Griffiths and Saracens

[tigerburnie]

[quote="tig1"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.[/quote]
You could not be more wrong if you tried a money led free for all not based on sustainability(like soccer with clubs amasing huge debts)will kill the sport for good.
It is unlikely that any club will dominate a sport, Tigers have an incredible run of getting to the final, but we don't win it every year. Clermont have an incredible home record, but don't win things every year, that's sport.Look at the models around you where money is allowed to dominate, think back to Sir John Hall buying Gosforth and then buying a team that won the Premiership title, he then ran out of interest/money and left. Look how well that has helped Newcastle, they still struggle and still have a weak fan base in a soccer mad area. Some clubs would never attract huge crowds, in some areas the fan base is just not there, this idea of the Saffas is not in the best interests of the game, only in the best interests of the Saffas club and it's own agenda.

[Soggypitch]

I can't make my mind up on this one....I can see both sides of the argument and think Griffiths makes some good points, I will continue to reflect!

Perhaps one or two others on this forum should sometimes reflect a little, rather than accuse someone like Tig1 of not being a Tigers fan.
Just because he has some different views to "the click" on this forum, doesn't mean he is not a true fan - just like the rest of us.

[tig1]

[quote="tig1"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.

You could not be more wrong if you tried a money led free for all not based on sustainability(like soccer with clubs amasing huge debts)will kill the sport for good.
It is unlikely that any club will dominate a sport, Tigers have an incredible run of getting to the final, but we don't win it every year. Clermont have an incredible home record, but don't win things every year, that's sport.Look at the models around you where money is allowed to dominate, think back to Sir John Hall buying Gosforth and then buying a team that won the Premiership title, he then ran out of interest/money and left. Look how well that has helped Newcastle, they still struggle and still have a weak fan base in a soccer mad area. Some clubs would never attract huge crowds, in some areas the fan base is just not there, this idea of the Saffas is not in the best interests of the game, only in the best interests of the Saffas club and it's own agenda.[/quote]

Hi tiger. Which is why I slightly disagree with him on no upside cap. My inclination would be to have it at parity with the French. So you end with a minimum spend of say 4 million and maximum 7.5.

But really that is not his focus. He really wants to eliminate the bottom end of the market because he believes it is a drag on the quality of the competition. This is logical. If you eliminate the two weakest teams you are removing (over time) the poorest 90-100 players from the tournament. Then with increased minimum spend and revenues you pull in better imports rather than journey men. Etc Etc.

Newcastle is a great example of what Griffiths is saying. With one of the highest (unnatural) spends through Hall, they set the standards. At their natural level they are basically cannon fodder, and bring little to the competition. Same goes for clubs like Leeds or Rotherham or London Welsh. So he is saying to those clubs stop wasting your time and ours.

Harsh reality of modern sport I think.

[ellis9]

So Griffiths wants a higher quality of players/teams in the league. Why? Is it because he is getting bored of winning all those league titles? Oh yeah, that's right, they've only won one!

[tigerburnie]

tig1, I know there's little room for sentimentality in the game anymore, but for each Newcastle there's a potential Exeter, it would be dangerous to cut the size of the league"just to remove weaker sides". Now there might be other reasons for a smaller Premiership, with a fully marketed Championship,properly funded and fully profesional, but the aim should be to grow the clubs and with it interest.
With a World Cup at home round the corner, there's a golden opportunity to market the game, but that does not revolve round a "Harlem Globetrotters" type of rugby that the Sorries are proposing.
I have said earlier, if clubs are generating a profit, then a percentage of that over the salary cap is reasonable and is based on some form of logic.To open the game up to the likes of the "investors" that are in other ball games is in my opinion, not learning from their mistakes.
Market trends are not the only thing at stake here, blind "thatcherism" chasing the so called free market is not sustainable, certainly not in sport.
Sport seems to cyclical in it's results, change of the pecking order is sort of inevitable, I think the motivation for these ideas is to allow foreign investors to take over rugby in the same way it has football.
No club loyalty or real interest in the fans needs, just as long as the holy grail,money is pouring in. You know the idea, forget the home support, lets play in America,the Middle East, South Africa, anywhere a buck can be made, don't worry about the home support,home is where the money is.

[Smurphswillgetya]

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.

First of all Sarries have not grown naturally but Exeter have. Where would Sarries be without their money men? As. Sarries have failed to organically grow their fan base (despite 20 years of professionalism)should they be excluded from the new protected league? How do you determine who should stay in the closed league? So depending on the timing of the decision the likes of Northampton or Saints could have been excluded from the top table as they have both been relegated. Wasps nearly went under and relegated before the money men stepped in, same with Bath. Sounds more like a way for the money men to protect themselves by ensuring TV revenue into perpetuity and excluding everyone else. Forcing clubs like Leicester and Exeter to spend a minimum of 4m may well eventually drive them to the wall without millionaire backers. Can you imagine in football the season Man Utd got relegated if they introduced a closed shop we may never have seen them dominate the premiership or in this season Leicester City never getting promoted.

[BJ.]

Oh yeah, that's right, they've only won one!

Don't you mean they've won the pay-offs once?

[h's dad]

So Griffiths wants a higher quality of players/teams in the league. Why? Is it because he is getting bored of winning all those league titles? Oh yeah, that's right, they've only won one!

One more than a lot of teams and looking to add to it over the next few years. You have to admire his commitment even if you doubt his principles. He is raising points that really do need addressing seriously, even if you, as I do, disagree strenuously with much of his proposal

[tig1]

tig1, I know there's little room for sentimentality in the game anymore, but for each Newcastle there's a potential Exeter.

Fair enough....so name those clubs ? Who are these potential Exeter, and explain why they haven't come through ?

[h's dad]

tig1, I know there's little room for sentimentality in the game anymore, but for each Newcastle there's a potential Exeter.

Fair enough....so name those clubs ? Who are these potential Exeter, and explain why they haven't come through ?

Exeter got promoted to the Premiership five years ago and very few thought they would stay here. Successful new blood adds immensely to the sport and even if there is only one successful breakthrough every ten years, or even more seldom, that has to be supported and encouraged, and if something can be done to increase breakthroughs that is all to the good. Taking steps to prevent breakthroughs is bad for the wellbeing of the game. If I could name with any certainty the breakthroughs of the next ten years and beyond I’d buy a lottery ticket.

[tig1]

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.

First of all Sarries have not grown naturally but Exeter have. Where would Sarries be without their money men? As. Sarries have failed to organically grow their fan base (despite 20 years of professionalism)should they be excluded from the new protected league? How do you determine who should stay in the closed league? So depending on the timing of the decision the likes of Northampton or Saints could have been excluded from the top table as they have both been relegated. Wasps nearly went under and relegated before the money men stepped in, same with Bath. Sounds more like a way for the money men to protect themselves by ensuring TV revenue into perpetuity and excluding everyone else. Forcing clubs like Leicester and Exeter to spend a minimum of 4m may well eventually drive them to the wall without millionaire backers. Can you imagine in football the season Man Utd got relegated if they introduced a closed shop we may never have seen them dominate the premiership or in this season Leicester City never getting promoted.

The reason he suggests four million is because in the grand scheme of modern rugby you no chance of being competitive below it.

As regards timing it would be like super league and licenses issued and renewed on an agreed timeline.

The examples of Northampton and Harlequins would not happen because it would be a newly formed competition and they would clearly be offered licenses.

[Old Hob]

The world changes Tig1: Bristol are making strenuous efforts to get back up; in a few years Bedford or Nottingham may have a change of fortune. Witney Welsh may be able to sustain a prolonged recovery. To close the door on these club's ambitions is mean spirited and, ultimately, unhealthy for the game. It may be that at some time in the future Tigers will have their normal rubbish start to the season and fail to recover from it and so go down - tough tooties for us; sporting life.

Griffiths' plans, if adopted, will change rugby forever - for the very much worse.

[tig1]

tig1, I know there's little room for sentimentality in the game anymore, but for each Newcastle there's a potential Exeter.

Fair enough....so name those clubs ? Who are these potential Exeter, and explain why they haven't come through ?

Exeter got promoted to the Premiership five years ago and very few thought they would stay here. Successful new blood adds immensely to the sport and even if there is only one successful breakthrough every ten years, or even more seldom, that has to be supported and encouraged, and if something can be done to increase breakthroughs that is all to the good. Taking steps to prevent breakthroughs is bad for the wellbeing of the game. If I could name with any certainty the breakthroughs of the next ten years and beyond I’d buy a lottery ticket.

Completely agree H. If I thought for one moment there were many other Exeters out there I would likely disagree with Griffiths. Perhaps Bristol could be one, but other than that I struggle.
Please keep in mind that whilst Exeter is a great success they had the backing of Tony Rowe to get there.

[Cardiff Tig]

The world changes Tig1: Bristol are making strenuous efforts to get back up; in a few years Bedford or Nottingham may have a change of fortune. Witney Welsh may be able to sustain a prolonged recovery. To close the door on these club's ambitions is mean spirited and, ultimately, unhealthy for the game. It may be that at some time in the future Tigers will have their normal rubbish start to the season and fail to recover from it and so go down - tough tooties for us; sporting life.

Griffiths' plans, if adopted, will change rugby forever - for the very much worse.

Bristol are making strenuous efforts by chucking a load of money around!

[ellis9]

I actually think that by not having relegation, it will weaken the league. What would Worcester and Newcastle be playing for now? They wouldn't need to scrap for a losing bonus point when losing against teams and the game against each other would be meaningless. Also, although I think Worcester will be going down, these last 4 games for them would also be pointless meaning it would make games against the teams they will be playing over the next 2 months, such as Saracens, easier for the opposition, therefore making Saracens' run in even easier.