Premiership vs RFU World Cup War

[jgriffin]

http://tinyurl.com/q9t9lln
Interesting perspective from Hewett in the Independent.
Hate the picture, though, apologies if it offends anyone

[Noddy555]

Griff I don't know about you but if the Galapagos Islands ever fielded a team,they would be red hot at the Turtle formation. Otherwise I have to agree with that journalist that this is yet another example of National organisations giving two hoots ( or whatever a turtle sounds like,probably a croak) about club rugby.

[Jose]

+1

The RFU hasn't exactly curried favour with the clubs in terms of how they've gone about choosing venues either. That they'd rather donate to LCFC's coffers than Tigers (etc) was hardly likely to win friends and influence people.

The fact the global game is still run by Aus and NZ is the bit that really takes the :censored: here though, and ultimately prevents RFU and Premiership compromise. Two countries with tiny economies controlling the IRB have dictated the timing of the tournament so that they can accommodate the full overinflated annual boredom of whatever ridiculously grandiose title the expanded Tri-Nations (annual AB procession to victory) is now known as after the full TV manufactured Super however many franchises now play in it, rather than compromise on something more equitable from a NH perspective which might allow a decent club season here.

Hope the Premiership does tell the RFU where to stick it on this one and see what the IRB think they can do about it. Ultimately the RFU are going to have to come up with a proper compensation package for the clubs if they seriosuly expect them not to play for 2 months of a 9 month club season (7.5 months exlduing the 6N). And if they had any sense or business acumen they should have factored that compensation into the budgetting and bidding process for the event in the first place.

[trendylfj]

Whilst I appreciate the link to the independent, why is this not only on the other thread : http://forum.leicestertigers.com/viewto ... 8153,which has been going for some time - come on Rizzo - join this to the other one please.

[h's dad]

“First prize for grandiloquence, bottom of the class for relevance.” This is a phrase used in this article with reference to the IRB. This article gives the IRB a good run for its money for this prize and quite possible pips it at the post.

Notwithstanding inaccuracies, Mr Hewett seems to assume that international players will be able to pop back to their clubs and knock out a quick game for their teams between world cup matches. I may not know much about sport but this is arrant nonsense and it is a fact that gates fall significantly when top players are absent. It is also a fact that player release for the world cup is agreed and if the RFU has assumed more than it should have for the world cup, you can almost forgive it as that is the sound assumption for both sides, or would be if the PRL was not playing games. As suggested by some on this forum, the intelligent thing (or so it seems to me) to do would be to play the LV cup during the world cup period.

His article is further compromised by the description of the compensation offer as “meagre.” The claim by PRL virtually equates to nil turnover during the period with no substitution anywhere else (has nobody outside of this forum (and not all on here) twigged that the same number of league games will be played) with full costs still incurred. This is even more arrant nonsense than the previous point. The RFU offer on the table will more than cover any genuine shortfall during the season – I have no objection to additional incentives but let’s be honest about it. I would further hope that any financial gains (of which I am sceptical for reasons and numbers supplied elsewhere) would be shared across the board all through the rugby community and not all grasped by the PRL.

Mr Hewett then spends quite a proportion of his article wittering on about FIFA and the IOC where the relevance to the IRB is tenuous to say the least. Frankly a waste of space.

[jgriffin]

“First prize for grandiloquence, bottom of the class for relevance.” This is a phrase used in this article with reference to the IRB. This article gives the IRB a good run for its money for this prize and quite possible pips it at the post.

Notwithstanding inaccuracies, Mr Hewett seems to assume that international players will be able to pop back to their clubs and knock out a quick game for their teams between world cup matches. I may not know much about sport but this is arrant nonsense and it is a fact that gates fall significantly when top players are absent. It is also a fact that player release for the world cup is agreed and if the RFU has assumed more than it should have for the world cup, you can almost forgive it as that is the sound assumption for both sides, or would be if the PRL was not playing games. As suggested by some on this forum, the intelligent thing (or so it seems to me) to do would be to play the LV cup during the world cup period.

His article is further compromised by the description of the compensation offer as “meagre.” The claim by PRL virtually equates to nil turnover during the period with no substitution anywhere else (has nobody outside of this forum (and not all on here) twigged that the same number of league games will be played) with full costs still incurred. This is even more arrant nonsense than the previous point. The RFU offer on the table will more than cover any genuine shortfall during the season – I have no objection to additional incentives but let’s be honest about it. I would further hope that any financial gains (of which I am sceptical for reasons and numbers supplied elsewhere) would be shared across the board all through the rugby community and not all grasped by the PRL.

Mr Hewett then spends quite a proportion of his article wittering on about FIFA and the IOC where the relevance to the IRB is tenuous to say the least. Frankly a waste of space.

I think you are being a little grandiloquent yourself here, nice turn of rhetoric . While there may be compensations either in kind or LV revenues if the LV was played, the fact that the AP will be suspended for a tournament where most tickets have been priced utra high and/or disbursed to corporates rankles with many punters and some clubs. We are also now becoming used to the new corporate structure of the AP and the growing realisation that, like the WRU, the RFU needs to keep its premier clubs onside. Hewett may well be wrong on some points, having form in that area, (he famously described a Tigers game where he only referred to Tigers and the fact they won the match in the last paragraph, a feat shared by the Rugby Paper leader for the Final 2 years ago), however something is happening here and we need to pay attention (which is why I posted the article).

[L Smith]

Griff I don't know about you but if the Galapagos Islands ever fielded a team,they would be red hot at the Turtle formation. Otherwise I have to agree with that journalist that this is yet another example of National organisations giving two hoots ( or whatever a turtle sounds like,probably a croak) about club rugby.

Might be wrong but aren't the Galápagos Islands more synonymous with tortoises? Maybe this should be a separate thread?

[h's dad]

I think you are being a little grandiloquent yourself here, nice turn of rhetoric . While there may be compensations either in kind or LV revenues if the LV was played, the fact that the AP will be suspended for a tournament where most tickets have been priced utra high and/or disbursed to corporates rankles with many punters and some clubs. We are also now becoming used to the new corporate structure of the AP and the growing realisation that, like the WRU, the RFU needs to keep its premier clubs onside. Hewett may well be wrong on some points, having form in that area, (he famously described a Tigers game where he only referred to Tigers and the fact they won the match in the last paragraph, a feat shared by the Rugby Paper leader for the Final 2 years ago), however something is happening here and we need to pay attention (which is why I posted the article).

Thanks JG, sometimes I use words I don’t understand myself, although usually they’re the right ones. Agree absolutely on ticket prices, along with RFU assumption for capacities although the working out should have been done by someone (or a team) working with more information than either of us – we shall have to see. You would hope that the RFU, the PRL and its club chairmen would realise that they need to work together! Thanks for the note on Hewett and for posting the article.

Oh, an aside on the Edinburgh Tigers game it would have been much more useful to those of us watching on line (great coverage and commentary, only watched the first half as went to a live friendly) if you were to wear your shirt back to front so we could pick out “Griff” along the railings.

[Noddy555]

Smithy I think you're right, well whatever there's a shell in it somewhere
perhaps the lizards would be slippery wingers.

[The Boy Dave]

His article is further compromised by the description of the compensation offer as “meagre.” The claim by PRL virtually equates to nil turnover during the period with no substitution anywhere else (has nobody outside of this forum (and not all on here) twigged that the same number of league games will be played) with full costs still incurred. This is even more arrant nonsense than the previous point. The RFU offer on the table will more than cover any genuine shortfall during the season – I have no objection to additional incentives but let’s be honest about it. I would further hope that any financial gains (of which I am sceptical for reasons and numbers supplied elsewhere) would be shared across the board all through the rugby community and not all grasped by the PRL.

It's not so bad for those involved in the short term as they have extra business, Gloucs have extra matches to hold and the benefits are clear, for the training facilities such as Leicester Grammar it's fantastic for them to host a world cup squad, I do not know if they receive any financial gains for this honour but it's great publicity.
For PRL clubs not involved there are dangers though.
As mentioned before any feel good factor is reliant on England doing well in the tournament, if it goes badly the effects could be very negative on future ticket sales.
There is the very real possibility of clubs needing to cram fixtures into a smaller period, many fans could well find themselves in a position where a season ticket is of little benefit as they juggle other commitments such as work with a congested fixture list, if we play the LV during the world cup the stands could be near empty in competition with world cup matches, the Premiership is the big draw.
Then there is the impact on annual accounts and any negative impact to an individual club, some may need loan extensions if they owe money, others may be impacted on future finance options if they are looking to borrow for development, it could set clubs back quite a bit in this regard especially as they will be seen in the risky world of finance as not supported by their governing body.
Then there is the current economic climate, is a world cup as beneficial as in the past.
There are lots of other obvious reasons for clubs to be concerned, for the organisers not to consider them important is a bit ignorant, the short term gains for those involved are great but the long term impact on those not involved could be dangerous.

[jgriffin]

Oh, an aside on the Edinburgh Tigers game it would have been much more useful to those of us watching on line (great coverage and commentary, only watched the first half as went to a live friendly) if you were to wear your shirt back to front so we could pick out “Griff” along the railings.

I was on the clubhouse side 22 rails, roadside end, next to a distinguished looking gent with a grey beard (Tigerburnie) and just in front and to the right of Doddie Weir (who looks quite small these days). I usually stand on the clubhouse side 22 rails in the Crumbie too, will wear the Griffin shirt this weekend if I remember.

[h's dad]

His article is further compromised by the description of the compensation offer as “meagre.” The claim by PRL virtually equates to nil turnover during the period with no substitution anywhere else (has nobody outside of this forum (and not all on here) twigged that the same number of league games will be played) with full costs still incurred. This is even more arrant nonsense than the previous point. The RFU offer on the table will more than cover any genuine shortfall during the season – I have no objection to additional incentives but let’s be honest about it. I would further hope that any financial gains (of which I am sceptical for reasons and numbers supplied elsewhere) would be shared across the board all through the rugby community and not all grasped by the PRL.

It's not so bad for those involved in the short term as they have extra business, Gloucs have extra matches to hold and the benefits are clear, for the training facilities such as Leicester Grammar it's fantastic for them to host a world cup squad, I do not know if they receive any financial gains for this honour but it's great publicity.
For PRL clubs not involved there are dangers though.
As mentioned before any feel good factor is reliant on England doing well in the tournament, if it goes badly the effects could be very negative on future ticket sales.
There is the very real possibility of clubs needing to cram fixtures into a smaller period, many fans could well find themselves in a position where a season ticket is of little benefit as they juggle other commitments such as work with a congested fixture list, if we play the LV during the world cup the stands could be near empty in competition with world cup matches, the Premiership is the big draw.
Then there is the impact on annual accounts and any negative impact to an individual club, some may need loan extensions if they owe money, others may be impacted on future finance options if they are looking to borrow for development, it could set clubs back quite a bit in this regard especially as they will be seen in the risky world of finance as not supported by their governing body.
Then there is the current economic climate, is a world cup as beneficial as in the past.
There are lots of other obvious reasons for clubs to be concerned, for the organisers not to consider them important is a bit ignorant, the short term gains for those involved are great but the long term impact on those not involved could be dangerous.

Every point you make is valid and needs to be included in a compensation agreement but to quantify it as playing the equivalent of two months of the season to empty grounds and no sponsorship is farcical even as a starting position (although sometimes you can get away with farcical claims). If the season should start in August 2015 the fixture list shouldn't be too congested. I would want to see congestion minimised for player welfare rather than anything else.