Trailfinders a sad indictment of rugby

[GB72]

All of this has been discussed before.

There is too much negativity IMO. The Prem is great to watch and there are some great stadiums and clubs in it. We just need to build it out a bit and make better use of what is there.

We just have to look over the channel to see what we have to do.

The problem as far as I can see it is that the French leagues have a strong relationship with their broadcasters that means that a fair and equitable TV deal is entered into each year which provides solid funding. The TV company decided that football was too expensive and went all out on showing and promoting rugby and rugby, in turn, did all that it could to ensure that matches were played at times so as they have plenty to cover.

The attitude to football is the other hurdle. As far as English broadcasting is concerned, rugby at club level is irrelevant, a space filler that may get some interest a few times a year. Football is everything, football sells subscriptions. As such, that is where all the funding goes, that is where the ad revenue and sponsorship is and, in turn, that is where the press and social media is at. It would make no difference to TNT or any other company is they dropped all rugby coverage tomorrow.

Based on that, growing the game and growing the revenue is next to impossible. The season ticket price hike is a symptom of this, we have failed to get more fans an so we can only afford to keep going by getting more money from those we have.

I do agree that we have great venues and a great product but that does not mean that we can sell it. Many small indie films are superb in all aspects but they rarely get the audience of the big summer blockbuster that is promoted everywhere and is the focus of all the media attention.

[Rugbygramps]

All of this has been discussed before.

There is too much negativity IMO. The Prem is great to watch and there are some great stadiums and clubs in it. We just need to build it out a bit and make better use of what is there.

We just have to look over the channel to see what we have to do.

And there is the problem. No point in comparing across the channel it’s a complete different package.
While serious fans don’t believe there is a real issue I’m afraid the game will continue to slide

[ourla]

As I say too much negativity, it can't be done, it is inevitable, most people don't want to watch/understand rugby type attitude.

Mistakes have been made in the past - let's learn from them.

It's important to understand the strength of other clubs is important to us as our health is to them. Being vitriolic about Wasps or lording it over Falcons can seem sweet at the time but it does us no good in the long run.

Just my 2p - not dismissing others views here.

[GB72]

As I say too much negativity, it can't be done, it is inevitable, most people don't want to watch/understand rugby type attitude.

Mistakes have been made in the past - let's learn from them.

It's important to understand the strength of other clubs is important to us as our health is to them. Being vitriolic about Wasps or lording it over Falcons can seem sweet at the time but it does us no good in the long run.

Just my 2p - not dismissing others views here.

Totally agree with some of that. If we need 12 or more clubs, we need the likes of Ealing, Falcons, Wasps and others.

Also agree that the health of every club is vital ,we lose one more and the league starts to become untenable and then what happens.

My only negative is where the increased funding comes from. The losses that clubs are experiencing just cannot be maintained and so we need to increase revenue from somewhere. Perhaps we are in a better position than some to break even but our lack of a big money backer means that we are also more susceptible to problems than others.

Much will be clearer once some details of any new TV deal start to come out. Will the TV company push for a return to 12 teams, will they pay the same for a 10 team league, will they up what they currently pay or even try and cut it. Will there be any other bidders other than TNT.

All of this may give clearer picture of where we, the league and other clubs may be in a few years time.

[Rugbygramps]

I completely agree that being vitriolic over failed clubs, and continuing to harp on about Saracens achieves nothing, you would hope the existing clubs have learned their lessons.

There is a big gulf between negativity and realism. It would be great to think that the 10 premiership clubs could survive in their current form, and next season the ring fencing could be removed.
The reality is that all clubs are facing financial battles, there is a likely hood of tv revenue decreasing, season tickets have had to go up, which puts extra strain on supporters, hybrid contracts will continue to be implemented in one form or another.
Surely there need to be better answers than improving a bit here and a bit there

[Tiglon]

As I say too much negativity, it can't be done, it is inevitable, most people don't want to watch/understand rugby type attitude.

Mistakes have been made in the past - let's learn from them.

It's important to understand the strength of other clubs is important to us as our health is to them. Being vitriolic about Wasps or lording it over Falcons can seem sweet at the time but it does us no good in the long run.

Just my 2p - not dismissing others views here.

Agree re other clubs. Wasps in particular are a brand that has value, and that can be of benefit to the rest of us. Falcons are probably, if anything, the best example of what I believe the model should be and show that the rest of us with bigger fanbases could easily break even if we wanted to.

What you would call negativity is what I would call realism. There are plenty of unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful as the French pro leagues or NFL. Yes we need to look at some of the reasons for their success and try to emulate them where it is possible to, but we also need to learn from the many reasons for their success that are simply not possible for us to emulate no matter how hard we try.

How long has English rugby banged on about growing the game? 2, 3 decades? Have we got anywhere? No - our ambition has led to 3 clubs going bust and, as a result, fewer people going to watch live rugby than before. Let's be realistic with what we can achieve and focus on consolidation and safeguarding the existence of the professional clubs that we have, and be content with our status as a niche sport in this country. That, for me, would be wonderful progress and a great cause for positivity.

[GB72]

As I say too much negativity, it can't be done, it is inevitable, most people don't want to watch/understand rugby type attitude.

Mistakes have been made in the past - let's learn from them.

It's important to understand the strength of other clubs is important to us as our health is to them. Being vitriolic about Wasps or lording it over Falcons can seem sweet at the time but it does us no good in the long run.

Just my 2p - not dismissing others views here.

Agree re other clubs. Wasps in particular are a brand that has value, and that can be of benefit to the rest of us. Falcons are probably, if anything, the best example of what I believe the model should be and show that the rest of us with bigger fanbases could easily break even if we wanted to.

What you would call negativity is what I would call realism. There are plenty of unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful as the French pro leagues or NFL. Yes we need to look at some of the reasons for their success and try to emulate them where it is possible to, but we also need to learn from the many reasons for their success that are simply not possible for us to emulate no matter how hard we try.

How long has English rugby banged on about growing the game? 2, 3 decades? Have we got anywhere? No - our ambition has led to 3 clubs going bust and, as a result, fewer people going to watch live rugby than before. Let's be realistic with what we can achieve and focus on consolidation and safeguarding the existence of the professional clubs that we have, and be content with our status as a niche sport in this country. That, for me, would be wonderful progress and a great cause for positivity.

That makes sense. A salary cap based on revenue would be a start as opposed to a one size fits all approach. Yes, that would mean an backward step for a lot of clubs, especially in Europe but we cannot really compete there at the moment anyway.

What that would mean is a focus on development rather than high end recruitment and also a focus on increasing revenue to allow increased player spend. What it would also mean is that the books would balance and the game can build again on solid foundations.

Sadly, the ones who would suffer as a result in the short to medium term would be the players but the use of some hybrid contracts and a change to allowing players to earn money abroad would help to a certain extent. Add to that a Europe wide agreement on international player release to remove that hurdle on the right to play anywhere and you may have the start of a solution.

[Tiglon]

As I say too much negativity, it can't be done, it is inevitable, most people don't want to watch/understand rugby type attitude.

Mistakes have been made in the past - let's learn from them.

It's important to understand the strength of other clubs is important to us as our health is to them. Being vitriolic about Wasps or lording it over Falcons can seem sweet at the time but it does us no good in the long run.

Just my 2p - not dismissing others views here.

Agree re other clubs. Wasps in particular are a brand that has value, and that can be of benefit to the rest of us. Falcons are probably, if anything, the best example of what I believe the model should be and show that the rest of us with bigger fanbases could easily break even if we wanted to.

What you would call negativity is what I would call realism. There are plenty of unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful as the French pro leagues or NFL. Yes we need to look at some of the reasons for their success and try to emulate them where it is possible to, but we also need to learn from the many reasons for their success that are simply not possible for us to emulate no matter how hard we try.

How long has English rugby banged on about growing the game? 2, 3 decades? Have we got anywhere? No - our ambition has led to 3 clubs going bust and, as a result, fewer people going to watch live rugby than before. Let's be realistic with what we can achieve and focus on consolidation and safeguarding the existence of the professional clubs that we have, and be content with our status as a niche sport in this country. That, for me, would be wonderful progress and a great cause for positivity.

That makes sense. A salary cap based on revenue would be a start as opposed to a one size fits all approach. Yes, that would mean an backward step for a lot of clubs, especially in Europe but we cannot really compete there at the moment anyway.

What that would mean is a focus on development rather than high end recruitment and also a focus on increasing revenue to allow increased player spend. What it would also mean is that the books would balance and the game can build again on solid foundations.

Sadly, the ones who would suffer as a result in the short to medium term would be the players but the use of some hybrid contracts and a change to allowing players to earn money abroad would help to a certain extent. Add to that a Europe wide agreement on international player release to remove that hurdle on the right to play anywhere and you may have the start of a solution.

The problem is, it won't happen. All these wealthy club owners have been so successful in life that they believe they are capable of making any business work - these aren't the kind of people who are used to admitting that they can't make something happen. So, they'll continue trying to "grow the game" and, if one day they do realise that it won't work, they'll walk away very quickly leaving it very difficult to keep the clubs going.

Ideally, what we need is a gradual and well managed transition from overspending "because one day it'll come good, just you wait and see" to sensible and sustainable models. However, what we're more likely to get is a sudden and potentially catastrophic switch off of the cash-pipe. Once these sort of men admit defeat, the exit is swift and brutal, whether that means the club survives or not.

The low hanging fruit has already gone, the remaining owners are still there because their clubs are big enough to make it seem like it might be achievable.

Maybe the Saudis will come and prop the whole thing up, but it would be nice to just be able to fix our own mess, for pride if nothing else.

[GB72]

Agree re other clubs. Wasps in particular are a brand that has value, and that can be of benefit to the rest of us. Falcons are probably, if anything, the best example of what I believe the model should be and show that the rest of us with bigger fanbases could easily break even if we wanted to.

What you would call negativity is what I would call realism. There are plenty of unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful as the French pro leagues or NFL. Yes we need to look at some of the reasons for their success and try to emulate them where it is possible to, but we also need to learn from the many reasons for their success that are simply not possible for us to emulate no matter how hard we try.

How long has English rugby banged on about growing the game? 2, 3 decades? Have we got anywhere? No - our ambition has led to 3 clubs going bust and, as a result, fewer people going to watch live rugby than before. Let's be realistic with what we can achieve and focus on consolidation and safeguarding the existence of the professional clubs that we have, and be content with our status as a niche sport in this country. That, for me, would be wonderful progress and a great cause for positivity.

That makes sense. A salary cap based on revenue would be a start as opposed to a one size fits all approach. Yes, that would mean an backward step for a lot of clubs, especially in Europe but we cannot really compete there at the moment anyway.

What that would mean is a focus on development rather than high end recruitment and also a focus on increasing revenue to allow increased player spend. What it would also mean is that the books would balance and the game can build again on solid foundations.

Sadly, the ones who would suffer as a result in the short to medium term would be the players but the use of some hybrid contracts and a change to allowing players to earn money abroad would help to a certain extent. Add to that a Europe wide agreement on international player release to remove that hurdle on the right to play anywhere and you may have the start of a solution.

The problem is, it won't happen. All these wealthy club owners have been so successful in life that they believe they are capable of making any business work - these aren't the kind of people who are used to admitting that they can't make something happen. So, they'll continue trying to "grow the game" and, if one day they do realise that it won't work, they'll walk away very quickly leaving it very difficult to keep the clubs going.

Ideally, what we need is a gradual and well managed transition from overspending "because one day it'll come good, just you wait and see" to sensible and sustainable models. However, what we're more likely to get is a sudden and potentially catastrophic switch off of the cash-pipe. Once these sort of men admit defeat, the exit is swift and brutal, whether that means the club survives or not.

The low hanging fruit has already gone, the remaining owners are still there because their clubs are big enough to make it seem like it might be achievable.

Maybe the Saudis will come and prop the whole thing up, but it would be nice to just be able to fix our own mess, for pride if nothing else.

Totally agree. Sadly another cash injection, Saudi or otherwise, will just kick the problem into the tall grass and overspending will continue as will loss making and the threat of it all imploding. A system of only being able to spend what you can afford would seem the only solid way of proceeding.

Another issue if the covid loans. Why are the clubs and sport not rallying the government to have them written off. With the clubs already gone, the financial state of the game is obvious and there is now a certain irony that the loans made to keep the game afloat may well kill it off. There should be local MPs really pushing that as well as there being approaches from the Prem and the RFU

[ourla]

What you would call negativity is what I would call realism.

I just feel you get in a negative mental spiral with this stuff. Anyhow, a rabbit hole which we should probably stop going down.

There are plenty of unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful as the French pro leagues or NFL. Yes we need to look at some of the reasons for their success and try to emulate them where it is possible to, but we also need to learn from the many reasons for their success that are simply not possible for us to emulate no matter how hard we try.

Let's forget NFL for a moment. We've discussed the French rugby before but I don't remember "unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful". Can you expand? I believe BT Sport paid £110m for 3 years from 2021 and Canal+ 454 Euros (£390m) for 4 years from 2023. On a per club basis Pro14 teams can claim to bring in £7m per year to that deal. The older Prem deal was something like £3m per club per year. Why the disparity - are the viewing figures for Canal+ much higher than BT/TNT? Is it purely down to Prem football. I don't think so.

How long has English rugby banged on about growing the game? 2, 3 decades? Have we got anywhere? No - our ambition has led to 3 clubs going bust and, as a result, fewer people going to watch live rugby than before. Let's be realistic with what we can achieve and focus on consolidation and safeguarding the existence of the professional clubs that we have, and be content with our status as a niche sport in this country. That, for me, would be wonderful progress and a great cause for positivity.

I don't disagree with the first part. Growing the game means f all without substance, some meat on the bones. And yes mistakes have been made, as I say. I don't see it as niche. Golf is less followed than rugby, is that niche? Hockey, to me is niche, my sport volleyball is definitely niche in the UK (even though it's big globally). Again, saying it's niche for me is overly negative. Bugger, back down that rabbit hole

[ourla]

Worth noting a similarity in the regionality of rugby in France and the make of the clubs in the League. I posted this in 2021:

Yes, La Rochelle is clearly the Top 14 team with the lowest number of actual local players - although they are home to one Elissalde family, so it's not like no rugbyman was ever born here. But that is very easy to explain.

Most French rugby players come from the Southwest, roughly in a square between Biarritz, Montpellier, Grenoble and Bordeaux. But since the league is growing, you need enough population to sustain the growth of the club. And the Southwest is not very populated, the "Diagonale du Vide" goes right through it.

So when you look at current Top 14 teams, how to explain their presence?
- First, you have the major cities in that Southwestern area: Lyon (3rd), Toulouse (4th largest), Bordeaux (9th), Montpellier (7th). Lyon is not historically huge on rugby, but Grenoble and Bourgoin-Jallieu are, and they are close (also Oyonnax a bit further)
- Two teams profit from the Paris area (Racing and Stade Français)
- You have the big outlier Toulon (13th), which has basically no other major sport (they had a decent basketball team but I think it folded)
- Then, you have "company clubs" that are financed by a powerful local investor: Clermont (by Michelin) and Castres (by Pierre Fabre Laboratories). They are in areas with many local rugby players however, so that helps.

So that leaves 5 clubs to explain. Of those 5, 4 are "historical strongholds" in the heart of France's rugby-heavy area, that have won titles already: 3 titles for Pau, 8 for Agen - ranked 4th in history behind Toulouse, SF & Béziers - 3 for Bayonne, and 1 ERC for Brive. If you know a bit about the history of French rugby, you will recognize many prominent names that came from their academies (Robert Paparemborde, Imanol Harinordoquy or Damien Traille from Pau, Pierre Villepreux from Brive, Charles Ollivon from Bayonne, Philippe Sella from Agen)...

And then you have La Rochelle, which is an outlier: not from a historical rugby area, not that big, not a rich history.

La Rochelle rose because of a combination of factors: great management first - the president Vincent Merling, a local entrepreneur, has been there for 30 years now - but also lack of local rivalry that tended to impede growth and explains why many teams ended up killing their neighbours (Narbonne/Béziers/Carcassonne/Perpignan, for example...). It's also still a "Southern city", so not too far from everything rugby in the country.

And they got excellent results because instead of looking for stars, they built with shrewd recruits, many being players other teams did not want anymore. Of course, sometimes they add a Vito, a Kerr-Barlowe or a Skelton, but the entire world was not fighting to sign Dillion Leyds or Raymond Rhule.

They also rely on great managers - Collazo before, and Gibbes/O'Gara now. They look a lot like a French equivalent to Exeter, with of course fewer results - but more competition - so far.

The "next La Rochelle" might be Vannes, in Brittany, which is in excellent position to reach the Top 14 next year (guaranteed top 2 spot). Slowly, "new teams" like this replace historical strongholds - like Agen, which has been slowly declining - because the rugby clubs of eld came from cities too small to compete in the professional era without a huge backer.

[GB72]

What you would call negativity is what I would call realism.

I just feel you get in a negative mental spiral with this stuff. Anyhow, a rabbit hole which we should probably stop going down.

There are plenty of unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful as the French pro leagues or NFL. Yes we need to look at some of the reasons for their success and try to emulate them where it is possible to, but we also need to learn from the many reasons for their success that are simply not possible for us to emulate no matter how hard we try.

Let's forget NFL for a moment. We've discussed the French rugby before but I don't remember "unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful". Can you expand? I believe BT Sport paid £110m for 3 years from 2021 and Canal+ 454 Euros (£390m) for 4 years from 2023. On a per club basis Pro14 teams can claim to bring in £7m per year to that deal. The older Prem deal was something like £3m per club per year. Why the disparity - are the viewing figures for Canal+ much higher than BT/TNT? Is it purely down to Prem football. I don't think so.

How long has English rugby banged on about growing the game? 2, 3 decades? Have we got anywhere? No - our ambition has led to 3 clubs going bust and, as a result, fewer people going to watch live rugby than before. Let's be realistic with what we can achieve and focus on consolidation and safeguarding the existence of the professional clubs that we have, and be content with our status as a niche sport in this country. That, for me, would be wonderful progress and a great cause for positivity.

I don't disagree with the first part. Growing the game means f all without substance, some meat on the bones. And yes mistakes have been made, as I say. I don't see it as niche. Golf is less followed than rugby, is that niche? Hockey, to me is niche, my sport volleyball is definitely niche in the UK (even though it's big globally). Again, saying it's niche for me is overly negative. Bugger, back down that rabbit hole

Someone posted a great article about the relationship between Canal +. They basically gave up on football and targeted rugby as their flagship sport and so provided good funding and promotion to the game. There are also games at prime times Thursday=Sunday I believe and so they have plenty to show. That is where the good deals come from.

As for the sport being Niche, at club level it is, OK not a niche as hockey or volleyball. Golf is an interesting one and that has a similar issue to rugby in that there is a great deal of interest in the big events but very little in everything else in Europe.It does, however, have global audience and I suspect it sells subscriptions more than club rugby simply for the Majors. Now if we sold the international rights with the club rights, there may be a bigger deal for everyone.

The problem we have as a winter sport is football, and yes I do think that much is down to football in general. The channels do not need any other sports to fill the channels, they have it all covered with football. Not having football means subscriber numbers plummeting and the French do not appear to have that issue (in fact, aside from PSG, they suffer from the lack of funding to compete in Europe that our rugby clubs do). Whilst it may have been feasible in France to drop football and promote rugby, that just would not work here.

The TV deal is only worth what the channels will pay. We tried to walk away from the last deal and had to go back almost cap in hand because nobody else wanted the rights. Everything could change if other companies came in for rights but Sky seem uninterested, terrestrial TV do not have the cash or perhaps the inclination for anything more than a combined deal with TNT and so you possibly have Amazon who have lost their football rights but there are no current rumours.

[Rugbygramps]

For me tennis and golf are comparable. Both individual sports where the rewards at times can be verging on the obscene. I remember reading that Steve Williams, used to be Tigers Woods caddie, was the highest earning New Zealand athlete.

So where does all the money come from. TV to start with all the tournaments are televised in one form or another, local channels Eurosport, Sky has its own dedicated channel. Tournament endorsements, often a car is given away for a hole in one, at major tournaments there are sponsors villages, in both sports, where all the manufacturers are vying for your business, and spectators will pay the money. Individual endorsements, not just clubs, balls, clothes, and shoes, but insurance companies, sports drink companies etc. Lastly paying spectators, not in the same numbers as team sports, but I know someone who has just been successful in the ballot to get 2 tickets for men’s finals day at Wimbledon at £250 a pop. 13000 spectators by 250 that’s £3,250,000 from one day.

Rugby cannot even begin to compete with these figures. The money from these sports and American team sports is pie in the sky. Those that saw the film Air, in the end credits, Nike Air Jordan range has bought £1.6 billion in revenue on its own.
Are we a niche sport, yes I believe we are when given the number of participants and serious fans, so maybe rather than trying to market as a mass interest sport we should consolidate and try and grow our core group.

Apologies for the essay

[Tigerbeat]

Golf does not have the costs of staffing that is associated with the running of tournaments. Volunteers are used to Marshal the crowds with only a small number of paid staff. I have Marshalled at some of the DP World Tour events and they reward you with clothing, event tickets and an opportunity to pay the course in some cases.
I guess the same could be said for Tennis.
Both sports have a good following and are played more or less 52 weeks of the year at a high level.

[LE18]

As I say too much negativity, it can't be done, it is inevitable, most people don't want to watch/understand rugby type attitude.

Mistakes have been made in the past - let's learn from them.

It's important to understand the strength of other clubs is important to us as our health is to them. Being vitriolic about Wasps or lording it over Falcons can seem sweet at the time but it does us no good in the long run.

Just my 2p - not dismissing others views here.

Agree re other clubs. Wasps in particular are a brand that has value, and that can be of benefit to the rest of us. Falcons are probably, if anything, the best example of what I believe the model should be and show that the rest of us with bigger fanbases could easily break even if we wanted to.

What you would call negativity is what I would call realism. There are plenty of unalterable reasons why Prem rugby is not as commercially successful as the French pro leagues or NFL. Yes we need to look at some of the reasons for their success and try to emulate them where it is possible to, but we also need to learn from the many reasons for their success that are simply not possible for us to emulate no matter how hard we try.

How long has English rugby banged on about growing the game? 2, 3 decades? Have we got anywhere? No - our ambition has led to 3 clubs going bust and, as a result, fewer people going to watch live rugby than before. Let's be realistic with what we can achieve and focus on consolidation and safeguarding the existence of the professional clubs that we have, and be content with our status as a niche sport in this country. That, for me, would be wonderful progress and a great cause for positivity.

Would your pro comments regarding Wasps be so of you were one of those fans who bought and lost loan shares etc, Wasps are rogues who need to fully repay all of their Creditors in full, and plus possibly compensation, before anyone speaks positively about them.