RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I don’t see the rationale of wanting to ditch Europe just to reform Europe without the French.

That's the country in Europe I'd be most keen to play against, whether at club or national level.

On a financial level definitely. I’d add in Ireland based on quality of rugby.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: If 2,000 fans, no TV deal, no exposure and barely any central funding pays for the existing squads

Except they don’t. Bedford used to operate at a £80k loss, courtesy of the chief execs pockets, but as the quality of the league increased that led to relegation battles. The wage bill has shot up this year, hence we are now third top rather than third bottom, due to more charity from the local wealthy. This is all from the second largest attendances, by a decent distance, in the league.

A] Just like the entirety of the Prem you mean? (Well, with a zero knocked off)
B] I'm pretty sure that £80k is less money than the additional £3M you'd be getting.

A) Yes
B) Yes

but I wasn’t commenting on that, just that current attendances and central funding don’t cover current wage bills.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I don’t see the rationale of wanting to ditch Europe just to reform Europe without the French.

That's the country in Europe I'd be most keen to play against, whether at club or national level.

On a financial level definitely. I’d add in Ireland based on quality of rugby.

Maybe on the quality front, more so in the test arena.

Timbo wrote:Saracens apparently up for sale...

That lasted long. Nigel Wray has just bought back the 50% shareholding that the Saffas wanted to sell, putting him back in control of 100% of the club again. Looks like he'll be looking to sell a stake to a third party, but in no hurry to:

https://www.saracens.com/news-article/n ... o-saracens

Must be nice to be able to afford such a thing out of petty cash, mustn't it?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Timbo wrote:Saracens apparently up for sale...

That lasted long. Nigel Wray has just bought back the 50% shareholding that the Saffas wanted to sell, putting him back in control of 100% of the club again. Looks like he'll be looking to sell a stake to a third party, but in no hurry to:

https://www.saracens.com/news-article/n ... o-saracens

Must be nice to be able to afford such a thing out of petty cash, mustn't it?

Puja

Rupert writing off £25 million of loans owed to him too.

Timbo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Timbo wrote:Saracens apparently up for sale...

That lasted long. Nigel Wray has just bought back the 50% shareholding that the Saffas wanted to sell, putting him back in control of 100% of the club again. Looks like he'll be looking to sell a stake to a third party, but in no hurry to:

https://www.saracens.com/news-article/n ... o-saracens

Must be nice to be able to afford such a thing out of petty cash, mustn't it?

Puja

Rupert writing off £25 million of loans owed to him too.

Rupert's company as I understood it - shareholders must be chuffed.

Mellsblue wrote:I don’t see the rationale of wanting to ditch Europe just to reform Europe without the French.

Cos of Brexit dontcha know. Though this also means we'd have to dump Leinster, Munster & Connacht

belgarion wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I don’t see the rationale of wanting to ditch Europe just to reform Europe without the French.

Cos of Brexit dontcha know. Though this also means we'd have to dump Leinster, Munster & Connacht

Ridiculous. Technology will allow us to have frictionless games with the Republic, without requiring us to be in any of the same competitions or subject to the same referees. Anyone who says different is just unpatriotically talking down PRL. Or a Russian collaborator.

Puja

Oakboy wrote:How far has the attractiveness to fans of 'regions' been investigated? Idealistic in concept, perhaps, but, as a first step, a 4-division competition over 2 weeks might be worth considering instead of some club/cup alternatives. Pick the 4 top DORs and let them choose regional EQP 23s. Out of the hat 1st round with a final at Twickenham.

The topic comes up here from time to time, but there seems to be no appetite. Which is a shame, as I'd follow a London team (or at least would have when English domestic rugby had any appeal to me), but simply don't feel part of a community for any of Quins/Pests/Sarries/LI. I don't know if Leeds rebranding as Yorkshire has done them any good; that would be a good litmus test for appetite.


In any case, I am nearly all for ringfencing. Frankly, if I had my druthers, I'd take a big swinging axe to it and have one league of 10, another league of 10 which are all affiliated to one of the league of 10 above, and tell everyone outside the 20 to go spin on it. That, imo, would be the strongest possible base for building the pro rugby game in England, and providing a strong base for national success. But something like that would never happen because the English model of sport is local clubs rising and falling and there's not enough appetite for messing with tradition.

Where I'm not for ringfencing though is when it comes at the expense of the stronger level of competition we play in Europe and the special occasions it generates.

A potential financial boost:

Premiership Rugby close to deal with Gallagher as new title sponsor:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43639910


I’ll admit to being pretty disappointed it wasn’t Kirsty Gallagher.

Peat wrote:

Oakboy wrote:How far has the attractiveness to fans of 'regions' been investigated? Idealistic in concept, perhaps, but, as a first step, a 4-division competition over 2 weeks might be worth considering instead of some club/cup alternatives. Pick the 4 top DORs and let them choose regional EQP 23s. Out of the hat 1st round with a final at Twickenham.

The topic comes up here from time to time, but there seems to be no appetite. Which is a shame, as I'd follow a London team (or at least would have when English domestic rugby had any appeal to me), but simply don't feel part of a community for any of Quins/Pests/Sarries/LI. I don't know if Leeds rebranding as Yorkshire has done them any good; that would be a good litmus test for appetite.


In any case, I am nearly all for ringfencing. Frankly, if I had my druthers, I'd take a big swinging axe to it and have one league of 10, another league of 10 which are all affiliated to one of the league of 10 above, and tell everyone outside the 20 to go spin on it. That, imo, would be the strongest possible base for building the pro rugby game in England, and providing a strong base for national success. But something like that would never happen because the English model of sport is local clubs rising and falling and there's not enough appetite for messing with tradition.

Where I'm not for ringfencing though is when it comes at the expense of the stronger level of competition we play in Europe and the special occasions it generates.

I would also be happy with the "swinging axe". I'd be even happier with a full on tear down, RFU controlled regions in the Pro 14 and European Cup in the New Zealand model, but I don't think that will ever happen.

Mellsblue wrote:A potential financial boost:

Premiership Rugby close to deal with Gallagher as new title sponsor:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43639910


I’ll admit to being pretty disappointed it wasn’t Kirsty Gallagher.

I did hear that Kirsty was lining up Aviva as her preferred insurer for when she get’s her licence back

The Times believe the sponsorship will be worth more than the £6million Aviva paid for its last multi-year contract (they sponsored this season on a one year deal at a lower rate). Good news, if true.

Mellsblue wrote:The Times believe the sponsorship will be worth more than the £6million Aviva paid for its last multi-year contract (they sponsored this season on a one year deal at a lower rate). Good news, if true.

With luck, the clubs will take the money and use it to reduce their losses, and not just vote through another salary cap rise.

Puja

I'm not all that keen on ring fencing but if it is to happen then how about 2 conferences, 8 teams each, play offs at the end. A bit pointless having north and south at the moment but if you start throwing in Leeds (I refuse to call them Yorkshire) and Donny then it starts to make more sense.
Reduces the number of games, reduces travel costs for the clubs and supporters and also increases the number of 'derby' games which tend to attract bigger crowds.
Heck you could have all the playoffs in Birmingham if you wanted so easy for everyone to get to.

A half way house option would be for a promoted club to be protected from relegation for maybe 3 seasons to encourage investment and also keep the others on their toes. LI and Bristol swapping places each year does no one any good.

I've never understood the desire to have conferences instead of divisions.
Why not put the 8-10 best teams in one division; and the other 8-10 in a second division?

It's sport - what's wrong with competition?
What's the advantage of conferences instead? Other than not making the losers feel bad - participation award style. I can see the attraction for competitions where travel would become prohibitive; like N Armerica, or Super rugby; but not for somewhere tiny like England.

Which Tyler wrote:
It's sport - what's wrong with competition?

This I agree with, it's such a large part of why I'd never get rid of promotion and relegation

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:
It's sport - what's wrong with competition?

This I agree with, it's such a large part of why I'd never get rid of promotion and relegation

Seconded.

Which Tyler wrote:I've never understood the desire to have conferences instead of divisions.
Why not put the 8-10 best teams in one division; and the other 8-10 in a second division?

It's sport - what's wrong with competition?
What's the advantage of conferences instead? Other than not making the losers feel bad - participation award style. I can see the attraction for competitions where travel would become prohibitive; like N Armerica, or Super rugby; but not for somewhere tiny like England.

Well I’ve not given it an enormous amount of thought to be honest. I just suggested it as another alternative. I’ve listed some advantages, I’m sure there are disadvantages but I can’t see why lack of competition is even an issue. It’s still competition just different competition.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:
It's sport - what's wrong with competition?

This I agree with, it's such a large part of why I'd never get rid of promotion and relegation

Seconded.

That is something I also agree with, it was just suggested as a potential alternative if the decision was made to do away with promotion and relegation.

The big advantage of conferences is that you can have a really big league but keep games down by, say, playing everyone in your conference home and away but only playing the teams out of it once.

Personally I think two divisions is better to try and increase quality at the top but if they can't get that through, maybe they can get conferences through.

I reckon getting the 2nd division to a point financially where relegation is a bump, rather than a cliff edge, would go a long way to increasing the level of play in the league.

16th man wrote:I reckon getting the 2nd division to a point financially where relegation is a bump, rather than a cliff edge, would go a long way to increasing the level of play in the league.

Hear hear
That belief, of course, is the principle underpinning everything I've written on the subject

There is no sensible model for getting finances in the Championship anywhere near Premiership level, maybe there will be in another 20 years.

Digby wrote:There is no sensible model for getting finances in the Championship anywhere near Premiership level, maybe there will be in another 20 years.

Doesn't need to be particularly near, just a lot nearer.
As for the proposals not existing, they've been done in this thread, they're just not interesting the corridors of power