Griffiths and Saracens

[Cardiff Tig]

I would agree with decreasing the size of the league. Clearly the lower teams haven't got the finances or appeal to attract the top players. A top league of 8 would do nicely. Premiership games wouldn't have to be played during internationals and there would be a couple of rest weeks as well.

That being said it would probably result in an even bigger gap to the next league down. The problem is that rugby isn't popular enough to support two fully professional leagues to a decent standard, so the second league is always going to struggle even against the weakest of the top league.

[tig1]

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.

Hi Yorkshire. What he is saying is that the game is up for a club like Rotherham. After 15 years of professionalism, he Is saying if you haven't done it organically by now then you never will. He is right, which for all us older traditionlists is tough to hear.

The debate is no different to those who want to consider Italy or Scotland being removed from the six nations, or the European cup being reduced to twenty teams. Rugby is a tough sell anyway. One sided rugby is an impossible sell.

[tig1]

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?[/quote

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?

The point is BJ, that the premiership is not competitive, and the salary cap does not create a competitive environment. It just restricts growth in quality and revenues. And it is not a level playing field as many like to portray.

Richard Cockerill could not go and coach Worcester or Newcastle or London Welsh and take them to continuous premiership finals. He couldn't even take them to one. No more than Jose Mourinho could lead Sunderland to the premiership title.

[tigerburnie]

The point is BJ, that the premiership is not competitive, and the salary cap does not create a competitive environment. It just restricts growth in quality and revenues. And it is not a level playing field as many like to portray.

Richard Cockerill could not go and coach Worcester or Newcastle or London Welsh and take them to continuous premiership finals. He couldn't even take them to one. No more than Jose Mourinho could lead Sunderland to the premiership title.

Rugby is not directly comparable with the English premiership, in money and support terms it's more like the Scottish premiership, so you could end up with two rich teams buying all the players and creating an "old firm" derby and the rest just also rans until one goes bust like Rangers did. Is that the model to follow?

[Old Hob]

Where to start??????
Firstly: Griffiths and Saracens have NOT been "in the top flight for years"; they languished as an easy to beat team for decades although nasty and spiteful to play.
Secondly: Do you really want to see salaries approach the Wayne Rooney level? Moronic both economically and, more importantly, morally.
Thirdly: Griffiths is attempting to grow some strange global brand with Saracen teams in Moscow and Dubai and who knows where. This is his agenda, his own motive. It is not for the good of the game, in my view.
Fourthly: Attempts to change the game and introduce the money to fund it produce 20T cricket and will result in the demise of Test matches.
If that is for you and the rugby equivalent then fine. If you win, then goodbye. I am taking my grandsons somewhere else

[tig1]

Where to start??????
Firstly: Griffiths and Saracens have NOT been "in the top flight for years"; they languished as an easy to beat team for decades although nasty and spiteful to play.
Secondly: Do you really want to see salaries approach the Wayne Rooney level? Moronic both economically and, more importantly, morally.
Thirdly: Griffiths is attempting to grow some strange global brand with Saracen teams in Moscow and Dubai and who knows where. This is his agenda, his own motive. It is not for the good of the game, in my view.
Fourthly: Attempts to change the game and introduce the money to fund it produce 20T cricket and will result in the demise of Test matches.
If that is for you and the rugby equivalent then fine. If you win, then goodbye. I am taking my grandsons somewhere else

Firstly: they have been in the top flight since professionalism ? Which is almost 20 years. Going back beyond then to critique them is irrelevant and pointless.

Secondly : nobody wants a run on salaries. Least of all Griffiths who is paying. He wants to increase quality, increase revenues, and increase the right to spend that growth. What he doesn't want is for that opportunity to be missed so that the we can see London Welsh play in the premiership once in twenty years and then get relegated never to be seen again.

Thirdly: he has to be innovative at Saracens as he has no base. He is not asking clubs like Tigers to do the same. Also what his doing is no different to most other major global sports do in order to grow their sport. Ie. they travel..and don't think the world ends in the shires.

Fourthly: he is a massive fan of premiership and club rugby. But he wants more high quality games.
And the best players playing in it. Nothing like the cricket analogy.

[Old Hob]

Fourthly: he is a massive fan of premiership and club rugby. But he wants more high quality games.
And the best players playing in it. Nothing like the cricket analogy.
Let us start with this: That is exactly what the Indian millionaires said.
He wants unlimited money in the game: there is not unlimited money.

He has his own agenda

[Cardiff Tig]

He has some good points though.

Take the premiership sevens - it's a sport with massive potential at the moment, and yet nearly all the clubs put out ridiculously weak teams that draw pathetic crowds.

[DickyP]

He has some good points though.

Take the premiership sevens - it's a sport with massive potential at the moment, and yet nearly all the clubs put out ridiculously weak teams that draw pathetic crowds.

Of course they put out weak teams - 7s is a total irrelevance to rugby - little more in common with the real game than netball! Fun on occasion with good weather and lot of beer, but quickly becomes boring.

Despite this lack of real relevance, 7s can only grow at the expense of the grown-ups game as it will attract new support away from potential supporters of rugby itself.

[tig1]

Fourthly: he is a massive fan of premiership and club rugby. But he wants more high quality games.
And the best players playing in it. Nothing like the cricket analogy.
Let us start with this: That is exactly what the Indian millionaires said.
He wants unlimited money in the game: there is not unlimited money.

He has his own agenda

He does. He wants a bigger, better game, no doubt.

But let's flip the question around. What do Tigers want as a club, or what do you as a Tigers fan want for the league going forward. Tigers have reached the final for the last decade. If they reach it for the next decade under the same system do you consider that would be a good thing ?

[Smurphswillgetya]

But let's flip the question around. What do Tigers want as a club, or what do you as a Tigers fan want for the league going forward. Tigers have reached the final for the last decade. If they reach it for the next decade under the same system do you consider that would be a good thing ?

Here ends any credibility in the notion you are a Tigers fan. Yes,yes,yes,yes yes yes yes yes yes yes it would be a good thing if Tigers reached the final for another 10 years. It is up to others to try and stop us. Tigers were dominating the league so they brought the play-offs to give others another shot. Can you tell me what progress Sarries have made in 20 years in increasing the number of fans coming to the game. The likes of Tigers, Saints, Bath, Exeter generate a community spirit and get good attendances even when the teams are not doing well. With the London teams the glory hunters seem to disappear as soon as the team struggle.

[BJ.]

Here ends any credibility in the notion you are a Tigers fan. Yes,yes,yes,yes yes yes yes yes yes yes it would be a good thing if Tigers reached the final for another 10 years. It is up to others to try and stop us. Tigers were dominating the league so they brought the play-offs to give others another shot. Can you tell me what progress Sarries have made in 20 years in increasing the number of fans coming to the game. The likes of Tigers, Saints, Bath, Exeter (and Glaws) generate a community spirit and get good attendances even when the teams are not doing well. With the London teams the glory hunters seem to disappear as soon as the team struggle.

I couldn't agree more.

[h's dad]

But let's flip the question around. What do Tigers want as a club, or what do you as a Tigers fan want for the league going forward. Tigers have reached the final for the last decade. If they reach it for the next decade under the same system do you consider that would be a good thing ?

Here ends any credibility in the notion you are a Tigers fan. Yes,yes,yes,yes yes yes yes yes yes yes it would be a good thing if Tigers reached the final for another 10 years. It is up to others to try and stop us. Tigers were dominating the league so they brought the play-offs to give others another shot. Can you tell me what progress Sarries have made in 20 years in increasing the number of fans coming to the game. The likes of Tigers, Saints, Bath, Exeter generate a community spirit and get good attendances even when the teams are not doing well. With the London teams the glory hunters seem to disappear as soon as the team struggle.

Sorry Smurph but a Tigers Rugby fan will say that one day it may happen that Tigers will not make the final. And when that day does come it will be a severe blow to Leicester albeit possibly a release of pressure. The Tigers Rugby fan will also see that it is good for rugby in general and English rugby in particular. But the Tigers Rugby fan will say, please God, not this year. And the Tigers Rugby fan will say that every year.

[tigerburnie]

Tigers have reached the final for the last decade. If they reach it for the next decade under the same system do you consider that would be a good thing ?

YES, if we are good enough, it shows we are doing things right and it us to the rest to catch up, not dumb down to the average.

[tig1]

But let's flip the question around. What do Tigers want as a club, or what do you as a Tigers fan want for the league going forward. Tigers have reached the final for the last decade. If they reach it for the next decade under the same system do you consider that would be a good thing ?

Here ends any credibility in the notion you are a Tigers fan. Yes,yes,yes,yes yes yes yes yes yes yes it would be a good thing if Tigers reached the final for another 10 years. It is up to others to try and stop us. Tigers were dominating the league so they brought the play-offs to give others another shot. Can you tell me what progress Sarries have made in 20 years in increasing the number of fans coming to the game. The likes of Tigers, Saints, Bath, Exeter generate a community spirit and get good attendances even when the teams are not doing well. With the London teams the glory hunters seem to disappear as soon as the team struggle.

Sorry Smurph but a Tigers Rugby fan will say that one day it may happen that Tigers will not make the final. And when that day does come it will be a severe blow to Leicester albeit possibly a release of pressure. The Tigers Rugby fan will also see that it is good for rugby in general and English rugby in particular. But the Tigers Rugby fan will say, please God, not this year. And the Tigers Rugby fan will say that every year.

It's a shame for the forum you need to use personal comment....but such is life.

H's Dad articulates well the question posed, not the question you chose to reinvent or possibly not understand. That question was whether it was a good thing for the game if one team qualified for the final of the same competition twenty years consecutively. I said Tigers because it is likely to be only them. But if you want to understand the question better,then use the name Saracens, Saints, whichever you choose. Clearly it is not a situation any sport would want, because very it will discourage growth and development (the same argument many have made on this forum regarding the HC and Irish clubs).

Griffiths point is that no new clubs are going to grow naturally to compete with the existing powers. He is completely correct. So from here forward it is stagnation in the competition at best. But likely a decline. So he is suggesting making the premiership more elite, increasing investment levels, increasing quality, increasing revenues and likely decreasing games,

I agree with him on all these points. That does not mean that I don't want Tigers to win every game and competition they play in, but I do want them to play more higher quality games and less lower quality games, and I do believe that the timing is right to make changes in the premiership.