mid season breaks??

[trendylfj]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/45956402

What do people think??

[JP14]

Long overdue.

[Ian Cant]

Well this will see attendances fall even more! Typical muddled thinking.
End the season in May and give the players plenty of rest time.
Make the squads bigger by giving top tier clubs more funding. Those that have 5 under 25 England qualified players playing regularly more £s.
Those of us who like/ play cricket will struggle to support in June- hard enough in early September.
Eddie Jones to stop beasting players.
Eg Sarries last week kept training “ very light” to ensure those not injured were fresh for the game.
Sorry- I’m just an old traditionalist- season begins in September and ends in May.

[Flash]

The new playing calendar just seems like a fudge to make the summer internationals more suitable to the southern hemisphere teams and trying to dress it up as better player management.

[ellis9]

Well this will see attendances fall even more! Typical muddled thinking.
End the season in May and give the players plenty of rest time.
Make the squads bigger by giving top tier clubs more funding. Those that have 5 under 25 England qualified players playing regularly more £s.
Those of us who like/ play cricket will struggle to support in June- hard enough in early September.
Eddie Jones to stop beasting players.
Eg Sarries last week kept training “ very light” to ensure those not injured were fresh for the game.
Sorry- I’m just an old traditionalist- season begins in September and ends in May.

It can be more simple than that. Clubs just need to pay their players less. This means the salary cap can stay at the amount it currently is but clubs will have more money to get extra players.

[Grumpy of Crumbie]

For rugby supporters wanting to holiday in the northern hemisphere with good weather but avoiding the inflated prices and overcrowding of school holidays this is a disaster. June and September have always been the best months to achieve this. Sacrificing the opening fixtures in September is a compromise but missing the sharp end of the season which will now be in June is a tough call. It won't be possible to wait and see as holidays will need to be booked well before the end of the season.

This further undermines the value in purchasing a season ticket which gives the holder a good chance of obtaining tickets for the big games. In addition I can't help but think that removing the routine of attending a home game roughly every two weeks by introducing breaks will further reduce attendances as people get out of the regular 'habit'.

I'm sure the response to this will be that true supporters will make the sacrifice and arrange their lives to be at every game but I think recent attendances at Welford a Road show a large number of supporters to be a fickle bunch who have priorities in life other the rugby.

It probably also sounds the beginning of the end for the Lions and meaningful summer tours. Central contracts are probably around the corner to ensure international players are managed by the RFU. The sport will probably finish up like cricket being played at international level the year round but with the elite squad hardly making an appearance for their club sides. A further disincentive for attendances.

I get the motivation but for me this solution is a backward step in so many ways.

[Cardiff Tig]

For rugby supporters wanting to holiday in the northern hemisphere with good weather but avoiding the inflated prices and overcrowding of school holidays this is a disaster. June and September have always been the best months to achieve this. Sacrificing the opening fixtures in September is a compromise but missing the sharp end of the season which will now be in June is a tough call. It won't be possible to wait and see as holidays will need to be booked well before the end of the season.

This further undermines the value in purchasing a season ticket which gives the holder a good chance of obtaining tickets for the big games. In addition I can't help but think that removing the routine of attending a home game roughly every two weeks by introducing breaks will further reduce attendances as people get out of the regular 'habit'.

I'm sure the response to this will be that true supporters will make the sacrifice and arrange their lives to be at every game but I think recent attendances at Welford a Road show a large number of supporters to be a fickle bunch who have priorities in life other the rugby.

It probably also sounds the beginning of the end for the Lions and meaningful summer tours. Central contracts are probably around the corner to ensure international players are managed by the RFU. The sport will probably finish up like cricket being played at international level the year round but with the elite squad hardly making an appearance for their club sides. A further disincentive for attendances.

I get the motivation but for me this solution is a backward step in so many ways.

But the other situation is to make the premiership a 10-team league, removing 4 weeks from the calendar automatically. Which would you prefer? Player welfare means that the break should happen, to argue against it is wrong in my opinion.

[Tigerbeat]

Reducing the league to 10 teams may deal with player welfare but it will also have a big impact on Club finances. They still have the overheads to fund so this needs to be taken into account and could mean higher price season tickets.
We currently have the Premiership Rugby Cup but this does not get the same level of support as the Premiership games. It is a very difficult one to manage.

[ellis9]

For rugby supporters wanting to holiday in the northern hemisphere with good weather but avoiding the inflated prices and overcrowding of school holidays this is a disaster. June and September have always been the best months to achieve this. Sacrificing the opening fixtures in September is a compromise but missing the sharp end of the season which will now be in June is a tough call. It won't be possible to wait and see as holidays will need to be booked well before the end of the season.

This further undermines the value in purchasing a season ticket which gives the holder a good chance of obtaining tickets for the big games. In addition I can't help but think that removing the routine of attending a home game roughly every two weeks by introducing breaks will further reduce attendances as people get out of the regular 'habit'.

I'm sure the response to this will be that true supporters will make the sacrifice and arrange their lives to be at every game but I think recent attendances at Welford a Road show a large number of supporters to be a fickle bunch who have priorities in life other the rugby.

It probably also sounds the beginning of the end for the Lions and meaningful summer tours. Central contracts are probably around the corner to ensure international players are managed by the RFU. The sport will probably finish up like cricket being played at international level the year round but with the elite squad hardly making an appearance for their club sides. A further disincentive for attendances.

I get the motivation but for me this solution is a backward step in so many ways.

But the other situation is to make the premiership a 10-team league, removing 4 weeks from the calendar automatically. Which would you prefer? Player welfare means that the break should happen, to argue against it is wrong in my opinion.

That's not the only alternative. They could play the Six Nations every two years from 2020 which would reduce games. It also means the Six Nations and the World Cup would not be played in the same years.

World Cup Six Nations
2019. 2020
2023. 2022
2027. 2024
2031. 2026
2035. 2028
2039. 2030
2043. 2032
2034
2036
2038
2040

[johnthegriff]

22 Premiership matches plus play-offs = 24
9 European matches to final = 9
6 Premier up matches = 6
Plus a break between seasons = 12
mid season break = 5
________
Total 56 weeks.

This suggestion has nothing to do with player welfare it is backdoor unification of the seasons to give the Southern Hemisphere the Global Calender they want. Grumpy of Crumbie is right, it affects those of us who holiday at cheaper rates in June. Next year for family reasons I am taking my holiday just one week later than usual, the cost for that increases by £150, three weeks later the increase is almost £500 well above the cost of my season ticket, a choice will have to be made.
Premiership rugby has apparently agreed to this deal, which implies the clubs have agreed without referring to their members and supporters, well we can only make our views known to our Directors and owners to see if their is any response to be had.

[Scuttle]

I think this all shows where the priority lies for clubs and the RFU. Personally I am more interested in the club game and, whilst I want England to win, I would priorities the club game every time. Consequently I am not at all fussed about accommodating the Southern Hemisphere teams and am pretty ambivalent about their position. The clubs and the RFU however, seem to have joined forces in this bid to expand the game into a global product and have become fixated on the money and they seem to think there is more money to be had in this strategy than in the club calendar we have now; they seem to think there will be more trickle-down of cash from a global product than the current model where season ticket holders have been important. And there is the rub....we do not fit into this new strategy; why bother about the views of a few season ticket holders when you have tons of cash falling out of global television deals - they are playing the long game.

The writing has been on the wall for a while; many (not all) bemoan the Friday night and Sunday fixtures - certainly travel to and from Matlock is more difficult but I make the journey in support of the team. But why do the club not insist on different fixtures (accepting the Leicester City FC needs) ? I suspect it is because the TV money is worth more than the loss of some ticket sales and the money, not the fans, are what counts now. Don't get me wrong, we need the money for a viable club; we just need to readjust our expectations about how important fans (and in particular season ticket holders) are in the new strategy.

[trendylfj]

Thanks for the variety of opinions/suggestions - my own opinion is :-

1. Go back to the old arrangements for the Autumn internationals - 3 matches over 4 weeks instead of 4 over 5 weeks. The RFU asked for a special international to open the new stand at Twickenham when we had 3 and it quickly became the norm.

2. 6 nations to be played over 6 weeks - 3 games - week rest and then 2 games.

3. Restrict the clubs to a maximum of 2 pre-season games and 2 weeks preparation prior to the games.

That would free up at least 4 weeks in order to give the players a Xmas and possible New year break. Will it ever happen - not a chance in hell. I am more likely to wake up tomorrow morning with Jane Fonda, Brigitte Bardot and Charlotte Rampling still in their 20's in my bed than the old Farts giving up an international game in the cause of "player welfare".

Another point which hasn't been covered is what is happening to the other leagues/countries and how does this affect them?

[ellis9]

I think this all shows where the priority lies for clubs and the RFU. Personally I am more interested in the club game and, whilst I want England to win, I would priorities the club game every time. Consequently I am not at all fussed about accommodating the Southern Hemisphere teams and am pretty ambivalent about their position. The clubs and the RFU however, seem to have joined forces in this bid to expand the game into a global product and have become fixated on the money and they seem to think there is more money to be had in this strategy than in the club calendar we have now; they seem to think there will be more trickle-down of cash from a global product than the current model where season ticket holders have been important. And there is the rub....we do not fit into this new strategy; why bother about the views of a few season ticket holders when you have tons of cash falling out of global television deals - they are playing the long game.

The writing has been on the wall for a while; many (not all) bemoan the Friday night and Sunday fixtures - certainly travel to and from Matlock is more difficult but I make the journey in support of the team. But why do the club not insist on different fixtures (accepting the Leicester City FC needs) ? I suspect it is because the TV money is worth more than the loss of some ticket sales and the money, not the fans, are what counts now. Don't get me wrong, we need the money for a viable club; we just need to readjust our expectations about how important fans (and in particular season ticket holders) are in the new strategy.

No clubs get a choice when it comes to games being on TV. If BT want the game on a particular day, then it happens. It's part of the TV contract which generates so much money, without which, the game wouldn't be as successful as it is today.

[Grumpy of Crumbie]

In no way am I arguing against player welfare I just don't like the way the powers that be are now using it as the justification for major decisions that affect the game. Hiding behind player welfare to make changes that are commercially motivated is distasteful.

As pointed out there has been no player welfare considerations when autumn internationals became the norm and were extended or when playoffs were introduced.

The humble fan who supports live rugby is no longer a key consideration in any decision taken by the RFU and/or Premiership Rugby. The commercial value behind these decisions is worth far more than a few quid from season ticket holders. I've no idea if Tigers supported this as arguably they could have more to lose than most given the number of season ticket holders but for the majority of premiership clubs season ticket income pales into insignificance compared to funding from elsewhere.

Has anyone actually done any research into whether short breaks during the season are as much benefit to players as an extended lay off in the summer. As I see it players would need to continue training to maintain fitness levels during the short breaks as opposed to a period of mental and physical down time between the end of one season and the start of pre season training for the next. I don't see much opportunity for players to have beer and burger breaks with the new structure, it looks to me like they will spend even more time through the year maintaining fitness and focus. Isn't time away to recharge the batteries the important thing???

[Cardiff Tig]

In no way am I arguing against player welfare I just don't like the way the powers that be are now using it as the justification for major decisions that affect the game. Hiding behind player welfare to make changes that are commercially motivated is distasteful.

As pointed out there has been no player welfare considerations when autumn internationals became the norm and were extended or when playoffs were introduced.

I completely agree, but they will (and already are!) use the welfare argument when you question the motives behind it.

Central contracts should be the model IMO. All the successful countries (NZ, Aus, Ire) can manage the amount that their top players play, getting the most out of them without playing them into the ground. As much as we might place club rugby above internationals, even England as the richest rugby nation can't sustain a fully professional 2nd tier (I'm not including France as sustainable!), and we're already at the stage where the same 2 or 3 teams scrape along the bottom of the premiership.

The current model is broken, we just haven't quite got to the point where everyone has realised it yet.