RugbyRebels

whatisthejava wrote:According to Sky sports and Twitter GB teams are under pressure to merge into a single team

from who?

hp18 wrote:

ARM wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:
Would make a lot more sense if he was attack coach... It's a weird appointment.

Yeah. Defence is optional in 7s

Is it fuck

FFS.

You can have a whoosh too.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:According to Sky sports and Twitter GB teams are under pressure to merge into a single team

from who?

Aw cunt else apparently. Other teams raging that there are effectively 3 sides from GB that can stop other teams gaining quali points etc.

Big D wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:According to Sky sports and Twitter GB teams are under pressure to merge into a single team

from who?

Aw cunt else apparently. Other teams raging that there are effectively 3 sides from GB that can stop other teams gaining quali points etc.

And they can all go fuck themselves.

Big D wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:According to Sky sports and Twitter GB teams are under pressure to merge into a single team

from who?

Aw cunt else apparently. Other teams raging that there are effectively 3 sides from GB that can stop other teams gaining quali points etc.

Sauce?

Lizard wrote:

Big D wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:
from who?

Aw cunt else apparently. Other teams raging that there are effectively 3 sides from GB that can stop other teams gaining quali points etc.

Sauce?

To be fair i was being dramatic. It is only briefly mentioned here http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/ne ... ky-sources

Big D wrote:

Lizard wrote:

Big D wrote: Aw cunt else apparently. Other teams raging that there are effectively 3 sides from GB that can stop other teams gaining quali points etc.

Sauce?

To be fair i was being dramatic. It is only briefly mentioned here http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/ne ... ky-sources

Seems there might be more to it than that.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/153 ... ay_merger/

I really dont think it will happen, it may suit World Rugby 7's but the SRU forced to by the public and their member clubs will just tell them to stick their olympics up their bum, cant see the RFU wanting to do this either

It also becomes clear that the SFA stance to not join a GB team has been right all along,

whatisthejava wrote:I really dont think it will happen, it may suit World Rugby 7's but the SRU forced to by the public and their member clubs will just tell them to stick their olympics up their bum, cant see the RFU wanting to do this either

It also becomes clear that the SFA stance to not join a GB team has been right all along,

While being ridiculed for it too. Not worth it for the chance to have a couple involved in the Olympics every four years

Stones of granite wrote:

Big D wrote:
Seems there might be more to it than that.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/153 ... ay_merger/

That just says the exact same as the sky article, which is bollocks itself on the qualification front. Only one pre selected team can qualify, it's not who finishes higheat.

hp18 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Big D wrote:
Seems there might be more to it than that.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/153 ... ay_merger/

That just says the exact same as the sky article, which is bollocks itself on the qualification front. Only one pre selected team can qualify, it's not who finishes higheat.

I didn't read the Sky article. It must be coming from somewhere, unless the Herald just ripped off the Sky article (entirely possible).

Stones of granite wrote:

hp18 wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

That just says the exact same as the sky article, which is bollocks itself on the qualification front. Only one pre selected team can qualify, it's not who finishes higheat.

I didn't read the Sky article. It must be coming from somewhere, unless the Herald just ripped off the Sky article (entirely possible).

Yeah, the sky article seems pretty confident (and oblivious to the controversy it would cause) so it worries me. Hard to believe the SRU would agree to it. Personally, if it just became a GB team I wouldn't want us contributing any funding to it although they could take our fringe players if they pay them

Cameo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

hp18 wrote: That just says the exact same as the sky article, which is bollocks itself on the qualification front. Only one pre selected team can qualify, it's not who finishes higheat.

I didn't read the Sky article. It must be coming from somewhere, unless the Herald just ripped off the Sky article (entirely possible).

Yeah, the sky article seems pretty confident (and oblivious to the controversy it would cause) so it worries me. Hard to believe the SRU would agree to it. Personally, if it just became a GB team I wouldn't want us contributing any funding to it although they could take our fringe players if they pay them

It would be suicidal for the SRU.

I think the story is nonsense. Amalgamation wouldn't be in the interests of world rugby or anyone other than teams just outside the 7 series core participants. The supposed justification for the move shows a failure to understand the qualification procedure.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I think the story is nonsense. Amalgamation wouldn't be in the interests of world rugby or anyone other than teams just outside the 7 series core participants. The supposed justification for the move shows a failure to understand the qualification procedure.

Without wishing to appear to be disagreeing, I'm curious as to why you think it wouldn't be in the interests of World Rugby.

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I think the story is nonsense. Amalgamation wouldn't be in the interests of world rugby or anyone other than teams just outside the 7 series core participants. The supposed justification for the move shows a failure to understand the qualification procedure.

Without wishing to appear to be disagreeing, I'm curious as to why you think it wouldn't be in the interests of World Rugby.

Because they have a product to sell that requires as many strong teams as possible. They have a rugby public that won't identify particularly strongly with Team GB outside Olympics as well.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I think the story is nonsense. Amalgamation wouldn't be in the interests of world rugby or anyone other than teams just outside the 7 series core participants. The supposed justification for the move shows a failure to understand the qualification procedure.

Without wishing to appear to be disagreeing, I'm curious as to why you think it wouldn't be in the interests of World Rugby.

Because they have a product to sell that requires as many strong teams as possible. They have a rugby public that won't identify particularly strongly with Team GB outside Olympics as well.

I'm afraid that I don't find that very convincing. The English Rugby Public dwarf Scotland and Wales' many times over, and most English people use England and GB as interchangeable terms anyway. I simply don't believe there would be a measurable effect on attendance at the London round even if every Scot and Welshman stayed away.

World Rugby ave already made it clear that they are happy to disrupt the home nations to favour emerging nations, and it would be no ssurprise to me if they were tp very marginally reduce the overall quality of the competition in order to be seen to be "spreading things out a bit".

Allegedly they want to reduce the comp to 12 teams so they won't be spreading it out.

Big D wrote:Allegedly they want to reduce the comp to 12 teams so they won't be spreading it out.

That would likely kill the series and growth of the game.

hp18 wrote:

Big D wrote:Allegedly they want to reduce the comp to 12 teams so they won't be spreading it out.

That would likely kill the series and growth of the game.

Wouldn't go that far but would leave you with an annoying format and less scope for the developing countries. So, on second thoughts maybe I would go that far

hp18 wrote:

Big D wrote:Allegedly they want to reduce the comp to 12 teams so they won't be spreading it out.

That would likely kill the series and growth of the game.

Oh I agree totally.

There's plenty room for expansion. It's a cracking tournament/ spectacle which could go to more venues around the world, as well as gradually add more teams.

No team GB.

Seems to be getting a wee bit of attention now http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-uni ... -1-4456225

Love this caption to a picture at the end of that article about the u20s!

"After a mere 112 years, Scotland are finally on a roll against New Zealand"

Scott Hastings getting in on it now.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-uni ... -1-4458579

If this went through it would be so much of a significant and material change that we would need a new referendum...