Rugby Union

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, whart57 said:

 

Perhaps controversially the merger of the Premiership and United Rugby Championship should be considered, only those clubs with a sustainable base invited to join. Leicester, obviously, then probably Bath and Gloucester, Harlequins, Saracens if they can fumigate their affairs, Northampton and possibly Sale and Newcastle.

No, the purpose must be to exclude the inherent conflict of interest caused by the clubs being under independent commercial ownership. Football operates by promoting a club game on the international stage, accruing huge television revenue by doing so. 

 

People like Sir John Hall did not invest in the nascent professional rugby union in the expectation of becoming wealthy from gate receipts; they did it in the aim of seizing control of the, even then, huge international revenues. 

 

But club rugby doesn't work like that. The RFU have a huge subscription base from playing members who take little or no interest in the top flight club game, but do follow the international game to varying extents. 

 

So... the club owners attempt to one the one hand, maximise their revenues by maximising fixtures; on the other, demanding ever-greater shares of international revenues for a highly questionable task of player development. 

 

It is now clear that the RFU could centrally contract about 40 players, thereby controlling the cost base, and shut the door in the faces of the senior clubs who would be left with a highly uncertain future. All international revenues would accrue to Twickenham; players would compete furiously for the highly-paid central contracts. 

 

The RFU could go further. Subsidise potential central contracted players playing in England BUT NOT in France, or non-eligible players in England. 

 

The clubs have been allowed a great deal of scope, and the result is a natio al team in complete disarray.

 

 

 

[whart57]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

No, the purpose must be to exclude the inherent conflict of interest caused by the clubs being under independent commercial ownership. Football operates by promoting a club game on the international stage, accruing huge television revenue by doing so. 

 

People like Sir John Hall did not invest in the nascent professional rugby union in the expectation of becoming wealthy from gate receipts; they did it in the aim of seizing control of the, even then, huge international revenues. 

 

But club rugby doesn't work like that. The RFU have a huge subscription base from playing members who take little or no interest in the top flight club game, but do follow the international game to varying extents. 

 

So... the club owners attempt to one the one hand, maximise their revenues by maximising fixtures; on the other, demanding ever-greater shares of international revenues for a highly questionable task of player development. 

 

It is now clear that the RFU could centrally contract about 40 players, thereby controlling the cost base, and shut the door in the faces of the senior clubs who would be left with a highly uncertain future. All international revenues would accrue to Twickenham; players would compete furiously for the highly-paid central contracts. 

 

The RFU could go further. Subsidise potential central contracted players playing in England BUT NOT in France, or non-eligible players in England. 

 

The clubs have been allowed a great deal of scope, and the result is a natio al team in complete disarray.

 

 

 

 

Does France have the same problems between club and country?

 

The policy of centrally contracting players creates enough problems in professional cricket. The county game - long game version especially - has been made absolutely subservient to international cricket. Until the IPL came along that is. County cricket is messed around with something awful. In rugby the Premiership's own competition gets undermined as clubs are expected to fulfil league fixtures while losing their best players to the Autumn internationals and the Six Nations. In cricket though there are only eighteen counties that would produce players fit to be considered for a central contract.

 

Ireland, and Wales and Scotland effectively, have created a level between internationals and ordinary clubs. Works very well for Ireland. Clubs identify and nurture young talent, the regions polish them up - Leinster and Munster in particular are top level outfits - and Ireland as a whole benefits. Your suggestion of sidelining England's biggest clubs, and penalising the international careers of those players who seek to improve themselves in France will leave a huge gap between English international and club rugby. Will that improve things?

 

[rockershovel]

The problem with Italy is that people got greedy, and sold a share in 6N to an investment house. 

 

The investment house decided that fir commercial reasons, they wanted 6 teams in the tournament - so that every team played every weekend. The 6th team must be European. 

 

 

[rockershovel]

If the English clubs could be persuaded to adopt this essential supporting role, all well and good; but all experience shows that they cannot be trusted.

 

In the earliest days of professionalism, the creation of a centrally contracted structure was adamantly opposed by the clubs. They adopted a policy of refusing to honour fixtures involving centrally contracted players, which came to a head around a fixture involving the only player actually to sign one - Lawrence Dallaglio of Wasps - and Newcastle, General Manager Rob Andrew.

 

There was no question, at that time over "player development"; just an overtly commercial manoeuvre by third party speculators to corner the market by controlling players' contracts of employment. 

 

Sir Clive Woodwards' 2003 triumph unfolded against a background of acrimony and money grabbing. Rob Andrew did little else in his time at Twickenham, but act as an agent of appeasement of a club structure which clearly controlled his thinking; Winston Churchill's comments about feeding crocodiles apply. Eddy Jones' relations with the clubs were very poor. 

 

Twickenham have no option but to confront the clubs and face them down, but no will to do so. Had they shown the will when the opportunity existed, that would have been a different matter. 

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by rockershovel

[whart57]

20 hours ago, rockershovel said:

The problem with Italy is that people got greedy, and sold a share in 6N to an investment house. 

 

The investment house decided that fir commercial reasons, they wanted 6 teams in the tournament - so that every team played every weekend. The 6th team must be European. 

 

 

 

It shouldn't be forgotten that Italy was getting good results against 5N sides in friendlies, expanding to an even number of teams was a sensible step and bringing in a non-European team was not sensible then. Argentina was no better than Italy, South Africa still had the stench of apartheid over them and Australasia simply too far away.

 

What happened was that professionalism moved faster in the existing five nations than in Italy and that caused the gap to widen.

 

One way out of the dilemma is to have a proper second tier international competition in Europe. The old guard won't wear relegation though because they are all at risk. Over the years Italy have been in the 6N they have finished above Scotland a few times and think Wales too when Wales are having a bad year.

[tigerburnie]

On 08/10/2023 at 13:29, rockershovel said:

No, the purpose must be to exclude the inherent conflict of interest caused by the clubs being under independent commercial ownership. Football operates by promoting a club game on the international stage, accruing huge television revenue by doing so. 

 

People like Sir John Hall did not invest in the nascent professional rugby union in the expectation of becoming wealthy from gate receipts; they did it in the aim of seizing control of the, even then, huge international revenues. 

 

But club rugby doesn't work like that. The RFU have a huge subscription base from playing members who take little or no interest in the top flight club game, but do follow the international game to varying extents. 

 

So... the club owners attempt to one the one hand, maximise their revenues by maximising fixtures; on the other, demanding ever-greater shares of international revenues for a highly questionable task of player development. 

 

It is now clear that the RFU could centrally contract about 40 players, thereby controlling the cost base, and shut the door in the faces of the senior clubs who would be left with a highly uncertain future. All international revenues would accrue to Twickenham; players would compete furiously for the highly-paid central contracts. 

 

The RFU could go further. Subsidise potential central contracted players playing in England BUT NOT in France, or non-eligible players in England. 

 

The clubs have been allowed a great deal of scope, and the result is a natio al team in complete disarray.

 

 

 

You are very naive to think that the RFU are the answer, they are close to bankruptcy themselves. You cannot compare the national spot of soccer to rugby as it is a minority sport that has never attracted huge crowds, even the recent games a twickenham didn't sell well. The RFU are under review from the government to see if there is any case of mis management, though not holding my breath for a report any time soon. The game below the Premiership has now issued two motions of no confidence in the RFU, they in complete and utter disarray. It is the RFU that has brought about the malaise that is the England rugby team, knee jerk re-actions and no planning or communication with those actually trying to run the game. Your comments could not be more wrong.

[tigerburnie]

21 hours ago, rockershovel said:

If the English clubs could be persuaded to adopt this essential supporting role, all well and good; but all experience shows that they cannot be trusted.

 

In the earliest days of professionalism, the creation of a centrally contracted structure was adamantly opposed by the clubs. They adopted a policy of refusing to honour fixtures involving centrally contracted players, which came to a head around a fixture involving the only player actually to sign one - Lawrence Dallaglio of Wasps - and Newcastle, General Manager Rob Andrew.

 

There was no question, at that time over "player development"; just an overtly commercial manoeuvre by third party speculators to corner the market by controlling players' contracts of employment. 

 

Sir Clive Woodwards' 2003 triumph unfolded against a background of acrimony and money grabbing. Rob Andrew did little else in his time at Twickenham, but act as an agent of appeasement of a club structure which clearly controlled his thinking; Winston Churchill's comments about feeding crocodiles apply. Eddy Jones' relations with the clubs were very poor. 

 

Twickenham have no option but to confront the clubs and face them down, but no will to do so. Had they shown the will when the opportunity existed, that would have been a different matter. 

 

There are some out right lies in that statement, you have been severely mis informed, when the game went pro the clubs approached the RFU to ask if they were going to run the leagues and the RFU washed their hands of it and issued a statement saying they were not going to be responsible for players contracts.

[rockershovel]

To bring the various comments above together..

 

- the Dallaglio/Andrew issue appears in Dallaglio's published book, among other sources. 

- the RFU are, indeed, beyond useless. Their coach selection policies defy understanding, except insofar as they want a head coach who is subordinate to the Byzantine internal politics at Twickenham.

- Sir John Hall is not generally reckoned a philanthropist and by 1999, his attempts to create a "Barcelona of the North" were failing financially.

- to jump from "The clubs asking the RFU to run the Leagues" and "the RFU not wanting to be responsible for players contracts" is a major non-sequitur. There were various actors promising quite unrealistic levels of reward around that time.

- the RFU could and should have begun at least three years before they did, to present a credible league structure and take a coherent financial position over the nature of a professional game as events developed. 

 

It defies all sense that an organisation with Twickenham's cash flow and assets is on the point of bankruptcy. The RFU needs a proper commercial management including a process for disposing of the lame, lazy and useless - about 80% of the present shower.

 

However the present senior clubs are also in complete disarray. 

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

It shouldn't be forgotten that Italy was getting good results against 5N sides in friendlies, expanding to an even number of teams was a sensible step and bringing in a non-European team was not sensible then. Argentina was no better than Italy, South Africa still had the stench of apartheid over them and Australasia simply too far away.

 

What happened was that professionalism moved faster in the existing five nations than in Italy and that caused the gap to widen.

 

One way out of the dilemma is to have a proper second tier international competition in Europe. The old guard won't wear relegation though because they are all at risk. Over the years Italy have been in the 6N they have finished above Scotland a few times and think Wales too when Wales are having a bad year.

I think the main problem is time zone rather than distance.

[rockershovel]

6 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I think the main problem is time zone rather than distance.

Geography has always been against Argentina. Also, they were the last major Union to resist professionalism, and had reached the point where they could no longer swim against the tide. 

 

Italy clearly don't have a sufficient support base or structure to develop beyond a certain point. The same is true of the Ruritania around the Danube and Adriatic. 

 

Japan have a strong, well-funded league and a strong cultural disposition against losing at anything they've turned their hands to. 

 

The South Seas revival is easily explained - expanded player squads due to changes in eligibility. If anywhere urgently needs strong leadership, its them. 

[rockershovel]

More wrangling and controversy about England selection, I see. 

 

I rather suspect that Borthwick's reluctance to drop Farrell is partly due to his own experiences as a player, some of which weren't a great advert for the RFU of that time. 

 

FWIW I rather imagine we will see the "usual suspects" splutter and misfire past Fiji by 3 or 5 points. Fiji looked tired against Portugal; they will have played three weekends running and that could be England's margin. 

 

Borthwick really wants to get this team into the semis. That will secure his job. Then it's time for a full clearout.

[tigerburnie]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

More wrangling and controversy about England selection, I see. 

 

I rather suspect that Borthwick's reluctance to drop Farrell is partly due to his own experiences as a player, some of which weren't a great advert for the RFU of that time. 

 

FWIW I rather imagine we will see the "usual suspects" splutter and misfire past Fiji by 3 or 5 points. Fiji looked tired against Portugal; they will have played three weekends running and that could be England's margin. 

 

Borthwick really wants to get this team into the semis. That will secure his job. Then it's time for a full clearout.

I think we might agree on this occasion lol

[JZ]

Maybe it's time we had relegation and promotion to and from the 6 Nations? I can't see it happening because the big 5 could stand a chance of dropping out. So maybe 8 Nations, with the bottom two relegated at the seasons end?

[tigerburnie]

With the new proposals from the RFU there will be no league games when England are playing, so to enlarge the 6 nations would mean a huge gap in the Premiership season, not in anyone's interest.

[rockershovel]

14 hours ago, JZ said:

Maybe it's time we had relegation and promotion to and from the 6 Nations? I can't see it happening because the big 5 could stand a chance of dropping out. So maybe 8 Nations, with the bottom two relegated at the seasons end?

You would just end up with a revolving door between (occasionally) Scotland. Italy and whoever else you added to the list. For the umpteenth time, Scotland were clearly better than the Italy/Georgia/Romania tier. 

 

England know all about doing the necessary minimum at huge expense. Ireland and France have their systems worked out. Wales will be back. 

 

We now have, in effect an 8N in the autumn - the new Amazon tournament. England are pretty much at the position where they could support a squad full season, and the player development from the Prem is very poor. 

 

I think we are heading for a sea change in English rugby. The clubs have played their hand and they are a busted flush. The RFU are in disarray but have control of the international revenues....

[The Fatadder]

Maybe the answer is just following soccer's lead and do a European cup 2 years after the World Cup (either instead of that years 6 nations or autumn internationals.  It would give the smaller nations a bit more game time in the spotlight (and I guess there is always a chance that Georgia / Portugal etc will sneak a win against the Welsh which is always amusing. 

 

 

[tigerburnie]

The summer SH tours and the Autumn internationals are what finance NZ and Aus, remove any of those series and the ANZAC's will no longer play pro rugby, they cannot sustain themselves domestically, same applies with the Boks with the Lions.

Edited October 13, 2023 by tigerburnie

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

The summer SH tours and the Autumn internationals are what finance NZ and Aus, remove any of those series and the ANZAC's will no longer play pro rugby, they cannot sustain themselves domestically, same applies with the Books with the Lions.

It's not the tours per se, it's the TV money that comes with them (even when that stops a large percentage of fans from actually watching - but that's another story altogether...).

[rockershovel]

So in fact, professional club rugby cannot sustain itself anywhere in the world? I hadn't realised that. 

 

Does rather beg the question of why the RFU are so afraid of the clubs, considering that three out of eight have recently gone bust and Wasps only really exist as an echo from the past. Saracens' affairs need fumigation and Wasps' "supporters debentures" were plain fraud. 

 

If the RFU offered the remaining four or five top tier clubs plus the top four from the next tier places in a new league with less fixtures, centrally contracted players for the National Squad and guaranteed revenue at the price of removing their current owners, the RFU could write its own ticket and the money would stay in the game. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 11/10/2023 at 20:46, JZ said:

Maybe it's time we had relegation and promotion to and from the 6 Nations? I can't see it happening because the big 5 could stand a chance of dropping out. So maybe 8 Nations, with the bottom two relegated at the seasons end?

Eight nations would just give too many one-sided matches during the tournament.90+ point thrashings do nobody any good.

My preference would be for an autumn tournament between the"second-tier" European nations with the winner taking on the sixth-placed Six Nations, home and away to decide which plays in the following year's 6N.

[Joseph_Pestell]

31 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

So in fact, professional club rugby cannot sustain itself anywhere in the world? I hadn't realised that. 

 

Does rather beg the question of why the RFU are so afraid of the clubs, considering that three out of eight have recently gone bust and Wasps only really exist as an echo from the past. Saracens' affairs need fumigation and Wasps' "supporters debentures" were plain fraud. 

 

If the RFU offered the remaining four or five top tier clubs plus the top four from the next tier places in a new league with less fixtures, centrally contracted players for the National Squad and guaranteed revenue at the price of removing their current owners, the RFU could write its own ticket and the money would stay in the game. 

 

Rugby has always had its head up its ar*e when it comes to the realities of the finances. I certainly never believed that the professional game could work.

 

There was, of course, equal lack of realism in the amateur era when a blind eye was turned to players being paid.

 

France has probably come closest. Partly, I think because it is seen as a sport that is not elitist and, therefore, it gets quite a lot of public subsidy.

[tigerburnie]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

So in fact, professional club rugby cannot sustain itself anywhere in the world? I hadn't realised that. 

 

Does rather beg the question of why the RFU are so afraid of the clubs, considering that three out of eight have recently gone bust and Wasps only really exist as an echo from the past. Saracens' affairs need fumigation and Wasps' "supporters debentures" were plain fraud. 

 

If the RFU offered the remaining four or five top tier clubs plus the top four from the next tier places in a new league with less fixtures, centrally contracted players for the National Squad and guaranteed revenue at the price of removing their current owners, the RFU could write its own ticket and the money would stay in the game. 

Leicester Tigers fans are shareholders and they will not be allowing the RFU take over their club, of course as business with assets including a stadium and a hotel, the RFU could not afford to buy Leicester Tigers. You are again displaying a quite alarming lack of a grasp of the game of rugby union. Northampton, Gloucester, Exeter, Harlequins, Newcastle and Saracens all own their own grounds, the cost of buying out the ten clubs would be about £750 million, as the RFU have said they are predicting annual losses of £45 million for the next 5 years plus, I would suggest the clubs might just be better placed to buy the RFU rather than the other way round.

[tigerburnie]

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Rugby has always had its head up its ar*e when it comes to the realities of the finances. I certainly never believed that the professional game could work.

 

There was, of course, equal lack of realism in the amateur era when a blind eye was turned to players being paid.

 

France has probably come closest. Partly, I think because it is seen as a sport that is not elitist and, therefore, it gets quite a lot of public subsidy.

England and the RFU may be elitist, but there are hundreds of clubs in the Championship and National leagues doing their level best to play the game in an honest and inclusive fashion

[whart57]

20 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

The summer SH tours and the Autumn internationals are what finance NZ and Aus, remove any of those series and the ANZAC's will no longer play pro rugby, they cannot sustain themselves domestically, same applies with the Boks with the Lions.

 

Australian rugby union would certainly suffer, but they would still play rugby league professionally, that is well established. As for New Zealand, rugby union and the All Blacks are part of the culture. They would find a way to stay competitive.

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

Leicester Tigers fans are shareholders and they will not be allowing the RFU take over their club, of course as business with assets including a stadium and a hotel, the RFU could not afford to buy Leicester Tigers. You are again displaying a quite alarming lack of a grasp of the game of rugby union. Northampton, Gloucester, Exeter, Harlequins, Newcastle and Saracens all own their own grounds, the cost of buying out the ten clubs would be about £750 million, as the RFU have said they are predicting annual losses of £45 million for the next 5 years plus, I would suggest the clubs might just be better placed to buy the RFU rather than the other way round.

Surely the half-dozen clubs you name have been trying to seize control of the RFU's cash flow from international fixtures for the last thirty years, and where has it got them? 

 

It is YOU who lack a grasp of the realities of the professional game, I'm afraid. 

 

The 6N came about because the RFU, among others, packaged and monetised something which really only existed as a "custom and practice" arrangement (ie, the 5N) and sold a share in it to an investment house with media interests. It was this new income and ownership which raised the 6N profile to its present level.

 

The World Cup is not an RFU venture either. 

 

Look at the recent "Autumn 8N" or whatever you want to call it, pulled out of the air by Amazon in a very short period. 

 

Sir John Hall had the right idea, based on his experience of soccer in the 80s, that the clubs should confront the RFU and seize control of it as the round-ball sport has done. However they failed to do so, and without the international revenues, the club game simply isn't viable.

 

Quite where this leaves the clubs, is quite a good question. They clearly can't make money at their own level, nor can they go up against the REAL money at international level - whose only real interest in the RFU is as a component in the international sport brand they are building. 

 

Player development in England appears to be in complete disarray, at huge expense. As someone else has remarked already, Ireland and Wales have shown the way, and the clubs aren't it. Nor does the RFU appear able to appoint effective coaching teams. 

 

I rather think we will see a sea-change in English rugby in the next few years.