Re: EPS Watch / Player Form Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:06 am
I believe the Champ clubs are now happy with the proposal as long as it is for a max of five years and, of course, they are well compensated.
Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.Mellsblue wrote:I believe the Champ clubs are now happy with the proposal as long as it is for a max of five years and, of course, they are well compensated.
It's not the only lever, but they will elevate the role of those clubs singled out for a protected statusPuja wrote:The RFU shouldn't allow ringfencing without some quid pro quo - it's the only lever they still have on the clubs.
Puja
Fully agree on the first para.Puja wrote:Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.Mellsblue wrote:I believe the Champ clubs are now happy with the proposal as long as it is for a max of five years and, of course, they are well compensated.
The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.
Puja
Mellsblue wrote:Fully agree on the first para.Puja wrote:Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.Mellsblue wrote:I believe the Champ clubs are now happy with the proposal as long as it is for a max of five years and, of course, they are well compensated.
The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.
Puja
The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.
The bigger clubs do. Bristol, as you say, do, as do Bedford. I’d imagine Doncaster and Leeds both do. Probably Nottingham, too. The margins at that level are small in cash terms. Bedford aim to lose £80k per year, that’s two games worth of ticket sales. So, if they lose four games a year they’re tripling their loses - that’s before you take into account bar taking, club shop, hospitality (such as it is at Goldington Rd) and sponsorship income. Also, there aren’t many other income streams at Champ level. Even those that do own their ground don’t have the ancillary facilities to make money on non-match days.Puja wrote:Mellsblue wrote:Fully agree on the first para.Puja wrote:
Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.
The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.
Puja
The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.
Do they make significant amounts of money from home games (Bristol aside)? Surely any losses from attendances would be more than covered by the RFU money needing to be split fewer directions? And if the RFU are willing to throw money at them to get ringfencing, they'd be able to throw money to make 8 of them fully pro. A concentration of quality and an improvement in funding and importance would likely lead to higher attendances and TV money as well. Better still if we had two leagues of 10 and thus more big names were there.
Puja
They wouldn't be losing 4 games per year, only 2 home ones. But I take your point.Mellsblue wrote:The bigger clubs do. Bristol, as you say, do, as do Bedford. I’d imagine Doncaster and Leeds both do. Probably Nottingham, too. The margins at that level are small in cash terms. Bedford aim to lose £80k per year, that’s two games worth of ticket sales. So, if they lose four games a year they’re tripling their loses - that’s before you take into account bar taking, club shop, hospitality (such as it is at Goldington Rd) and sponsorship income. Also, there aren’t many other income streams at Champ level. Even those that do own their ground don’t have the ancillary facilities to make money on non-match days.Puja wrote:Mellsblue wrote: Fully agree on the first para.
The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.
Do they make significant amounts of money from home games (Bristol aside)? Surely any losses from attendances would be more than covered by the RFU money needing to be split fewer directions? And if the RFU are willing to throw money at them to get ringfencing, they'd be able to throw money to make 8 of them fully pro. A concentration of quality and an improvement in funding and importance would likely lead to higher attendances and TV money as well. Better still if we had two leagues of 10 and thus more big names were there.
Puja
There is always the possibility to have a cup comp between the second tier and the top tier’s AWC sides to add in games.
Regardless, for long term stability, and to end the chasm between the Prem and the Champ, match days in the second tier would need to be profit making at some point.
Sorry, was going on your 8 fully pro teams rather than your preferred 10 and 10. Mainly as it backed up my point of view better!!Puja wrote:They wouldn't be losing 4 games per year, only 2 home ones. But I take your point.Mellsblue wrote:The bigger clubs do. Bristol, as you say, do, as do Bedford. I’d imagine Doncaster and Leeds both do. Probably Nottingham, too. The margins at that level are small in cash terms. Bedford aim to lose £80k per year, that’s two games worth of ticket sales. So, if they lose four games a year they’re tripling their loses - that’s before you take into account bar taking, club shop, hospitality (such as it is at Goldington Rd) and sponsorship income. Also, there aren’t many other income streams at Champ level. Even those that do own their ground don’t have the ancillary facilities to make money on non-match days.Puja wrote:
Do they make significant amounts of money from home games (Bristol aside)? Surely any losses from attendances would be more than covered by the RFU money needing to be split fewer directions? And if the RFU are willing to throw money at them to get ringfencing, they'd be able to throw money to make 8 of them fully pro. A concentration of quality and an improvement in funding and importance would likely lead to higher attendances and TV money as well. Better still if we had two leagues of 10 and thus more big names were there.
Puja
There is always the possibility to have a cup comp between the second tier and the top tier’s AWC sides to add in games.
Regardless, for long term stability, and to end the chasm between the Prem and the Champ, match days in the second tier would need to be profit making at some point.
If I were in charge, I'd want the AWC to be expanded to be across all international weekends, and to include the Championship sides. That would seem to be the big opportunity for profit and also for Champ sides to test their mettle against the side up (albeit weakened teams).
Puja
Indeed- and I hope he got the appropriate compensation from insurance/and/or RFU.Beasties wrote:Sam Jones retirement has been officially announced sadly. Massive shame for the guy, injured when on the verge of getting a decent run of games for Eng. Great servant for Wasps, Dai had some very kind words to say about him with good reason. Gutted we won't see him play again. Good luck for the future Sam.
Agreed, if you absolutely HAVE to ring fence, it should be below the champ, not Prem; albeit with fewer teams in those 2.Puja wrote:The RFU shouldn't allow ringfencing without some quid pro quo - it's the only lever they still have on the clubs.
Oops, hadn't seen the thread had spread to a new page again - beaten to it this timePuja wrote: Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.
The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.
Which is why my proposal drops the champ to 10 teams, but higher quality games (4 out at the bottom of the Champ, 2 added from the Prem) with additional involvement in a domestic cup, including matches against the Prem clubs, and with any TV deal being spread around all 20 clubs, increased promotion/relegation by an extra play-off spot.Mellsblue wrote:
The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.
We sit here, banging on our same drum, o'er an o'er... It's a great idea, but unfortunately no-one in power gives two figs for it.Which Tyler wrote:IIRC Puja agrees with my suggestion on this when I detail it
It was indeed. Hopefully Maro's talked to Jones and got forgiveness, as well as talking to a professional, and is able to move forward.Mikey Brown wrote:What a shame for him.
I’m trying to voice my thoughts over how Maro may feel about it, without it sounding like I’m actually blaming him at all. Same for Eddie, for that matter, given the nature of the injury.
It was that same leg injury that did it right?
I’m not sure games against Wuss and Irish, without their test players, would make up for the two lost matches. You’d have to double the crowds in both games just to keep the status quo. Even if they could attract double the numbers, and that doesn’t happen at present at Bedford when playing whichever big club is in the Champ, most clubs don’t have facilities to accommodate them anyway.Which Tyler wrote:Which is why my proposal drops the champ to 10 teams, but higher quality games (4 out at the bottom of the Champ, 2 added from the Prem) with additional involvement in a domestic cup, including matches against the Prem clubs, and with any TV deal being spread around all 20 clubs, increased promotion/relegation by an extra play-off spot.Mellsblue wrote:
The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.
For then champ, they'd get more sell-out games, TV appearance for extra advertising to sell (and promotion), and TV cash., And the chance for for example, Bedford to play against Leicester or Northampton in the domestic cup.
IIRC Puja agrees with my suggestion on this when I detail it
Reduce premiership games...Mellsblue wrote:I thought the whole point of the last few posts was to reduce games.
Reduce premiership games...Mellsblue wrote:I thought the whole point of the last few posts was to reduce games.
ETA in an ideal world, I'd actually reduce the Prem to 8 with 12 in the Champ, but I think that 10&10 stands half a chance at actually passing.Which Tyler, post: 887023, member: 73592 wrote:As ever, i just think people are thinking about this all wrong.
It's far too late for franchise rugby in England, that horse bolted a long time ago. It's also entirely unnecessary.
What we need IMO is fewer, higher quality matches at the top, with a more pyramidal structure at the top of the game, concentrating the talent a bit more, and preferably, decreasing the number of overseas mercenaries (thought that's not too bad these last few years).
IMO, decrease the Prem to 10 teams, 5 get EPRC places.
Probably shrink the champ to 10 (we can sustain a good 20 fully pro clubs IMO, even if they need some charity initially)
Increase promo/rele to the Championship to 1 automatic and another play off.
Ring-fence the top two leagues (with specific criteria to eject underperformers or include ambitious semi-pro.s)
MSCs for both leagues, but looser than the current, but with additional requirements for admin etc. Same salary cap for both.
TV deal is for both leagues as one deal (ideally 2 Prem and 1 Champ match per weekend).
RFU academies for all.
Expand the AWC, by adding the champ teams. 6 pools of 4, orthodox fixture list; knock-out stages to include cup, plate and shield, so that everyone gets KO experience*. Players only eligible if they played less than X minutes in the previous season (Prem clubs only).
This gives us 6 pool + 3 KO weekends to fit into the 10 week international window. We've bought that by reducing the league by 4 weekends and helped player welfare with that game time limit for the domestic cup - I'd also have a maximum number of minutes for every player anyway.
Clubs go from 22+2, 6+3, 4+2 (32-39) matches to 18+2, 6+3, 6+3* (31-38) matches, so the loss of 1 home game, higher quality in the league, greater variety of opposition, especially for the less experienced players, higher quality Championship, with a chance of giant slaying in the cup, and a guarantee that everyone gets a QF*.
Increasing the quality of the champ, along with inclusion in the TV deal (and the direct cash and subsequent sponsorship and growth opportunities), increased promotion opportunities, giant-slaying options, and that ring-fence means that this shouldn't be too much a case of turkeys voting for Christmas.
For the champ teams, without European rugby, you could argue that they'd be lacking match numbers, despite the higher quality and TV deal. You could also argue that this is better for player welfare, allows them to rest ahead of their giant-slaying opportunities, and allow for smaller squads.
If too few, we'd need to look at something presumably similar to the B&I cup (but the above is more than the current Champ without the cup).
Alternatively, increase the Champ to 14 (just the 2 dropping down being added), which barely improves the Champ; but would mean throwing the Welsh out of the domestic cup (oh well, nevermind). I vacilate on this each time I think about it, and I guess it would ultimately depend on how many champ clubs want to go fully pro and have (reduced) MSCs applied.
Of course, you could get a situation where, too many champ clubs would choose not to go fully pro; in which case I'd argue for the RFU getting involved and "assisting" 1-3 clubs in union-poor areas, say Carlisle, Blackburn or Canterbury
From the Champ perspective you've lost two league matches and retained the same number of knockout matches, albeit with one guaranteed extra game.Which Tyler wrote:This is the latest that wrote my spiel, but I can't find it on RR since we moved boards (I'm sure I have, but I can't find it).
The plan is to reduce games played for the players, not necessarily for the clubs, to increase quality of the leagues, increase development opportunities for the Prem and giant-slaying for the Champ, whilst increasing variety of opponents faced.
ETA in an ideal world, I'd actually reduce the Prem to 8 with 12 in the Champ, but I think that 10&10 stands half a chance at actually passing.Which Tyler, post: 887023, member: 73592 wrote:As ever, i just think people are thinking about this all wrong.
It's far too late for franchise rugby in England, that horse bolted a long time ago. It's also entirely unnecessary.
What we need IMO is fewer, higher quality matches at the top, with a more pyramidal structure at the top of the game, concentrating the talent a bit more, and preferably, decreasing the number of overseas mercenaries (thought that's not too bad these last few years).
IMO, decrease the Prem to 10 teams, 5 get EPRC places.
Probably shrink the champ to 10 (we can sustain a good 20 fully pro clubs IMO, even if they need some charity initially)
Increase promo/rele to the Championship to 1 automatic and another play off.
Ring-fence the top two leagues (with specific criteria to eject underperformers or include ambitious semi-pro.s)
MSCs for both leagues, but looser than the current, but with additional requirements for admin etc. Same salary cap for both.
TV deal is for both leagues as one deal (ideally 2 Prem and 1 Champ match per weekend).
RFU academies for all.
Expand the AWC, by adding the champ teams. 6 pools of 4, orthodox fixture list; knock-out stages to include cup, plate and shield, so that everyone gets KO experience*. Players only eligible if they played less than X minutes in the previous season (Prem clubs only).
This gives us 6 pool + 3 KO weekends to fit into the 10 week international window. We've bought that by reducing the league by 4 weekends and helped player welfare with that game time limit for the domestic cup - I'd also have a maximum number of minutes for every player anyway.
Clubs go from 22+2, 6+3, 4+2 (32-39) matches to 18+2, 6+3, 6+3* (31-38) matches, so the loss of 1 home game, higher quality in the league, greater variety of opposition, especially for the less experienced players, higher quality Championship, with a chance of giant slaying in the cup, and a guarantee that everyone gets a QF*.
Increasing the quality of the champ, along with inclusion in the TV deal (and the direct cash and subsequent sponsorship and growth opportunities), increased promotion opportunities, giant-slaying options, and that ring-fence means that this shouldn't be too much a case of turkeys voting for Christmas.
For the champ teams, without European rugby, you could argue that they'd be lacking match numbers, despite the higher quality and TV deal. You could also argue that this is better for player welfare, allows them to rest ahead of their giant-slaying opportunities, and allow for smaller squads.
If too few, we'd need to look at something presumably similar to the B&I cup (but the above is more than the current Champ without the cup).
Alternatively, increase the Champ to 14 (just the 2 dropping down being added), which barely improves the Champ; but would mean throwing the Welsh out of the domestic cup (oh well, nevermind). I vacilate on this each time I think about it, and I guess it would ultimately depend on how many champ clubs want to go fully pro and have (reduced) MSCs applied.
Of course, you could get a situation where, too many champ clubs would choose not to go fully pro; in which case I'd argue for the RFU getting involved and "assisting" 1-3 clubs in union-poor areas, say Carlisle, Blackburn or Canterbury
As above, if the cup comp is to be commercially viable you'd need it to feature the EPS players which defeats the point of reducing the Premiership games.Stom wrote:Reduce premiership games...Mellsblue wrote:I thought the whole point of the last few posts was to reduce games.
1. Adressed in the post; you lose 2 and gain 1; whilst potentially gaining 4-6. However, you gain in that those matches are against better opposition, or at the very least, against bigger name clubs, which draws crowds; you gain TV coverage to promote your brand, and you gain TV coverage to sell to sponsors. There's also the option of 12 or 14 teams in the Champ - which is 0 or +2 home matches, not -2 all the way.Mellsblue wrote:1.From the Champ perspective you've lost two league matches and retained the same number of knockout matches, albeit with one guaranteed extra game.
2. When you say Bedford could play Leicester or Exeter you mean they could play their AWC 'B' team. As I said to Puja, Bedford's attendances don't particularly increase for games against the club who is having their season out of the top flight, so I don't see Quin's 'B' driving up attendances sufficiently.
3. I can't see TV companies and sponsors wanting to throw money at either the new cup comp or the two tier league - the AWC can't even find a title sponsor, the TV companies aren't really bothered about the Challenge Cup let alone a domestic second tier cup or league and even the Six Nations is struggling for sponsorship money. To make the domestic cup attractive to TV and sponsors you'd need to involve the big name players which defeats the point of cutting the top tier to reduce games.
4. Replacing Rotherham, Richmond, Hartpury and LS with LI and Wuss, without their test players, won't interest the TV companies as they aren't really interested in LI and Wuss now going by the games BT broadcast.
5. I don't think you can build a sustainable league on TV and sponsorship money. Steady and reliable income from match days and ancillary facilities are the foundations to build on. Sadly, very few clubs in the champ have the land letalone the money to build such infrastructure.