Rugby Union

[rockershovel]

25 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

I would take issue with the last paragraph, before the game went pro, players from non fashionable clubs played for England, Dooley being one at Preston Grasshoppers, Bill Beaumont played for Fylde, there were many others. Since the game went pro, no-one made any money out of running a rugby union club, which was why Hall left Gosforth(another less fashionable club) without any history, fans or money, just a new name Newcastle, to their credit they have survived whilst many(Orrell being another northern side) to fall away.

 

Beaumont was a quite exceptional player, who captained North of England and appeared with Lions within two years of his first cap. Ah, those far-off days when national captains retired after full careers, with 34 caps! 

 

Its certainly true that running a rugby club is no way to make money. What I don’t believe, is that clubs like Leicester (who had a full professional set-up in place on Day One), approached their new venture with that expectation.

 

It’s also worth bearing in mind that both great captains of the early professional era - Carling and Johnson - had considerable reputation and influence among players for their acumen in contractual matters. 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by rockershovel

[St Enodoc]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

Just to clarify, I was given first-hand testimony about players, including second team and juniors, getting cash payments at one of our leading clubs. I have no reason to suppose it was different elsewhere/ That was in the mid-1970s.

Boot money.

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Beaumont was a quite exceptional player, who captained North of England and appeared with Lions within two years of his first cap. Ah, those far-off days when national captains retired after full careers, with 34 caps! 

He retired prematurely due to injury. Given the number of matches per year at the time, he probably would have got to at least 60 caps otherwise.

[tigerburnie]

14 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Its certainly true that running a rugby club is no way to make money. What I don’t believe, is that clubs like Leicester (who had a full professional set-up in place on Day One), approached their new venture with that expectation.

 

It’s also worth bearing in mind that both great captains of the early professional era - Carling and Johnson - had considerable reputation and influence among players for their acumen in contractual matters. 

 

You need to remember when the game went pro Leicester were one of the few clubs to own a very good and large ground with a decent fan base already, in the amateur days many of the "top clubs" still played on public parks and owned no assets, indeed those travelling Wasps have only just finally cuckooed into someone else's patch and found a place to call home, similar for Sale,Saracens and London Irish who had to rent out football grounds. Bath are still trying to be allowed to build the "wreck" into a proper ground as the recreation ground isn't theirs. Quinns and Northampton are among the few who still play at the same ground they did in the amateur days.

[rockershovel]

5 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

You need to remember when the game went pro Leicester were one of the few clubs to own a very good and large ground with a decent fan base already, in the amateur days many of the "top clubs" still played on public parks and owned no assets, indeed those travelling Wasps have only just finally cuckooed into someone else's patch and found a place to call home, similar for Sale,Saracens and London Irish who had to rent out football grounds. Bath are still trying to be allowed to build the "wreck" into a proper ground as the recreation ground isn't theirs. Quinns and Northampton are among the few who still play at the same ground they did in the amateur days.

 

Franklins Gardens is a new, purpose-built stadium. It was constructed amid much controversy about the use of public funds for commercial purposes. The surrounding carparks are owned by the local authority. Northampton could have substantially increased capacity, but didn’t. 

 

Leicester looked at ground-sharing at the Walkers Stadium, but didn’t proceed with that. 

[tigerburnie]

Not often I agree with what Dimes has to say, but he's right here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50325042

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 06/11/2019 at 09:48, tigerburnie said:

Bath are still trying to be allowed to build the "wreck" into a proper ground as the recreation ground isn't theirs. Quinns and Northampton are among the few who still play at the same ground they did in the amateur days.

 

Location of The Rec is one of the most spectacular in world sport.

 

But completely daft. If they are ever to attract large crowds (and Bath supporters travel from a wide catchment area) they really need to bite the bullet and move to a new site. There are less beautiful parts of the city that could provide a site. Redevelopment of The Rec (or part thereof) could fund the move.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, tigerburnie said:

Not often I agree with what Dimes has to say, but he's right here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50325042

 

That article and the quotes from Wray put a new light on this.

 

Technically, they may not have breached the Pay Limit but they have certainly breached the spirit of it.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I know that the traditionalists will  not like this but....

 

I think that American Football has a model, similar to 20/20 cricket, which could be transferable to Professional Rugby Union. Not only salary caps but control over the recruitment process.

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Location of The Rec is one of the most spectacular in world sport.

 

But completely daft. If they are ever to attract large crowds (and Bath supporters travel from a wide catchment area) they really need to bite the bullet and move to a new site. There are less beautiful parts of the city that could provide a site. Redevelopment of The Rec (or part thereof) could fund the move.

 

I took No 2 Son to The Rec some years ago. His reaction was “what a slum!” - and he has been to Welford Road! I seem to remember they tried to move to Bristol a while ago, with no useful result?

Edited November 7, 2019 by rockershovel

[tigerburnie]

The irony of Quinns complaining about cheating is not lost, but there are some salient points raised

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50329516

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I know that the traditionalists will  not like this but....

 

I think that American Football has a model, similar to 20/20 cricket, which could be transferable to Professional Rugby Union. Not only salary caps but control over the recruitment process.

 

I can’t think of anything worse for the national squad, and I don’t really care about club rugby... which seems to be most of the problem, that club rugby is wholly unable to approach the revenues generated at international level. 

 

The NFL is a franchise system. Club owners buy franchises. The NFL have total control over TV Rights and ticket sales, and (mostly) complete control over player recruitment. They do pretty much nil player development, the schools and colleges do that under a system basically fuelled (at the top level) by TV revenues, plus gate receipts most FA Premiership teams would love to have. Nor are NFL franchises permitted to asset strip teams by overloading them with debt, because (1) few, if any teams own their grounds (2) there are strict controls on protecting the value of franchises, because the business model couldn’t work any other way. 

 

The NFL plays one exhibition game a year (the Pro Bowl) entirely recruited from contracted players. There are no representative international fixtures, no tournaments controlled by third parties (such as 6N or RWC). 

 

The senior rugby clubs long ago, set their faces against central contracting of players. What they REALLY want, is uncontrolled access to the revenues at international level. They see NZ wanting £1m for a game, and seethe with envy and avarice. 

 

Rugby union, like it or not, is a second-tier sport (at best) in the Northern Hemisphere, especially at club level. 

 

 

[rockershovel]

12 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

The irony of Quinns complaining about cheating is not lost, but there are some salient points raised

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50329516

 

Ho, ho, Ho... speaking of the BBC, I couldn’t help noticing the undisguised glee this morning, because someone won the World Cup AND IT WASN'T ENGLAND AFTER ALL! 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

12 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

I can’t think of anything worse for the national squad, and I don’t really care about club rugby... which seems to be most of the problem, that club rugby is wholly unable to approach the revenues generated at international level. 

 

The NFL is a franchise system. Club owners buy franchises. The NFL have total control over TV Rights and ticket sales, and (mostly) complete control over player recruitment. They do pretty much nil player development, the schools and colleges do that under a system basically fuelled (at the top level) by TV revenues, plus gate receipts most FA Premiership teams would love to have. Nor are NFL franchises permitted to asset strip teams by overloading them with debt, because (1) few, if any teams own their grounds (2) there are strict controls on protecting the value of franchises, because the business model couldn’t work any other way. 

 

The NFL plays one exhibition game a year (the Pro Bowl) entirely recruited from contracted players. There are no representative international fixtures, no tournaments controlled by third parties (such as 6N or RWC). 

 

The senior rugby clubs long ago, set their faces against central contracting of players. What they REALLY want, is uncontrolled access to the revenues at international level. They see NZ wanting £1m for a game, and seethe with envy and avarice. 

 

Rugby union, like it or not, is a second-tier sport (at best) in the Northern Hemisphere, especially at club level. 

 

 

 

I am not sure that I understand your objection.

 

If we had a centrally controlled franchise set-up, the professional club game could be much stronger and also matches be scheduled not to clash with internationals (a problem that gridiron does not have).

[rockershovel]

6 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I am not sure that I understand your objection.

 

If we had a centrally controlled franchise set-up, the professional club game could be much stronger and also matches be scheduled not to clash with internationals (a problem that gridiron does not have).

 

In the NFL, the product is the fixture list. It is in everyone’s interest to maximise the value of every game. There is no promotion, no relegation. The season is strictly controlled, so that each team plays 4 preseason games (which don’t count for standings) then 16 games in 17 weeks plus two, or the most three (Wild Card Qualifier) to reach the Super Bowl. Teams rarely meet home and away in the same season, and do not consistently meet every season. 

 

The problem as I see it, is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the teams and the national squad. The national governing body needs a supply of players of a sufficient standard, but it doesn’t need the clubs, as such; it could perfectly well have bought the top eight clubs, run them under overall control, and keep ALL the revenue. The revenue from the club games is so far below the international revenue, that the clubs’ constant demands for more from the international income amounts to a minor partner demanding a controlling interest. 

 

The RFU created this problem, by utterly failing to prepare for professionalisation, then failing to address it once it became obvious. They hold the key to the money box - recognition as the national governing body. What they lack, and always have, is the will to act in their own interest and the interests of the game. 

 

 

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

 

In the NFL, the product is the fixture list. It is in everyone’s interest to maximise the value of every game. There is no promotion, no relegation. The season is strictly controlled, so that each team plays 4 preseason games (which don’t count for standings) then 16 games in 17 weeks plus two, or the most three (Wild Card Qualifier) to reach the Super Bowl. Teams rarely meet home and away in the same season, and do not consistently meet every season. 

 

The problem as I see it, is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest between the teams and the national squad. The national governing body needs a supply of players of a sufficient standard, but it doesn’t need the clubs, as such; it could perfectly well have bought the top eight clubs, run them under overall control, and keep ALL the revenue. The revenue from the club games is so far below the international revenue, that the clubs’ constant demands for more from the international income amounts to a minor partner demanding a controlling interest. 

 

The RFU created this problem, by utterly failing to prepare for professionalisation, then failing to address it once it became obvious. They hold the key to the money box - recognition as the national governing body. What they lack, and always have, is the will to act in their own interest and the interests of the game. 

 

 

 

I think that we mainly agree. The question is how we get from one to the other.

[rockershovel]

Ah, there’s the rub.... basically, the club owners need to go, and the RFU take on overall control. The RFU were not willing to have that confrontation when the opportunity offered, and won't do it at any foreseeable time in the future. The club owners have no incentive whatsoever to move in this direction, of course. 

 

To anyone who suggests that the club owners should control the game overall, I have only one reply - football, where the clubs have progressively eroded and destroyed everything outside their direct financial control. 

 

A week ago, people were seriously suggesting that England could be World Champions in rugby union. They have appeared in four RWC finals out of nine, winning one. They have won the principal domestic competition (6N) six times out of nineteen, most recently in 2016 and 2017. They are a top tier team, by any definition, and have never ceased to be so. 

 

Compare this to football, in which the England national team last appeared in the final of a major international competition in 1966, fifty-three years ago. They have never appeared in the final of two, of the three competitions they participate in. This is the result of uncontrolled club ownership. 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by rockershovel

[tigerburnie]

Rugby Union in England is club based, always has been and will always be that way, England RFU are not in a position to buy the clubs out. If you go to a game in the pro 14 you will note that the crowds are not very large when the relevant RFU's pull the players away or send the players to sides they don't want to play for.

The England RFU could not afford to pay central contracts, indeed Wales and Ireland are struggling to pay theirs and Scotland are very close to being bankrupt if rumours are to be believed

[rockershovel]

40 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

Rugby Union in England is club based, always has been and will always be that way, England RFU are not in a position to buy the clubs out. If you go to a game in the pro 14 you will note that the crowds are not very large when the relevant RFU's pull the players away or send the players to sides they don't want to play for.

The England RFU could not afford to pay central contracts, indeed Wales and Ireland are struggling to pay theirs and Scotland are very close to being bankrupt if rumours are to be believed

 

I didn’t say the CLUBS need to go. I said that the CLUB OWNERS need to go. There are too many clubs, trying to extract a profit at too many levels simultaneously. England need a pool of about 100 players at, or approaching international level. That’s 6 teams. 

 

An 8-team, 16-game season plus Autumn Internationals and 6N, plus the Heineken Trophy, European Club Trophy or whatever it’s now called. No playoffs, League position decided by cumulative points scored. Teams capped at 5 or 6 non-eligible players per side, maximum of 5 non-eligible #9 and #10 in the league. Overseas players allocated by the RFU. All revenue accrues to RFU. Players have positive incentive to play for national team. 

 

RFU retains copyright to all internationals and promotes them all to free-to-view tv. 

 

Theres your American Model, club-based game..

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by rockershovel

[tigerburnie]

47 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

I didn’t say the CLUBS need to go. I said that the CLUB OWNERS need to go. There are too many clubs, trying to extract a profit at too many levels simultaneously. England need a pool of about 100 players at, or approaching international level. That’s 6 teams. 

 

An 8-team, 16-game season plus Autumn Internationals and 6N, plus the Heineken Trophy, European Club Trophy or whatever it’s now called. No playoffs, League position decided by cumulative points scored. Teams capped at 5 or 6 non-eligible players per side, maximum of 5 non-eligible #9 and #10 in the league. Overseas players allocated by the RFU. All revenue accrues to RFU. Players have positive incentive to play for national team. 

 

RFU retains copyright to all internationals and promotes them all to free-to-view tv. 

 

Theres your American Model, club-based game..

 

You don't have a team to follow then? You have never been in a team then? Because if you had you would not be making such statements, playing for your country is a reward, playing for your club is your job these days and the fact that so many clubs are striving to succeed is the reason we have such a great pool of players to choose from.

Soccer is a bigger game in the northern hemisphere, but rugby still has a growing following, even when money is tight the fans still go to see "their" team.

I would not trust the RFU to sell the programmes, un qualified and inept are words used recently.

[rockershovel]

29 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

You don't have a team to follow then? You have never been in a team then? Because if you had you would not be making such statements, playing for your country is a reward, playing for your club is your job these days and the fact that so many clubs are striving to succeed is the reason we have such a great pool of players to choose from.

Soccer is a bigger game in the northern hemisphere, but rugby still has a growing following, even when money is tight the fans still go to see "their" team.

I would not trust the RFU to sell the programmes, un qualified and inept are words used recently.

 

...why, yes. I've been a member of several rugby clubs and teams over the years, starting at school and college, as occasion dictated. I still go along to one or other of them as my wanderings suggest, to watch some "muddied oafs at the goal", imbibe a beer or three and a bacon roll or pasty, perhaps meet someone I once played with, or watch a player I knew as a junior, or perhaps his father.. which I don't take to be your meaning. 

 

There are clearly too many professional, semi-professional or professionally promoted sports teams, of all descriptions. The business model of most football clubs is unsustainable, and rugby is trying to do the same thing. Good luck with THAT. 

 

Twickenham needs a substantial clear-out and permanent reduction in its head-count, probably by about 2/3. I don't believe most if them would survive six weeks, in a genuinely American-style organisation. 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by rockershovel

[tigerburnie]

I don't understand why you hold up "genuinely American style" as something to aspire to, rugby union at club level is very much an English thing these days and when held up against it's contempories in Scotland, Wales and to lesser extent the Irish provinces, the PRL model is quite a good one, as long as those clubs in it stick to the agreements.

[rockershovel]

32 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

I don't understand why you hold up "genuinely American style" as something to aspire to, rugby union at club level is very much an English thing these days and when held up against it's contempories in Scotland, Wales and to lesser extent the Irish provinces, the PRL model is quite a good one, as long as those clubs in it stick to the agreements.

 

I didn't actually START the discussion about the NFL model....

 

It depends entirely what you mean by "club rugby". My most recently former club has given itself severe internal and financial problems by focussing its resources on an attempt to run a semi-professional First XV at the highest possible level. They have now been forced to admit that the model simply isn't sustainable, because it offers too little, and demands too much of the subs-paying, bar-drinking club membership who actually sustain the club, because the sponsors don't pay for the ground. Nor are the local authority (their ground landlord) happy about spending public money underwriting a quasi-commercial venture. 

 

This isn't unusual locally. There are at least two other clubs in the area which have followed the same path. Pseudo-professionalism, or semi-professionalism is a serious problem for a lot of local clubs. 

 

The RFU is unusual, although not unique. It has a very large player base, approximately 2.5 million members in over 2,000 clubs, who really have nothing to do with the professional club game, or the national side. Those players, and their families and supporters tend to take little interest in the professional game, not least because it mostly takes place when THEY are playing, or watching, or running the line, or whatever. They mostly follow the national side, though. The professional game actually attract gates of 10-14,000 for its matches, a total attendance of around 65-70,000 for a full weekend's programme of six games. 

 

The RFU is, for better or worse, the accredited and recognised governing body for that side, and they also provide a range of services (updating the Laws of the Game, training and accrediting referees, providing training materials, a league structure and insurance etc) without which the local club game couldn't function. 

 

The RFU needs a suitable supply of players, trained and experienced to a suitable level, to sustain the national squad. What it DOESN'T need, is fourteen or sixteen organisations, all trying to make a profit from those players independently of the RFU by promoting a schedule which clashes with the international calendar. Nor does it need a constant influx of players from overseas leagues, not eligible for the England side. 

 

Looking at the RFU development programme, and the players who actually come through it; looking at the Premiership Academy system, and the players who come through it; both seem to be largely useless. Over half the squad who went to Japan, were privately educated, and bypassed the RFU "Continuum" system. A majority of them played at University. 

 

We aren't far apart; we differ only in the nature of the role played by the handful of professional clubs. My contention would be that half the current Premiership clubs could go back to amateur  or semi-professional levels, all the owners could sell out or just leave, and the RFU could function perfectly well without them. 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by rockershovel

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

I didn't actually START the discussion about the NFL model....

 

It depends entirely what you mean by "club rugby". My most recently former club has given itself severe internal and financial problems by focussing its resources on an attempt to run a semi-professional First XV at the highest possible level. They have now been forced to admit that the model simply isn't sustainable, because it offers too little, and demands too much of the subs-paying, bar-drinking club membership who actually sustain the club, because the sponsors don't pay for the ground. Nor are the local authority (their ground landlord) happy about spending public money underwriting a quasi-commercial venture. 

 

This isn't unusual locally. There are at least two other clubs in the area which have followed the same path. Pseudo-professionalism, or semi-professionalism is a serious problem for a lot of local clubs. 

 

The RFU is unusual, although not unique. It has a very large player base, approximately 2.5 million members in over 2,000 clubs, who really have nothing to do with the professional club game, or the national side. Those players, and their families and supporters tend to take little interest in the professional game, not least because it mostly takes place when THEY are playing, or watching, or running the line, or whatever. They mostly follow the national side, though. The professional game actually attract gates of 10-14,000 for its matches, a total attendance of around 65-70,000 for a full weekend's programme of six games. 

 

The RFU is, for better or worse, the accredited and recognised governing body for that side, and they also provide a range of services (updating the Laws of the Game, training and accrediting referees, providing training materials, a league structure and insurance etc) without which the local club game couldn't function. 

 

The RFU needs a suitable supply of players, trained and experienced to a suitable level, to sustain the national squad. What it DOESN'T need, is fourteen or sixteen organisations, all trying to make a profit from those players independently of the RFU by promoting a schedule which clashes with the international calendar. Nor does it need a constant influx of players from overseas leagues, not eligible for the England side. 

 

Looking at the RFU development programme, and the players who actually come through it; looking at the Premiership Academy system, and the players who come through it; both seem to be largely useless. Over half the squad who went to Japan, were privately educated, and bypassed the RFU "Continuum" system. A majority of them played at University. 

 

We aren't far apart; we differ only in the nature of the role played by the handful of professional clubs. My contention would be that half the current Premiership clubs could go back to amateur  or semi-professional levels, all the owners could sell out or just leave, and the RFU could function perfectly well without them. 

 

 

In your last two posts, you have expressed, much better than I did, the potential for a US-style franchise arrangement (or 20/20 cricket model). Rugby might need to adjust the model a bit but it has been shown to be workable. Interest in the club game would certainly be increased if it were not the same two or three clubs always in contention for the title.

 

Many professional soccer clubs would love to have regular crowds of 10,000. They could make the sums add up at that level of support and rugby should be able to do the same....so long as they do not overpay the players.

 

I speak a lot to rugby enthusiasts in France and they are utterly appalled at the state of their professional game and its consequences for the national side. There has been a massive influx of overseas players drawn in by high salaries so very little local talent coming through in the key positions. The clubs are often effectively subsidised with public money through use of municipally owned stadiums.

 

So, as I asked, how do we get frome "here" to "there". Most of the club owners have lost money on the venture. It should not be that difficult to get them to agree to selling out to a new centrally-controlled model. It could be done progressively by taking in clubs and converting them to a franchise over a period of years (like Labour's proposal for TOCs).

[rockershovel]

Quite so. The model of uncontrolled club ownership has failed utterly in football, in any meaningful sporting terms, apart from the interests of the handful of speculators who are making very large sums from asset-stripping teams, underwritten by international tv rights. At a lower level, there are the historic, local teams which limp along at various levels of professionalism and semi-professionalism, many of them insolvent by any meaningful definition, many of them still owning, or holding long leases on their increasingly run-down grounds. 

 

The same model is also failing in the top tiers of club rugby. The interest and support simply isn’t there. The real money is in the international level, as it has always been. Its also worth bearing in mind that the international professionals who flock to England and France are, pretty much by definition, those who can’t achieve central contracts at home. 

 

How we get from here, to there, is a serious problem with no evident solution. The proper solution would have been for the RFU to act with the courage of its convictions in the 1990s, and exclude the speculators who came into the sport st that time, allowing historic clubs to fail or step down a level as things might prove (Roslyn Park comes to mind as an example). But the RFU has never been a byword for coherence, vision or management ability; rather for nepotism and insider dealing. It also lacks accountability, being a provident society owned by its members, not a plc. 

 

However that’s a closed episode. The comparison with TOC is a false analogy, because they are time-limited; if it so wishes, Labour or any other U.K. government could resume control, simply by waiting for the contracts to expire, or be surrendered under their existing provisions. Indeed, the present, supposedly Conservative administration has (in effect) renationalised ECML, simply because no commercial operator is prepared to take it on (not that this is new, of course.... the original LNER were notoriously weak financially). The RFU doesn’t have that option. 

 

The only real option is a fight to the death between the RFU and the club owners. Let the RFU take a credible position that THEY control the international revenues, and fully intend to continue to do so, and the position would soon resolve itself. But do long as club owners are dazzled by the prospect of shares in THAT cashbox, people will always be found to prop the structure up for a bit longer