mol2 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 12:19 pm
I don’t see American football’s franchise system a good comparison.
No one outside the USA plays it in any significant way.
Wasps were a slow financial “car crash.” No ground so moved away from their fan base and a financial model that relied on miracle benefactor to pay the debts.
London Irish were likely a Covid victim.
Worcester were a rather more complicated mess.
If sides want the TV money to keep coming in, there needs to be competitive games throughout the season to keep the neutrals interested. Newcastle v Glaws in May to decide on 8th & 9th? If that was a relegation decider it would be different.
European qualification is potentially losing interest. Our clubs can’t compete with the megabucks French sides and the Ireland training team under the current financial rules. Add to that the inclusion of South African teams which means long distance journeys with sides often turning out B sides to manage the situation.
Add to that the egos and insular approach of the Premiership team owners and the RFU which harps back to the amateur era when it was in charge it is no e owonder the club v country is helping neither maintain public interest in rugby. The BBC and ITV are disinterested in rugby. (Outside of the 6N)
It’s a simple equation keep ring fencing and loose out on a couple of exciting games at the end of the season, would it really make that much difference in crowds, or open the premiership up and promote a club which possibly isn’t ready for the premiership either on or off the pitch, and could leave them with substantial debt.
I would mention regional teams but apparently that means I want Tigers to fail
The reason why there is a negative reaction to Rugbygramps suggestion of regional teams is simply Wales. Forcing the amalgamation.of historic clubs with their closest rivals destroyed.many of them and did no favours for Welsh rugby. Ireland in contrast always had regional teams so for them mo amalgamation was necessary.
Were England to be divided into regions there would be problems. South West '= too many teams do you ignore the investment made to create Sandy Park or the proposed investment at Bath, maybe ignore both and play matches at Ashton Gate. South Midlands, Saints and Gloucester possibly include Coventry play matches in Birmingham as a compromise. NORTH ? Leicester, Sale, Newcastle play matches in Leeds no doubt. South East probably combine Quins and Saracens add Wasps to the mixture and play in Brighton. Of course you could leave decisions to the RFU and trust them to come up with something sensible.
johnthegriff wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:02 pm
The reason why there is a negative reaction to Rugbygramps suggestion of regional teams is simply Wales. Forcing the amalgamation.of historic clubs with their closest rivals destroyed.many of them and did no favours for Welsh rugby. Ireland in contrast always had regional teams so for them mo amalgamation was necessary.
Were England to be divided into regions there would be problems. South West '= too many teams do you ignore the investment made to create Sandy Park or the proposed investment at Bath, maybe ignore both and play matches at Ashton Gate. South Midlands, Saints and Gloucester possibly include Coventry play matches in Birmingham as a compromise. NORTH ? Leicester, Sale, Newcastle play matches in Leeds no doubt. South East probably combine Quins and Saracens add Wasps to the mixture and play in Brighton. Of course you could leave decisions to the RFU and trust them to come up with something sensible.
Oh no I understand but for every Wales there is an Ireland, who still have feeder clubs, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. You are totally correct that they all benefit from having existing regions so there is a natural selection process, some players even return to the states of their birth. Yes it would take some work, but to say a Northern/ Midlands region cannot exist alongside Leicester Tigers is imo misguided
johnthegriff wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:02 pm
The reason why there is a negative reaction to Rugbygramps suggestion of regional teams is simply Wales. Forcing the amalgamation.of historic clubs with their closest rivals destroyed.many of them and did no favours for Welsh rugby. Ireland in contrast always had regional teams so for them mo amalgamation was necessary.
Were England to be divided into regions there would be problems. South West '= too many teams do you ignore the investment made to create Sandy Park or the proposed investment at Bath, maybe ignore both and play matches at Ashton Gate. South Midlands, Saints and Gloucester possibly include Coventry play matches in Birmingham as a compromise. NORTH ? Leicester, Sale, Newcastle play matches in Leeds no doubt. South East probably combine Quins and Saracens add Wasps to the mixture and play in Brighton. Of course you could leave decisions to the RFU and trust them to come up with something sensible.
A very good point. The only reason that I would ever contemplate regional rugby is that I cannot see where the change will come from to allow professional club rugby to succeed financially. The whole state of affairs means that the worry is not only our club surviving but also 9 other clubs doing likewise and perhaps finding another 2 who are also able to foot the bills. That really does worry me.
If I am being honest, with the lack of a sugar daddy backer, with a big stadium to run and maintain, with a promise to spend up to the cap every year to compete and if Newcastle were to get their Saudi backing as seems likely, I would worry that we are possibly the most precarious club in the Prem financially (taking into account that last year's figures were boosted by a nice RFU payment for SB and team).
I would support a semi pro Tigers in the Championship, I would never support a feeder team losing our players to a regional franchise wherever they played, wrong on every level.
"If you want entertainment, go to the theatre," says Edinburgh head coach Richard Cockerill. "Rugby players play the game to win.15/1/21.
I would just add that things do have to evolve. For those that have been attending since the 70s like myself, yes Tigerburnie I really have, other than the name of the club and the colours we play in what is the same, in terms of the ground, match day experience, how the club is run, I would suggest nothing other than the Crumbie Stand, and even the changing rooms used to be in the clubhouse.
I would be devastated for any team to go out of business, but it is likely if something isn’t done
tigerburnie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:28 pm
I would support a semi pro Tigers in the Championship, I would never support a feeder team losing our players to a regional franchise wherever they played, wrong on every level.
How about if the regional teams and club teams had different seasons as happens in the southern hemisphere.
I guess the assumption is that the status quo is going to be an option and my fear is that finances may mean that it simply is not.
The next hurdle is going to be the TV deal. That runs out with TNT in only a few months time and there has been no talk about the extension of it, figures involved etc. Maybe Amazon would be in the market for the rights but not sure anyone else is, Sky maybe but not sure and so if there is only one bidder at the table we could be looking at a harsh situation. I am sure the last deal went to the wire with the Premiership rejecting the then BT offer as too low then nobody else came forward as interested.
If the deal is cut to reflect only 10 teams, how would that impact, could we afford to increase the size of the league later and split the money 11 or 12 ways. All concerning.
Worryingly, I can see TNT going for just European rugby when all the stars are out every week and there is a wider interest.
One option would be to have a split broadcast deal for the league, majority on TNT (or another "paywall" broadcaster) with a game on Free to Air TV most weekends...there might be less income, but more exposure. Super League is now available on the BBC.
Wayne Richardson Fan Club wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 3:27 pm
One option would be to have a split broadcast deal for the league, majority on TNT (or another "paywall" broadcaster) with a game on Free to Air TV most weekends...there might be less income, but more exposure. Super League is now available on the BBC.
Agree that the Super League deal seems ideal but would the terrestrial TV take union (channel 4 have shown some interest recently) and is Union attractive to the subscription companies if it is not exclusive. Hard to tell but it will be interesting and it is always a nervy time when we are maybe 3-4 months away from the end of the current deal and there has been nothing mentioned about what is happening after.
Bearing in mind budgets, contracts and new signings for next season are very much going to depend on that income, you would hope that something will come up soon
Rugbygramps is correct that things do evolve, he is a relatively new supporter having missed the skills of Phil HorrocksTaylor etc but yes we no longer have a Nissan hut, or a welding company under our wooden stand. Regrettably there is no Barbarians match at Christmas and players are now full time professionals. For 25 years of professionalism most clubs grew and broke even whilst improving their grounds, some obviously failed for various reasons, West Hartlepoole, Orrell and a few others, some like Exeter developed our of all proportion from where they were in the mid nineties. Yes they had great financial backing just as many football clubs do, support that defies sensible business practice but is there nevertheless. Regional Rugby has to be financed by the countries Rugby Union which will take money away from the grass roots game. I doubt Tigers as a non Premiership club would be able to finance our Academy which has produced several players for England and some for Scotland, Wales and even Italy.
Regional Rugby will see grounds sold, the RFU will not pay to maintain several stadiums they are currently considering selling Twickenham so I am certain they would find it easier to base regional teams at football stadiums, Ospreys/Swansea City which frankly rarely works as London Irish and Wasps have discovered.
tigerburnie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:28 pm
I would support a semi pro Tigers in the Championship, I would never support a feeder team losing our players to a regional franchise wherever they played, wrong on every level.
How about if the regional teams and club teams had different seasons as happens in the southern hemisphere.
I think the issue there is you get the brand fight. The regional teams and identity work well in nations where there are defined geographical regions (Ire, Aus, SA, NZ/Pac), and generally half a dozen - or fewer - of them. More importantly, those regions have defined and historic identities. This applies to the NZ model too, as each of the teams has a city or regional focal point.
This would be a very difficult model to achieve in England, with dozens of counties, no administrative regions etc, and would suffer similar issues to the regionalisation of Welsh rugby, where strong brands (even if they had been from the amateur era) were destroyed. In England it would be very difficult to build any kind of regional brands to sit over the top of the bigger clubs.
tigerburnie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 2:28 pm
I would support a semi pro Tigers in the Championship, I would never support a feeder team losing our players to a regional franchise wherever they played, wrong on every level.
How about if the regional teams and club teams had different seasons as happens in the southern hemisphere.
I think the issue there is you get the brand fight. The regional teams and identity work well in nations where there are defined geographical regions (Ire, Aus, SA, NZ/Pac), and generally half a dozen - or fewer - of them. More importantly, those regions have defined and historic identities. This applies to the NZ model too, as each of the teams has a city or regional focal point.
This would be a very difficult model to achieve in England, with dozens of counties, no administrative regions etc, and would suffer similar issues to the regionalisation of Welsh rugby, where strong brands (even if they had been from the amateur era) were destroyed. In England it would be very difficult to build any kind of regional brands to sit over the top of the bigger clubs.
You are absolutely correct and that will remain the biggest issue and possibly an insurmountable one. As you say if we take New Zealand supporters of Canterbury Rugby, can also support the Crusaders as they are still Canterbury
& below Canterbury are the "local" teams, in the NPC most teams have a game with players wearing their "Club" socks (like the Baa Baas.) (The Scarlets did it the other week).
Very occasionally the genuine top players appear for their clubs in NZ, there were clips of Ardie Savea a couple of years ago playing centre, what doesn't happen terribly often now is many All Blacks playing much in the NPC.
Wayne Richardson Fan Club wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:33 pm
& below Canterbury are the "local" teams, in the NPC most teams have a game with players wearing their "Club" socks (like the Baa Baas.) (The Scarlets did it the other week).
Very occasionally the genuine top players appear for their clubs in NZ, there were clips of Ardie Savea a couple of years ago playing centre, what doesn't happen terribly often now is many All Blacks playing much in the NPC.
The way their calendar works is that super rugby has just started and will run to approximately June when National squads start coming together. Then the NPC starts so likelyhood is you won’t see many All Blacks but you will still see plenty of super rugby stars and can be a trial ground for the next seasons super rugby
