League World Cup

Richoagain · 2 Mar 2003, 15:46

Vaguely relevant to bits of the 'Penny' thread.....

Source:SMH
March 1 2003

The rugby league World Cup has has been postponed indefinitely.

It has been confirmed that the Rugby League International Federation plans to replace the scheduled 2005 tournament in Europe with a series involving just Australia, Britain and New Zealand. The main reason given was the disastrous financial performance of the 2000 event in Britain and France.

"I would suggest there won't be a World Cup in 2005 - although that could change," ARL chief executive Geoff Carr said. "We're going to play the tri-nations for two years.

"The priority is: let's get the tri-nations up and running and make that a success. We've got some options to add teams - France, etc, etc.

"We can still have a World Cup but, in the short term, no one was prepared to underwrite a full tournament. My guess is that we will have a World Cup but we might go back to what we were doing in the early '90s, where you accumulate points over and international series and the two highest nations play off."

League's World Cup kicked off in France in 1954. It has since had a chequered history and the 16-team 2000 tournament caused severe financial difficulties for the game. But RLIF chairman Colin Love denied the cancellation was a "loss of face".

"We are just rebuilding our game internationally," he said, stopping short of saying the 2005 event, already scaled back to eight teams, was definitely off.

"The [British] Rugby Football League is still doing the planning for the event, a feasibility study, and it's yet to be confirmed," he said. But Love said the tri-series was international league's "main hope".

Steve Mascord

dr nick · 2 Mar 2003, 18:15

dissappointing. a cruel blow for the international status of the game.

i didnt know the last world cup lost money.

i think more developed nations should perhaps help fund a world cup if it is the case. a bit of money from australian, new zealand and english comps put into the development of a regular worldwide tournament would do invaluable good to the game in the long term. scrapping the world cup is a huge step backwards.

Richoagain · 2 Mar 2003, 18:55

Definitely is a step backwards - but what was going to happen?

The Australian rugby league establishment can't even be buggered trying to grow the game here outside NSW or Qld, this is about what you'd expect.

The English superleague is fairly light on for cash (other than support from a certain media mogul) and is having trouble keeping all its clubs paying profits - particularly as all bar the London Broncos come from fairly dirt-poor cities.

Who does that leave with the money to do it? Again that bloke with the media pie - and he probably figures that making money from TV is his no. 1 priority and not spending his fortune on developing countries where there isn't a ready made lucrative TV audience.

But this could just be me being cynical....

dr nick · 2 Mar 2003, 19:55

yeah i spose youve got a point richo. thats the problem when the game is owned by shareholders.

dissappointing. Although the last world cup was considered a farce, i always imagined it would grow every tournament, especially with the smaller nations being exposed on a world platform like that.

i guess the odd 'friendly' will have to suffice.

Ms.Storm · 3 Mar 2003, 00:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Richoagain

The Australian rugby league establishment can't even be buggered trying to grow the game here outside NSW or Qld, this is about what you'd expect.

I certainly agree with you on this one....but I honestly think that Gallop is on the right track now and when the NRL came down here last year to meet Storm and their supporters, I was impressed with what I heard.

Going back to the RLWC....hopefully, that this coming tournament is successful and sets some good standards for other countries to re-enter.

Brian · 3 Mar 2003, 19:57

The problem with the RLWC is the unevenness of the competition.
Australia is so superior to Britain and NZ ,then there is a big gap to France then it really falls away.I think it's counter productive for the developed countries to play the undeveloped countries and better to have two separate events .

I_LUV_AFL · 4 Mar 2003, 15:29

I disagree!

Atleast the RLIF now has a plan and if they think that by not having a WC will increase the game solubility then so be it. Instead of a WC which will come in the future, we will have annual Pacific Cups (NZ, Maori, Tonga, Samoa, PNG, America Smaoa etc), Victory Cups (England, Russia, France and USA), Meditereanean Cups (Lebanon, Italy, Morrocco etc).

Brian- I don't see a problem with the standard of international competition. Everyone looks at the 64-10 win by the mighty Kangaroos as a negative, they were absolutely awesome that night. No team would have had a chance but it is very rarely like that. Great Britian beat NZ in a 3 match series last year, Australia narrowly beat Great Britian the year before. NZ beat Wales 48-24, France 30-10 and Australia only beat Wales 46-22 in 2000.

Richoagain · 4 Mar 2003, 21:57

I still reckon the reasons for scrapping it are money related.

You're basically funding an event whose biggest TV audience is Australia, with smaller groups in NZ and the UK.

Rugby league is a little way down the list everywhere else as far as spectator awareness/support goes, bar places like PNG who aren't really a cosumer group big enough to make it worth the backer's while.

So why hold a professional event where professionals slaughter pub teams if no one's making money out of it. It's great for Russia/Lebanon(even if they're all from Sydney)/Samoa to play against the best in the world - but who's going to pay the Australian team?

Richoagain · 4 Mar 2003, 21:58

Sorry for being such a cynical bastard guys!

They wouldn't hold the olympics if it didn't bring in about a squillion dollars worth of advertising

Brian · 6 Mar 2003, 22:03

Tutaki I dont understand your line of thought.All those stats you gave show that there wasn't one close game .Even if there is a close game then it's perceived as a one-off.Untill people percieve a game as a close they wont turn up in full . State of Origin shows you people will turn up for an even contest(even if the end result is different). The AFL International series is now a ball burster ,because over the years there hasn't been one blowout .

Ms.Storm · 6 Mar 2003, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian
The AFL International series is now a ball burster ,because over the years there hasn't been one blowout .

Brian,
I know I sort of touched on the IR game on the International Rules Board, and as you might have gathered, I simply loathe that hybrid game, I still think you can't compare the game that Aust. and Ireland play either here or in Ireland (even though it may pull a good crowd), with the rugby league internationals because IR is a *make believe* game..

and no one else plays it.