Timing of internationals

[markharbtiger]

I think the timing (and number) of internationals relative to club competition needs to be reconsidered. Yes it's an old topic, and the observation of what they do in the round ball game is frequently made. But we do seem to be getting more and more international fixtures in the calendar, many of which take place at the same time as club competition. Surely we have reached a point where wholesale reorganisation of the rugby calendar is necessary - perhaps defer international competition until after the club competition has completed, or have a mid-season break in club competition. In the interests of player welfare perhaps reduce the numbers of internationals too. Yes I realise there is money involved, but on the day an ex-AB is reported in the press with early onset dementia at age 41, I do think there needs to be a rethink and a reset.

[fentiger]

I'm entirely in agreement. Player welfare is at the bottom of the scale as far as the beancounters are concerned.
Rugby should be worth more in terms of TV rights which should make up the deficit in money made from internationals. Those at the top would do better negotiating these better deals and cutting out the meaningless AI's.

[Cardiff Tig]

Internationals are the reason that grass roots players and competitions exist. Less internationals means less kids will get into rugby and then eventually the professional club game will die.

If there is an issue with player welfare then surely clubs shouldn't be playing 26 games in a league (next season), plus playoffs, plus 6 European games plus knockout games.

It's funny how there is another thread about the state of the women's game (and number of high standard refs) and how that can be grown at whilst this thread is started about reducing the amount of money the RFU will have.

[RagingBull]

I have to agree with Cardiff Tigs.

You can't talk about player welfare as just a International problem, especially given the league has expanded to 13 teams and next season 14 teams.

This year England will have played 10 games, in 2012 England played 12 games. I also don't think the way you are suggesting it should be wouldn't even decrease the number of games players play anyway just increase the number of clubs games they play.

To use Hayman as an example he played on average more games a season after he left NZ and international than he did whilst in NZ.

In 8 seasons of international rugby he played 2946 minutes
v
3 seasons at Falcons he played 4795 in 64 games + 5 seasons at Toulon he played 8612 minutes in 156 games.

He played the same amount of games for Falcons in 3 seasons as he did in 9 seasons of super rugby.

[ay2oh]

There’s only one thing that the international unions care about and that is money. If soccer can organise their season(46 games + 2 or 3 cup competitions) then Rugby should be able to.
Personally Tigers is my main priority and these meaningless internationals are purely a money making scheme. Six nations ok but not these pointless AI’s.

[markharbtiger]

CardiffTig - nobody said do away with internationals altogether or have less money for rugby. Growth has got to be sustainable, and as fentiger pointed out, more money doesn't just mean more games. I appreciate the attraction of internationals, and if this means sensibly constraining club competition, then so be it.
My perspective as a fan over the last 15-20 years is that both club and international competition have increased - often one to the detriment of the other, and demands on players have gone up. Managing this better seems to me to be overdue.

[markharbtiger]

You can't talk about player welfare as just a International problem, especially given the league has expanded to 13 teams and next season 14 teams.

I wasn't as I just made clear. But possibly like others, I care about Tigers more than Internationals...

[fentiger]

There’s only one thing that the international unions care about and that is money. If soccer can organise their season(46 games + 2 or 3 cup competitions) then Rugby should be able to.
Personally Tigers is my main priority and these meaningless internationals are purely a money making scheme. Six nations ok but not these pointless AI’s.

+1 That's my point

[Cardiff Tig]

CardiffTig - nobody said do away with internationals altogether or have less money for rugby. Growth has got to be sustainable, and as fentiger pointed out, more money doesn't just mean more games. I appreciate the attraction of internationals, and if this means sensibly constraining club competition, then so be it.
My perspective as a fan over the last 15-20 years is that both club and international competition have increased - often one to the detriment of the other, and demands on players have gone up. Managing this better seems to me to be overdue.

But the internationals are what allows for ALL aspects of rugby to take place. Saying more money could be made from the TV rights is, IMO, incorrect. Yes, some of the contracts may be able to be higher if they really pushed but you'd lose most of the casual fans which make up most of the rugby supporters in this country. Very few people care about the premiership compared to England, including plenty of Tigers fans. And I'm pretty sure 1 or 2 internationals would generate more income for the Unions than an increase in TV budget for one year.

The number of internationals hasn't increased very much at all in the NH in recent years. It has moved to 3, occasionally 4, internationals in the autumn, the 5 6-nations games and then normally 3 in the summer on tour. Yes, there are the odd random games against the BaaBaas or some random game in the US which could be scrapped but the number seems to have been consistent for the last 8(?) years since player release costs were agreed.

[ay2oh]

CardiffTig - nobody said do away with internationals altogether or have less money for rugby. Growth has got to be sustainable, and as fentiger pointed out, more money doesn't just mean more games. I appreciate the attraction of internationals, and if this means sensibly constraining club competition, then so be it.
My perspective as a fan over the last 15-20 years is that both club and international competition have increased - often one to the detriment of the other, and demands on players have gone up. Managing this better seems to me to be overdue.

But the internationals are what allows for ALL aspects of rugby to take place. Saying more money could be made from the TV rights is, IMO, incorrect. Yes, some of the contracts may be able to be higher if they really pushed but you'd lose most of the casual fans which make up most of the rugby supporters in this country. Very few people care about the premiership compared to England, including plenty of Tigers fans. And I'm pretty sure 1 or 2 internationals would generate more income for the Unions than an increase in TV budget for one year.

The number of internationals hasn't increased very much at all in the NH in recent years. It has moved to 3, occasionally 4, internationals in the autumn, the 5 6-nations games and then normally 3 in the summer on tour. Yes, there are the odd random games against the BaaBaas or some random game in the US which could be scrapped but the number seems to have been consistent for the last 8(?) years since player release costs were agreed.

Take your points but as a Tigers fan my wish is to see a full strength team for Premiership and European cup games.

[Cardiff Tig]

I understand that viewpoint as well.

But even if every international game was scrapped, players would have to play significantly more than the current 30 game limit if they played every club game. That's if this has anything to do with player welfare...

[RagingBull]

Take your points but as a Tigers fan my wish is to see a full strength team for Premiership and European cup games.

So then realistically you would also need the number of Premiership games to go down a decent amount.
The united rugby championship have zero games on during the international but play a maximum of 21 games whereas the prem is a maximum of 26 games.

[ay2oh]

Yes you’re right RB and there is no way that the Premiership clubs would sanction reduction in number of games due to hit on revenue.

[RagingBull]

Yes you’re right RB and there is no way that the Premiership clubs would sanction reduction in number of games due to hit on revenue.

so the prem's number 1 priority is also money it seems

[ay2oh]

After events of the past 18 months more like survival