Closed league - a good thing?

[fivepointer]

Thought this an interesting observation by Evans.

Are we seeing better rugby and more competitive games due to no relegation this season?

[Oakboy]

Baxter said yesterday that he thought games were more competitive because there was no relegation.

I suppose there are several factors including those you might define as reduced negativity. Beyond that, though, is the freedom to re-build by giving more game time to younger players.

The loss of income from reduced fixtures, the lowering of the salary cap and the debt residues from covid will hopefully see clubs keener to develop young EQPs at the expense of foreign journeymen. I think the paying public would support legislation by the premiership to back that up - 18 of every 23 to be EQP or something similar.

[Which Tyler]

Of course it CAN look like that, but then, so can a competitive open league, whilst both can also look like there are a few after-thoughts in the league.

A closed league is more likely to mean that teams give up towards the end of the season, the half-way stage is utterly irrelevant, and just shows a desperation to put a positive spin on a negative thing.
It's a straw man argument by implication - as no-one has made the claim that a closed league can't provide a close table in mid-season.


Ultimately, a closed league is good for the teams in in, and bad for everyone else.

[Mellsblue]

Mark Evans is a huge and vocal proponent of a ring fenced Prem…
I do love the fact he’s gone from saying competition for the playoffs is great to competition to stay up (and get promoted, don’t forget the Champ) is bad.

[Puja]

Thought this an interesting observation by Evans.

Are we seeing better rugby and more competitive games due to no relegation this season?

Nope. We were already seeing good rugby before no relegation and it's more competitive because of a combination of salary cap crunch reducing the purchasing power of the top teams, one of the teams that often props up the table has gone to the wall, and the bottom team last year has had a very effective recruitment at the going out of business sale. Perhaps Newcastle have benefitted from no threat of relegation, but they've probably benefitted more from the reduction of quality of the other teams, making them more likely to pull off results.

Puja

[FKAS]

Falcons are also benefiting from some clever recruitment after bigger teams had to reduce to get under the cap. Moroni is a sensational signing for them. Giving Walder the job has definitely helped their style of play.

Every team in the league being able to spend up to the cap (or pretty close to) has made it more interesting. If anything it's an advert for keeping the cap down as opposed to ring fencing. Now if some funds could be diverted to improve the Championship...

[Banquo]

Now if some funds could be diverted to improve the Championship...

from where?

and if we keep the cap down, can we keep the best talent here?

[Mellsblue]

Surely we should be aiming for a competitive league by incentivising/forcing the weaker clubs to improve, on and off the field, rather forcing the stronger clubs to worsen.
At the moment, albeit due to outside issues, we’re just rewarding clubs for not growing their business, fan base and playing squad. I understand the need due to covid but going forward I think it’s a bad idea to go at the pace of the slowest.

[I R Geech]

From a fan point of view, the drama of relegation makes sense. From a business point of view, ring fencing makes sense.

Given that the current business models are completely unsustainable without wealthy benefactors, and there is a very real prospect of more clubs going bust, you have to put the business needs first or you have nothing left anyway.

[Mellsblue]

But surely enticing fans to watch, which you’ve said relegation helps with, is central to the business model?

[I R Geech]

The drama of relegation only ever effects two or three teams, whereas bankruptcy effects most of them. I’d also suggest that not worrying as much about grinding out a dull win, and giving it a lash without fearing the consequences is far more entertaining.

[Mellsblue]

So, from a fan point of view, the drama of relegation doesn’t make sense?

[Margin_Walker]

Most years there's not a whole lot of drama in the relegation battle. It's a handful of desperate teams usually playing poor rugby that I doubt is driving a huge amount of revenue for the PRL. Relegation makes sense with a financially viable second tier as there is in France with PD2. That's just not the case in English rugby at the moment.

Speaking from the couple of times it happened to LI in the last decade, it was pretty miserable. The club lost its best young players, lots of back room and commercial staff were laid off and there was definitely a feeling that future of the club itself was in danger. You could easily make an argument that a club like that deserved to fail, but in the absence of many profitable clubs in the first place, I personally don't see the long term value of adding the additional financial jeopardy in the current climate until a solution is found for the second tier. If that ends up happening with two leagues of ten, then great, but it's hard to see where the revenue is going to come from.

[16th man]

A consideration that us often missed in this debate, and we all know we've played "fantasy league set up" a lot over the years on here, is the question of how many professional players, being paid a wage commensurate to the long term physical risks the sport brings, can rugby actually afford, in a sustainable, non benefactor world.

It's all well and good starting from the point of how many clubs we want, and looking at how reducing the cap makes things more sustainable etc. but there will come a crunxh point where it isn't just the risk of guys going to France or Japan, its the 22 year old on the outer fringes of England selection who's already had 2 concussion layoffs, a back injury and one surgery, and is likely looking at 10 more years earning 50k a year tops, chucking it in all together.

That's a very good salary at that age if you've just qualified from uni and your family can't swing you a cushy city job, but not one that's going to set you for life and justify taking the risks of collecting the sort of litany of injuries and long term brain problems that the likes of Hartley and Thompson are now openly talking about.

[Mr Mwenda]

So, from a fan point of view, the drama of relegation doesn’t make sense?

It does seem to be taken as read that it is something club fans care strongly about and is usually said to be something they are assumed to be in favour of. I am not sure what the basis of this claim is but maybe it is so. Anybody know?

Margin makes good points IMO.

[Mellsblue]

A consideration that us often missed in this debate, and we all know we've played "fantasy league set up" a lot over the years on here, is the question of how many professional players, being paid a wage commensurate to the long term physical risks the sport brings, can rugby actually afford, in a sustainable, non benefactor world.

It's all well and good starting from the point of how many clubs we want, and looking at how reducing the cap makes things more sustainable etc. but there will come a crunxh point where it isn't just the risk of guys going to France or Japan, its the 22 year old on the outer fringes of England selection who's already had 2 concussion layoffs, a back injury and one surgery, and is likely looking at 10 more years earning 50k a year tops, chucking it in all together.

That's a very good salary at that age if you've just qualified from uni and your family can't swing you a cushy city job, but not one that's going to set you for life and justify taking the risks of collecting the sort of litany of injuries and long term brain problems that the likes of Hartley and Thompson are now openly talking about.

That conundrum has been mentioned a few times on here but the situation isn’t a given. The NFL teams play 17 games a year, plus post season for some, and the salaries over there are obvs worth the risk. The issue is building the ‘brand’ to a position where the tv deal, spectator etc streams allow for less games and improved salaries. Not that rugby will ever get to NFL finance levels, obvs.
Lowering/not raising the salary cap and thus losing the better players is a spiral in the wrong direction, imo.

[Mellsblue]

Most years there's not a whole lot of drama in the relegation battle. It's a handful of desperate teams usually playing poor rugby that I doubt is driving a huge amount of revenue for the PRL. Relegation makes sense with a financially viable second tier as there is in France with PD2. That's just not the case in English rugby at the moment.

Speaking from the couple of times it happened to LI in the last decade, it was pretty miserable. The club lost its best young players, lots of back room and commercial staff were laid off and there was definitely a feeling that future of the club itself was in danger. You could easily make an argument that a club like that deserved to fail, but in the absence of many profitable clubs in the first place, I personally don't see the long term value of adding the additional financial jeopardy in the current climate until a solution is found for the second tier. If that ends up happening with two leagues of ten, then great, but it's hard to see where the revenue is going to come from.

I don’t agree that relegation battle rugby equals poor rugby, or at least it doesn’t have to. Quins and Saints, for example, play good/expansive rugby and win more than they lose. Watching Leicester and Exeter whilst they win match after match has also bored me repeatedly over the years. In short, I don’t think the relegation battle automatically produces boring rugby and, if/when it does, it’s not necessarily because it’s relegation battle rugby.
As for the drop to the Champ being devastating, that’s partly the PRL’s own fault.

[Margin_Walker]

Most years there's not a whole lot of drama in the relegation battle. It's a handful of desperate teams usually playing poor rugby that I doubt is driving a huge amount of revenue for the PRL. Relegation makes sense with a financially viable second tier as there is in France with PD2. That's just not the case in English rugby at the moment.

Speaking from the couple of times it happened to LI in the last decade, it was pretty miserable. The club lost its best young players, lots of back room and commercial staff were laid off and there was definitely a feeling that future of the club itself was in danger. You could easily make an argument that a club like that deserved to fail, but in the absence of many profitable clubs in the first place, I personally don't see the long term value of adding the additional financial jeopardy in the current climate until a solution is found for the second tier. If that ends up happening with two leagues of ten, then great, but it's hard to see where the revenue is going to come from.

I don’t agree that relegation battle rugby equals poor rugby, or at least it doesn’t have to. Quins and Saints, for example, play good/expansive rugby and win more than they lose. Watching Leicester and Exeter whilst they win match after match has also bored me repeatedly over the years. In short, I don’t think the relegation battle automatically produces boring rugby and, if/when it does, it’s not necessarily because it’s relegation battle rugby.
As for the drop to the Champ being devastating, that’s partly the PRL’s own fault.

The bottom few teams involved in a relegation battle usually play poor, nervous rugby. Can't think of a single team that's been relegated in the last decade playing good or genuinely entertaining rugby (well, apart from Sarries anyway).

As for the drama, it's usually decided well in advance of the final game. You have to go back to 2012 to the last time the penultimate team was less than 6 points clear of the relegated team. I don't remember any dramatic increases in game attendance for the clubs that were struggling (although happy to be corrected)

So whilst relegation may be right for the integrity of the competition depending on your view point and is probably broadly popular amongst fans. I really don't see it adding a whole lot to the product the PRL are trying to sell personally.

[Oakboy]

A consideration that us often missed in this debate, and we all know we've played "fantasy league set up" a lot over the years on here, is the question of how many professional players, being paid a wage commensurate to the long term physical risks the sport brings, can rugby actually afford, in a sustainable, non benefactor world.

Good point but define 'benefactor'. A long-term fan making a donation? If so, is £5000 just benevolent and £10m beyond the pale? Or, do we say that any individual whose funds make up the difference between staying in the league or getting relegated should be so described? Then, you have businessmen buying assets like hotels etc. etc.

Really, any source of funds is acceptable in the professional game even if we'd like it not to be. Once one club has a significant benefactor, they all want one.

[Mellsblue]

Most years there's not a whole lot of drama in the relegation battle. It's a handful of desperate teams usually playing poor rugby that I doubt is driving a huge amount of revenue for the PRL. Relegation makes sense with a financially viable second tier as there is in France with PD2. That's just not the case in English rugby at the moment.

Speaking from the couple of times it happened to LI in the last decade, it was pretty miserable. The club lost its best young players, lots of back room and commercial staff were laid off and there was definitely a feeling that future of the club itself was in danger. You could easily make an argument that a club like that deserved to fail, but in the absence of many profitable clubs in the first place, I personally don't see the long term value of adding the additional financial jeopardy in the current climate until a solution is found for the second tier. If that ends up happening with two leagues of ten, then great, but it's hard to see where the revenue is going to come from.

I don’t agree that relegation battle rugby equals poor rugby, or at least it doesn’t have to. Quins and Saints, for example, play good/expansive rugby and win more than they lose. Watching Leicester and Exeter whilst they win match after match has also bored me repeatedly over the years. In short, I don’t think the relegation battle automatically produces boring rugby and, if/when it does, it’s not necessarily because it’s relegation battle rugby.
As for the drop to the Champ being devastating, that’s partly the PRL’s own fault.

The bottom few teams involved in a relegation battle usually play poor, nervous rugby. Can't think of a single team that's been relegated in the last decade playing good or genuinely entertaining rugby (well, apart from Sarries anyway).

As for the drama, it's usually decided well in advance of the final game. You have to go back to 2012 to the last time the penultimate team was less than 6 points clear of the relegated team. I don't remember any dramatic increases in game attendance for the clubs that were struggling (although happy to be corrected)

So whilst relegation may be right for the integrity of the competition depending on your view point and is probably broadly popular amongst fans. I really don't see it adding a whole lot to the product the PRL are trying to sell personally.

Do they play poor rugby because they’re in a relegation battle or because they are a poor team? They’re at/towards the bottom of the league for a reason. As I said, I think Leicester and Exeter have both played poor rugby whilst winning the Prem so it’s not the spectre of relegation that is solely to blame for poor rugby.

The relegation battle doesn’t have to be about the deciding match. It gives a narrative to a season and to games. There’s a reason world rugby have introduced the world championship: to give each test match a reason beyond the final score line, ie to give the matches a narrative. Going back to the NFL, you won’t see any dead rubber matches being televised...

It’s also not about increasing gates at the matches, it’s about adding value to tv contracts. PRL had to negotiate with BT before scrapping relegation…

[Margin_Walker]

There are very few real dead rubbers, that aspect is overplayed for me. Most clubs are in the hunt for European qualification deep into the season. That was a big deal for LI last season and they did end up scraping in. Even in any dead rubbers there are in the final weeks, players are playing for contracts, no ones foot is really off the gas.

I honestly don't think the narrative is worth the potential cost in the current climate and without a restructure to that second tier. Appreciate I'm probably in a minority though, so fine to agree to disagree on it.

[Puja]

There are very few real dead rubbers, that aspect is overplayed for me. Most clubs are in the hunt for European qualification deep into the season. That was a big deal for LI last season and they did end up scraping in. Even in any dead rubbers there are in the final weeks, players are playing for contracts, no ones foot is really off the gas.

I honestly don't think the narrative is worth the potential cost in the current climate and without a restructure to that second tier. Appreciate I'm probably in a minority though, so fine to agree to disagree on it.

I would agree with you that, without a restructure to the second tier, it's not viable at present. Relegation can only work where there is a competitive and full professional tierto drop into. So, even with my own preferred structure (two leagues of 10+8*), I'd still ringfence below the second tier.

Puja


*Or 10 if enough clubs can be found

[Mellsblue]

There are very few real dead rubbers, that aspect is overplayed for me. Most clubs are in the hunt for European qualification deep into the season. That was a big deal for LI last season and they did end up scraping in. Even in any dead rubbers there are in the final weeks, players are playing for contracts, no ones foot is really off the gas.

I honestly don't think the narrative is worth the potential cost in the current climate and without a restructure to that second tier. Appreciate I'm probably in a minority though, so fine to agree to disagree on it.

Are there not many dead rubbers? I suppose there won’t be now there’s only 11 teams to go in to 8 qualifying spots. Let’s just hope that the nerves of missing out on the Champ Cup doesn’t lead to poor rugby
Would you be in favour of ring fencing if LI go under this summer/finish last and PRL and RFU decide to ring fence a 10 club league?
Also happy to agree to disagree as there are plus and minuses on both sides of the argument.

[Margin_Walker]

If LI went under and the league was ringfenced at 10, I'd be fine. Although my preference ultimately would be for an 8 + 8 or 10 + 10 fully pro and ringfenced structure.

If we finished last and were ringfenced out, I'd be pissed off, given it would obviously be a last minute rug pull.

[Mellsblue]

So when would you introduce ring fencing?