, and we look forward to continuing to work with him to grow the game globally and keep rugby sustainable across all borders. “We are of course disappointed for Agustin Pichot as he had our vote, and it is important to us that whoever won the election will heed the calls for change to the game. “Gus ran a strong campaign and gave his best effort in a highly principled manner and that is all that can be asked, so we are proud of him. “There is still a level of governance reform that is overdue, and it would be good to see the courage taken to make the decisions needed to ensure the continued sustainability and success of rugby globally – not just for a limited number of Unions and regions.”
-
@Bovidae said in World Rugby Board elections:
@booboo So you reckon Asia and Japan voted for Beaumont?
NZR's statement:
NZR Chair, Brent Impey said: “We have a great respect for Bill Beaumont as an individual, and we look forward to continuing to work with him to grow the game globally and keep rugby sustainable across all borders. “We are of course disappointed for Agustin Pichot as he had our vote, and it is important to us that whoever won the election will heed the calls for change to the game. “Gus ran a strong campaign and gave his best effort in a highly principled manner and that is all that can be asked, so we are proud of him. **“There is still a level of governance reform that is overdue, and it would be good to see the courage taken to make the decisions needed to ensure the continued sustainability and success of rugby globally – not just for a limited number of Unions and regions.”**
Think Asia voted Gus.
Chris Jones talking to Devlin just after 12 said:
- PIs (Fiji, Samoa and Oceania) split their votes 2-2
- Asia (Japan and Asia) split their votes 2-2
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Chris-B said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Bovidae If Beaumont ended up with 28 votes, then maths tells us SA must have voted for Gus. And you'd imagine the Sanzar countries would have voted as a bloc.
So, Bill got two of the remaining 4.
I guess if you see England playing a test against Tonga....
I think Oceania voted Gus. Tonga don't have a vote.
Yeah - my England game against Tonga would be pay-off for the Oceania vote.
-
SA site seems to show who exactly voted for whom. Many regions did the spineless thing where the country voted one and the region voted the other to stay neutral. In the end, the 6n block being bigger than 4n won it for the old guard. Pichot actually got 1 more vote when the two blocks are omitted
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
What is Norteamerica if it's not US and Canada and why did they split their votes?
Weird ay? The US and Canada are already there. So that leaves Mexico and the Caribbean for North America as I know it.
-
@booboo said in World Rugby Board elections:
What is Norteamerica if it's not US and Canada and why did they split their votes?
Dennis Dwyer is the man in question. Dwyer, originally from Yorkshire, has lived and refereed and administered rugby in Bermuda for 40 years.
Rugby Americas North (RAN), the grouping of the USA and Canada (who have an extra vote each), Mexico and 17 other countries in and around the Caribbean.
-
@mofitzy_ said in World Rugby Board elections:
Not quite sure where to start with this, so many tangents, however I'll give it a go.
@Catogrande
Rugby may be #1 in NZ but it's no longer the dominant force it was, and I can easily see it being just one of many sports codes as they have in Aus if things keep going the way they do. Fair dues to the European game but it is population and geography that are the key factors in it's financial dominance, things that can't be changed. >I'm not sure what this financial dominance you speak of is. Most of the NH unions are not that flush with cash and as previously alluded to, the club game in England (and also in France) is financially in queer street. Do you mean the drain of SH players to the North being the financial dominance? If so that is a club thing and nothing to do with the respective Unions who are busy trying to think of ways to encourage local talent. >
So either they realise they can look inwards except for once every 4 years or keep the status quo (and who knows, in 10 years or so the NH might even win another world cup) and slowly kill the game outside the 6N, or set up a system that means the sport doesn't die outside of the 6N.>
What makes you think the 6N are inward looking? Is it the reluctance to support the annual nations competition? If so I don't see that as being inward looking , in fact far from it. I see that as looking to make the game sustainable, taking into account player welfare, supporter fatigue, financial stability. To my mind there are two main issues with the proposal. Firstly growing the game and providing opportunity for the lower tier nations and I don't see anyone disagreeing with the idea that this would be a positive. Secondly chasing the money. Having the mind set that more rugby = more money without considering the more costs and player welfare. Tell me how that strategy is working out in the SH will you? You know, where rugby is apparently dying on its feet.
I'm not convinced the average punter in Twickenham cares too much if th ANZAC nations never play Ingerlund again as long as he can pretend walloping Italy means something.>
Well here I would probably take the view of virtually every English, Welsh, Scots, Irish and French fan I've ever spoken to, the TV people that pay huge sums of money to televise NHvSH games and the gin related opportunities such games give to the 57 Old Farts at Twickenham over your view. Honestly mate, you couldn't be further from the truth if you spent a day in a fast car driving in the opposite direction.
If the laws were formulated in Aus and NZ, then endless scrum resets and walls of offside players waiting to flop all over a breakdown wouldn't be the issue they are now.>
The laws are formulated by consensus. From a NH viewpoint we'd probably take the view that many of the law changes over recent years have been SH led but in all honesty that would have as much credence as your view. I agree that the current situation with scrum resets (and a few other issues) is awful but in so many cases we have seen a law brought in to combat one thing that simply causes another problem. The scrum problem is acknowledged within WR and I'm pretty sure they are looking at ways to correct this blight, hopefully without the law of unintended consequences applying.
We wouldn't let dodgy frog refs say "we have a deal" then go on to make one of the biggest ref errors in modern rugby,>
Whilst I acknowledge the error and also your pain, if you think this was a NH plot to de-stabilise NZ rugby, you'll be needing your tinfoil hat.
meanwhile Beaumont was no doubt cheering this decision. >
Yes no doubt there is a picture of him somewhere, holding a large gin, puffing on a Havana with a smug grin saying Vive La France.
At least Pichot would have been objective.
Yes, there is a picture of him dressed all in white, with a halo glowing above his head. It's right next to that picture of Beaumont.
-
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@mofitzy_ said in World Rugby Board elections:
Not quite sure where to start with this, so many tangents, however I'll give it a go.
@Catogrande
Rugby may be #1 in NZ but it's no longer the dominant force it was, and I can easily see it being just one of many sports codes as they have in Aus if things keep going the way they do. Fair dues to the European game but it is population and geography that are the key factors in it's financial dominance, things that can't be changed. >I'm not sure what this financial dominance you speak of is. Most of the NH unions are not that flush with cash and as previously alluded to, the club game in England (and also in France) is financially in queer street. Do you mean the drain of SH players to the North being the financial dominance? If so that is a club thing and nothing to do with the respective Unions who are busy trying to think of ways to encourage local talent. >
Ireland and project players has nothing to do with clubs. Likewise convicted murderer Kean (a staunch advocate of Beaumont) allowing French clubs to operate in Fiji in breach of regulations, then France ends up with multiple French players despite no historical link to the country.
So either they realise they can look inwards except for once every 4 years or keep the status quo (and who knows, in 10 years or so the NH might even win another world cup) and slowly kill the game outside the 6N, or set up a system that means the sport doesn't die outside of the 6N.>
What makes you think the 6N are inward looking? Is it the reluctance to support the annual nations competition? If so I don't see that as being inward looking , in fact far from it. I see that as looking to make the game sustainable, taking into account player welfare, supporter fatigue, financial stability. To my mind there are two main issues with the proposal. Firstly growing the game and providing opportunity for the lower tier nations and I don't see anyone disagreeing with the idea that this would be a positive. Secondly chasing the money. Having the mind set that more rugby = more money without considering the more costs and player welfare. Tell me how that strategy is working out in the SH will you? You know, where rugby is apparently dying on its feet.
It's more complex than money but rugby will never compete in the Australian market (for example) if the best players aren't playing in the local competition.
I'm not convinced the average punter in Twickenham cares too much if th ANZAC nations never play Ingerlund again as long as he can pretend walloping Italy means something.>
Well here I would probably take the view of virtually every English, Welsh, Scots, Irish and French fan I've ever spoken to, the TV people that pay huge sums of money to televise NHvSH games and the gin related opportunities such games give to the 57 Old Farts at Twickenham over your view. Honestly mate, you couldn't be further from the truth if you spent a day in a fast car driving in the opposite direction.
I read the BBC comments for the announcement. That might not be the fairest representation but they speak for themselves.
If the laws were formulated in Aus and NZ, then endless scrum resets and walls of offside players waiting to flop all over a breakdown wouldn't be the issue they are now.>
The laws are formulated by consensus. From a NH viewpoint we'd probably take the view that many of the law changes over recent years have been SH led but in all honesty that would have as much credence as your view. I agree that the current situation with scrum resets (and a few other issues) is awful but in so many cases we have seen a law brought in to combat one thing that simply causes another problem. The scrum problem is acknowledged within WR and I'm pretty sure they are looking at ways to correct this blight, hopefully without the law of unintended consequences applying.
The laws are formulated by consensus just like the board is voted by consensus i.e. money talks.
We wouldn't let dodgy frog refs say "we have a deal" then go on to make one of the biggest ref errors in modern rugby,>
Whilst I acknowledge the error and also your pain, if you think this was a NH plot to de-stabilise NZ rugby, you'll be needing your tinfoil hat.
meanwhile Beaumont was no doubt cheering this decision. >
Yes no doubt there is a picture of him somewhere, holding a large gin, puffing on a Havana with a smug grin saying Vive La France.
At least Pichot would have been objective.
Yes, there is a picture of him dressed all in white, with a halo glowing above his head. It's right next to that picture of Beaumont.
This was a bit of a dig but the point I was making is that Pichot doesn't fall into the traditional hierarchy. Plenty of talk pre series that the Lions could be an irrelevance if they lose 3-0. As Hansen said an apology would have been nice. A fair chunk of casual and committed NZ supporters were seriously put off by that cowardly act leading to the farcical situation where there are no winners despite one team leading for a grand total of 5 minutes in the series after playing a man up for over 2/3 of the game.