tig1 wrote:The reality is that total premiership attendances have fallen significantly since their peak five years ago. Even if you break it down by club, something like seven of them have lower attendances than five years ago. Wasps being the worst hit.
I'm not sure this is true?
I've just downloaded the attendance from the Premiership website.
Total attendance for the 2007/8 season, including the playoff semi-finals and final at Twickenham was 1,517,863.
So far this season with 4 rounds to go and the playoffs to come the attendance is 1,377,779. If we assume around 70,000 spectators per round on average, 15,000 for each of the semi-finals and 83,000 for the final at Twickenham then this season will have attracted around 1,770,000 spectators.
I think 2009/10 was the peak around 1.85 million. Last year was down to 1.68 million.
So no growth since 09/10, decline really. Also coincides with tigers stadium expansion stalling.
Not a coinicidence.
BJ. wrote:I would like to see the current salary cap dispensed with as I believe it stifles the bigger clubs. I think it should be replaced with a percentage limit, e.g. a club can use up to 50% of it's annual turnover for players' wages.
Problem with this is it will only ever benefit the 'big' clubs and hinder the smaller ones:
Teams with a bigger base spend more money to bring in higher calibre players
These better players win more trophies and draw fans
More fans mean more money so even more to spend
Those with less money have to grow their own talent
After a season or two any outstanding players get taken by the few at the top
I already think that the top teams plunder too much from the lower teams - think of the squads Worcester or Newcastle could have had if they'd been allowed to keep the majority of their players for 5 or 6 years?
The idea of Griffiths having some agenda, other than overall betterment of the league overall doesn't make a lot (any infact) of sense to me.
His club are top of the league, and have been there or there abouts for many years. They are not under any threat of relegation so it's removal has no impact on Saracens.
Also as one of the more dominant clubs, what interest does he have in insisting that all clubs throughout the league spend higher sums on their squads to participate more competitively against his own club ? And at the same time increasing his own personal cost of keeping his own club at the top.
What he understands is that there is no rugby or commercial value in the top clubs putting 50-60 points on clubs like London Welsh, Rotherham, or Newcastle. I admire him for effectively saying he wants highers standards across the whole league and for addressing the issue that the league has stagnated.
It’s the dichotomy of trying to achieve a balanced and competitive league with the ability to compete with the rest of Europe.
I’d like to see allowances in the salary cap for clubs making good progression in Europe, perhaps an additional marquee player at the expense of a certain amount of salary cap or something to enable a larger squad to cope with more matches – I know these seem contradictory, more players or a more expensive player, but they’re only thoughts, not proposals.
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
tig1 wrote:The reality is that total premiership attendances have fallen significantly since their peak five years ago. Even if you break it down by club, something like seven of them have lower attendances than five years ago. Wasps being the worst hit.
I'm not sure this is true?
I've just downloaded the attendance from the Premiership website.
Total attendance for the 2007/8 season, including the playoff semi-finals and final at Twickenham was 1,517,863.
So far this season with 4 rounds to go and the playoffs to come the attendance is 1,377,779. If we assume around 70,000 spectators per round on average, 15,000 for each of the semi-finals and 83,000 for the final at Twickenham then this season will have attracted around 1,770,000 spectators.
I think 2009/10 was the peak around 1.85 million. Last year was down to 1.68 million.
So no growth since 09/10, decline really. Also coincides with tigers stadium expansion stalling.
Not a coinicidence.
I suspect the difference is having a team like Leeds or London Welsh in the league who both drew very low home crowds and brought minimal away support. Next season should be interesting if Bristol get promoted, they have a significant historical home support and could push the overall attendance up significantly.
drc_007 wrote:
I suspect the difference is having a team like Leeds or London Welsh in the league who both drew very low home crowds and brought minimal away support. Next season should be interesting if Bristol get promoted, they have a significant historical home support and could push the overall attendance up significantly.
Good point but Wuss relegation may hinder it aswell.
Tiger_in_Birmingham wrote:Problem with this is it will only ever benefit the 'big' clubs and hinder the smaller ones:
Teams with a bigger base spend more money to bring in higher calibre players
These better players win more trophies and draw fans. More fans mean more money so even more to spend.
Those with less money have to grow their own talent. After a season or two any outstanding players get taken by the few at the top.
I already think that the top teams plunder too much from the lower teams - think of the squads Worcester or Newcastle could have had if they'd been allowed to keep the majority of their players for 5 or 6 years?
Alternatively, it could be an inducement for clubs to increase their turnover by more than simply selling match tickets and club merchandise. For example, Welford Road is hosting a 2-day gig in July as part of the Leicester Music Festival: I wonder how much that'll bring into the club.
As h's dad said, it's trying to strike a balance between a competitive domestic league and being competitive in Europe. It grips me when I see some of the clubs (by which I predominantly mean the Tigers) being handicapped by the salary cap just so it seems fair to the 'lesser affluent' clubs. What do we want? A cosy little parochial domestic league where we take it in turns to win the title or clubs that are capable of sticking it to Paddy, Dai, Jock, Pierre and Luigi?
Whatever you do, don't argue. We might never hear from you again.
I don't see how getting rid of relegation would help the overall standard of the league.
It would just mean that those near the bottom few clubs would be playing for nothing - at least the lower teams are fighting for a point or points in every game. Where's the incentive for sides like the next Exeter to improve and get promotion? Take away the fear of relegation what is there to stop sides simply using league matches as development games for next year? So if Tiger's play Newcastle first game of the season and they bust a gut to win yet play Saints in April when they are playing for nothing other than pride and concede 50 points. Would that be right?
If sides are not investing for fear of relegation then too bad.
I'm not a fan of the salary cap for a number of reasons mainly because it's unenforceable. Also it limits sides ability to compete on the European stage without overplaying their star players.
Fans want to see top level sport; if they were happy with less then there would be huge crowds games outside the premiership. You don't elevate the standard overall by holding back the best.
BJ. wrote:What do we want? A cosy little parochial domestic league where we take it in turns to win the title or clubs that are capable of sticking it to Paddy, Dai, Jock, Pierre and Luigi?
One of the best comments I've read on here for a while! Nice one BJ.
Tigers for the premiership and European Cup. Get behind the team and make some noise!!
The thread like most has a mjor red-herring - yes attendances are down but that is probably down to the recession - all spectator sports have suffered the same way.
Also the attendances fell when TV started showing 3 games each weekend instead of one - big surprise that!!
And anyway raw numbers are not everything - by that reckoning Wendyball is a total disaster: gates across the what used to be the football league (now the Premier League, Championship etc) are less than 50% of what they were when I was a teenager. Everything is skewed by sponsorship, sugar daddies, TV revenue, merchandising, international followings ... I could go on.
Change for change's sake seldom works - just look at the Law changes designed to speed up the game - virtually all of them have the opposite effect. Look at the complaints about the dominance of kicked points - wouldn't happen if the legislators didn't continually add more and more trivial offences which attract penalties!
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
Isambard wrote:Keep relegation and promotion. Expand the league by two.
Definitely disagree with expanding the league. Would just end up with 2 more poor teams. I don't believe that England can support 14 fully professional teams to a decent standard - would just end up with a load of southern hemisphere journey men as the French will always out bid for the stars, not that the lower teams would be able to afford/attract them in the first place.
Smurphs,
I will disagree with you on the getting the message out to the wider world as I meant it more in the spirit of getting other parts of the world to take interest in & participate in the game. I didn't mean we all need to go to Dubai to watch a 'home' game if I have read you right.
However, totally agree with you on "dancing girls, pizza delivered to your seats and a fat lady singing ". All I need at half tiame is my programme and, yes, I've come to enjoy the Big Boot as well.
This is a very interesting and quite difficult debate. I would like to comment on the question on no relegation which I think is a non starter. You have to give the teams in what is now the championship and below an incentive to improve and succeed. Rotherham have been mentioned a number of times and the possibility of promotion to them is both the holy grail and a poison chalice. The team have a firm lease on their home ground which they share with the local cricket club, and because of that their ability to develop the ground the acceptable premiership standards is limited. Obviously funding plays a huge part as well. There is talk that if they win promotion this season they may have to play at Mansfield Town FC, which would slaughter their traditional fan base which is not huge anyway.
So do we say that in order to make the position of promoted clubs tenable with a chance of staying up that they must have suitable grounds before they can play in the championship. I don't know if that is workable but there are clubs out there which have the grounds but not the current quality of teams so is there an argument which says they have the ground, they can play in the Championship and teams like Rotherham can not. Moving a long way from your home base to meet the ground requirements of the premiership, playing in almost empty stadiums, unless the likes of Tigers come to town, is a recipe for instant relegation, and the financial disaster that often follows.
We always see the premiership split into two or three sections at this stage of the season, those going for Twickenham and glory, those fighting for the last few european places, and those fighting relegation. Let me assure you that the gaps beneath the premiership are even higher.
He is not advocating getting rid of relegation as an independent strategy. It is in combination with a minimum spend. He proposes 4 million. And also in combination with a removal of the upper cap. (Personally I disagree with that, but would advocate go taking right up to. French levels). That's why quality will improve.
By suggesting a minimum spend, he is taking a subtle step towards suggesting a 10 club league.
In that scenario, the entire league is likely to be in the running for champions cup qualification (6+1).
So the premiership would become a mirror of the Rabo, with the equivalent of the Italian clubs (standard wise) removed.
It interesting he has launched these comments now, the moment the champions league has been resolved. His argument, like many others, was that the previous structure and management of the HC was failing to maximize growth. Having resolved that he is now addressing the issue of growth, or lack of it, in the premiership.
but Wuss relegation may hinder it aswell.
