Your average Jeff season

Whilst I'm in a particularly snotty mood, I present this:

Weeks:
Jeff 22
AIs 5
Euros 9
6Ns 6
Off Season 10

That about sums up the imperatives.

OK this year is an RWC one. But why are twelve weeks of club time this year being absorbed into International commitments?

That is only one more than expected normally.

Why can't we just play a League?

Please explain without resorting to 'broken record'

you really are a scratched CD

So your point is that if we scrap the playoffs everything is grand?

Are you suggesting that with 22 league games, no anglo-welsh and a reduced off season we don't need to play games during the internationals or international training periods?

HammerofThunor wrote:So your point is that if we scrap the playoffs everything is grand?

Are you suggesting that with 22 league games, no anglo-welsh and a reduced off season we don't need to play games during the internationals or international training periods?

You forget that there are several weeks to play lesser club games whilst the big boys are playing internationals.

To be honest though, two or so Jeff games should be manageable without changing the Jeff Universe irredeemably.

And those could be shunted in by shuffling the programme -with the odd Thursday/Sunday commitment.

What lesser club games? Are you suggesting that there are less important Jeff games where players can be rested?!? That would completely devalue the league

HammerofThunor wrote:What lesser club games? Are you suggesting that there are less important Jeff games where players can be rested?!? That would completely devalue the league

No the Jeff games would be ring-fenced. Of course squad interchanges would be utilised as per norm.

The 'lesser' games I'm referring to are the likes of the LV Cup.

How about the Summer tour and that each international group of games requires 1-2 weeks prior gathering of the squad and training?

Portnoy wrote:Whilst I'm in a particularly snotty mood, I present this:

Weeks:
Jeff 22
AIs 5
Euros 9
6Ns 6
Off Season 10

That about sums up the imperatives.

OK this year is an RWC one. But why are twelve weeks of club time this year being absorbed into International commitments?

That is only one more than expected normally.

Why can't we just play a League?

Please explain without resorting to 'broken record'

Portnoy I don't understand. Am I right in saying that you want JUST the Premiership. Not the 6 Nations, nor the Heineken Cup or any international tests?

That's how I read it.

No. He means if we just had a league and no playoffs then it wouldn't need to be played during international windows. Although it does mean a shortened rest period by a couple of weeks.

There appears to be no practical reason for that aside from mere personal preference.

Portnoy has aired that view before. I consider myself quite an open minded fella but I cant see any logical reasons for it. I can understand that some people have a personal preference but I dont see what practical reasons it would bring.

I personally think that playoffs, manditory rest periods and the exposure of new players to first team rugby has done wonders for the Irish teams over the last number of years.

I think Portnoy is absolutely half-right. Something needs to be done with the scheduling because it is too long and too crowded. Eliminating the Playoffs is not the way, though. The Playoffs bring in big media attention, usually fills each stadium, generates significant money, and in general raises the profile of Rugby. Frankly, they are critical to Rugby's health in England. So, the Playoffs are here to stay.

On the other hand, dropping the silly Anglo-Welsh thinggy is a good idea.

Definitly drop the LV Cup.

Do the enforced rest periods only apply to the International players? So for example do the non-Irish players get rested at all. So not played even if fit.

Hammer it only applies to the core international players. So for example the likes of Paul O'Connell, Brian O'Driscoll etc will be rested but Doug Howlett and Isa Nacewa will play constantly.

The idea behind it is that O'Driscoll will play 5 Six Nations matches, 3 Autumn Internationals and maybe a summer test. To compensate this he is rested for certain league matches. So he may play 10 of the 22 matches.

This means that another young 13 is getting game time and the idea is that the transition will be smooth. Older players are not simply played into the ground and replaced.

So for example in the HEC this year Munster had Marcus Horan, John Hayes, Donncha O'Callaghan, Tomas O'Leary and Denis Leamy as all second choice players.

Young guys like Donnacha Ryan, Conor Murray and Peter O'Mahony got the chance when they were on international duty in the past and became first choice. In years to come it will happen to them.

So it is something enforced from above rather than clever managing from the provinces (I understand there line between the two may not be clear). Do you reckon that if the limit to the games was removed the provinces would still rest players? It certainly seems to be working as intended. The EPS agreement has something that's becoming similar with EPS members missing an extra 6 games than they used to.

Portnoy wrote:
Weeks:
Jeff 22
AIs 5
Euros 9
6Ns 6
Off Season 10

That about sums up the imperatives.

I don't think abandoning playing SH sides on their patch (summer tours) is a great idea. Surely that is the ultimate test and the sort of challenge serious teams should demand.

They're played in the off season.

The player welfare programme was derived between both the provinces and the IRFU - its something that has evolved quite a lot over the years. It changed quite a bit once play-offs were brought back in. Regarding how it would work if the players were contracted only to the provinces - I know that Munster set a points target every year - this is usually at a level which should guarantee a play off spot. Team selection is based on hitting that target, so a good start to the season means you have more chances to rotate over the course of the season. A bad start to the season our the points total for a play off moving up could mean that you can't rotate as much.
As far as I'm aware this is how a lot of the French teams work, Munster copied it from there, Leinster do the same but when your second team can beat anyone I guess it doesn't matter what they do!

It makes sense. It's certainly something Leicester fans have bemoaning Cockerill's refusal to play the junior players. He often prefers to rely on experienced average players on the bench rather than blooding younger players. But of course then you have Tuilagi and Youngs as first choice from around 19/20.

Saracens are the only club I can think of that have a rotation policy (not sure if they still apply it) and they've done ok recently.

Munster have often had the same issue, rather than playing 2-3 young guys in an experienced team team put in 7 young guys with 8 of the more senior players in combinations that they will probably never play again. Progress this year will hopefully change that.
Schmidt at Leinster is the master of it, the result is that he's picking his team knowing that he can drop any one of 25 players in and out of the system without affecting the standard of performance.

I like the LV Cup. It offers a stepping stone between A team matches and First Team matches, and I think there is definitely a place for it in the calender. I'm not sure about an English team getting a guaranteed Heineken Cup spot if they win it though, it seems a bit much for a development competition.

Without resorting to copying the Southern Hemisphere season structure (which I would be a big fan of), there isn't much that can be done unless you cut the number of league games. Maybe cut the Premiership into two pools of 6, you play everyone in your pool twice (10 games), everyone in the other pool once (6 games) and then you split the league into 3 groups of 4 (top 2 from both sections, middle 2 from both sections and bottom 2 from both sections) and you every team gets two play-off games (three pairs of semi-finals and a first, third, fifth, seventh, ninth and eleventh placed play-off). These play-offs would help determine the Champions, Heineken Cup qualifiers, relegation and prize money (to try and give a bit of meaning to some of the ones in the middle!) That would be 18 games, 6 less than the 24 games we've got now. Add to that 18:

8 weeks for the Six Nations (only 5 games)
4 weeks for the AIs (only 3 games)
4 weeks for the Summer Tours (only 3 games)
9 weeks for the Heineken Cup

and you've got 43. I would possibly even change the LV Cup and have an extended RFU Cup with Premiership and Championship clubs (Rabo commitments would restrict Welsh club's availability to take part in an extended Cup) to play over the International breaks, so there are no Premiership matches and first choice players can get generous rest periods (with EPS players taking enforced breaks throughout the season). It is a long season, but if players can be correctly managed then it could work.

The issue here is the tension between club and country, which is more pronounced in England than the Rabo nations. France has the same issue, masked to a degree by the much bigger salary cap and the level of support that many clubs get from their municipalities (in particular, investment in stadia).

The English clubs are commercial enterprises over whom the RFU has no direct control. Very few of them are profitable - Leicester in years when it hasn't built a new stand, Saints most years, a couple more nudge breakeven and the rest lose money. Except for Leicester (community owned, IIRC), the clubs are backed by wealthy individuals or consortia whose level of interest can drop alarmingly if they can't see a route to profitability (as Wasps are finding out).

The clubs get their money from several sources - television, sponsorship, merchandising, gate receipts, a certain amount from the RFU for EPS members. Clubs have a relatively fixed cost base, and most of the income is pretty fixed, too. The amount they make or lose over the course of a season seems to be, for most clubs, equivalent to the income from one or two home games.

Hence the congested schedule. The clubs are unlikely to vote to ditch the LV (or change the slightly odd format), shorten the season, break into two conferences or any of the ideas we regularly suggest on these pages, because it would mean fewer home games and therefore bigger losses.

The same with the salary cap - a big raise in it would disproportionately benefit a couple of clubs with secure revenues (Leicester) or rich backers (Sarries, Bath) at the expense of the other clubs. Those who couldn't match that level of funding would rapidly become uncompetitive - which would ultimately threaten the viability of the English professional game. The league's competitiveness is one of its main weapons in attracting TV and gate revenue away from football.

As a result, English clubs are in a position where they have a long season and smaller squads than some of their European rivals. It is a disadvantage, for now, though there's not much point moaning about it unless we can see a way for the funding issue to be addressed.

The best idea I've seen on these boards is that the RFU might set up a mechanism to fund ground improvements. That would enable teams to develop their facilities and fanbase more effectively and make them more viable, and perhaps enable the salary cap to rise. Whether the clubs would accept the additional say that the RFU would seek in return is another matter.

Portnoy does not believe in player welfare - he wants the best to play every single week of the year, that way we can scrap the play-offs etc. After all they are paid so they should play 47 weeks of the year. Right?

The season is congested, but once we entered the professional era that was always likely to happen. The players have to be paid somehow and unless all clubs/unions are run by wealthy men as their own fiefdoms that means more matches.

Everyone is guilty of this - the clubs want regular matches so going to a game becomes a habit. The unions add extra matches willy-nilly for no reason other than to raise money.

The season is not perfect but if you are unable/unwilling to move the international windows due to resource availability (AIs) or tradition (6Ns) then there is very little you can do.

LondonTiger wrote:Portnoy does not believe in player welfare - he wants the best to play every single week of the year, that way we can scrap the play-offs etc. After all they are paid so they should play 47 weeks of the year. Right?

The season is congested, but once we entered the professional era that was always likely to happen. The players have to be paid somehow and unless all clubs/unions are run by wealthy men as their own fiefdoms that means more matches.

Everyone is guilty of this - the clubs want regular matches so going to a game becomes a habit. The unions add extra matches willy-nilly for no reason other than to raise money.

The season is not perfect but if you are unable/unwilling to move the international windows due to resource availability (AIs) or tradition (6Ns) then there is very little you can do.

That is utter rubbish LT. An unqualified and unjustified assertion.

Clubs need squads big enough to be able to rest and rotate players. I bemoan the fact that clubs have to play matches during IWs which distorts the competition as a seasonal challenge. I am in the process of gathering a full impact analysis of the affect of the RWC/6Ns on the Jeff. Without wanting to predict the outcome, I would suggest that the very basis of the playoff system is dubious in that if you strip out International calls, the League table would look very different. The PRL itself dumbs the Jeff down.

But that's for the future to demonstrate.

In the meantime, player game management is essential (please somebody tell Glaws/36 that) and ensure that injured players are fully fit before they are returned to the fray (unlike Newcastle's management of Jonny's woes).

HammerofThunor wrote:They're played in the off season.

In which case Portnoy's proposed sequential division of the year isn't sufficient. 10 weeks for a summer tour, preseason training and decent player rest is unacceptable.

hawalsh wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:They're played in the off season.

In which case Portnoy's proposed sequential division of the year isn't sufficient. 10 weeks for a summer tour, preseason training and decent player rest is unacceptable.

A judicious shuffling of the programme could be relatively easily accommodated.

A (very) few shorter turn-around games (mid-week if you like) - One or two at the beginning of the season (September/October) whilst the weather remains fine and one or two additional games over the Christmas/New Year period plus there's the Easter period in those years that don't overlap with the 6Ns.

Also remember that three of the nine weeks allotted to European competition will be 'free' for many clubs to play Jeff games.

It seems like a fairly massive restructuring of the system Portnoy just to fulfil a personal wish of no playoffs/rugby during international windows.

Imagine how mardy Billy Twelvetrees would get if he only got to play 22 games a season.

red_stag wrote:It seems like a fairly massive restructuring of the system Portnoy just to fulfil a personal wish of no playoffs/rugby during international windows.

+1 And takes no account of the requirements of the other unions that would be impacted? (re AIs, 6Ns, European competition, and LV= Cup)

red_stag wrote:It seems like a fairly massive restructuring of the system Portnoy just to fulfil a personal wish of no playoffs/rugby during international windows.

All in order to provide a level playing field Staggy. When I've completed my impact analysis on the season, I'll present a comprehensive set of my arguments.

Please do Portnoy, Im sure we're all dieing to read it ( again)

Poorfour wrote:Except for Leicester (community owned, IIRC), the clubs are backed by wealthy individuals or consortia whose level of interest can drop alarmingly if they can't see a route to profitability (as Wasps are finding out).

A slight point, I believe that Exeter are also community owned. As might be able to confirm or deny that.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Except for Leicester (community owned, IIRC), the clubs are backed by wealthy individuals or consortia whose level of interest can drop alarmingly if they can't see a route to profitability (as Wasps are finding out).

A slight point, I believe that Exeter are also community owned. As might be able to confirm or deny that.

Thunor, absolutely correct - member owned club

The shares in the company are held by the club members, but the finances do mainly come from one guy.

PSW, no, not true - he gives more of his time than his money. He does run the conferencing arm of the Chiefs to fund the rugby side tho

From the Chiefs website:
"With the advent of the professional era, the club was restructured off the field in 1998 when a limited company structure was created to run all the club’s affairs through a board of seven directors chaired by local businessman Tony Rowe. It remains however a members’ club with the company shares held by four trustees who act on behalf of and on the instructions of the 700 members."
That is all.

I must also point out that Tony Rowe also paid for our Christmas lights this year. Unfortunately they were a bit shoite but it's the thought that counts!

Carpe Diem wrote:From the Chiefs website:
"With the advent of the professional era, the club was restructured off the field in 1998 when a limited company structure was created to run all the club’s affairs through a board of seven directors chaired by local businessman Tony Rowe. It remains however a members’ club with the company shares held by four trustees who act on behalf of and on the instructions of the 700 members."
That is all.

I doubt if Tigers' fans have much more (pro-rata) say in club affairs. But at least the invested members have their shareholders' rights to express a view in formal AGMs.

What other clubs/sides anywhere in Leagues can hold a sway over their owners - or more particularly call the owners to account?

Carpe Diem wrote:I must also point out that Tony Rowe also paid for our Christmas lights this year. Unfortunately they were a bit shoite but it's the thought that counts!

Carpe, bear in mind he was only subbing in for our stingy council that refused to pay for them!

Portnoy wrote:

Carpe Diem wrote:From the Chiefs website:
"With the advent of the professional era, the club was restructured off the field in 1998 when a limited company structure was created to run all the club’s affairs through a board of seven directors chaired by local businessman Tony Rowe. It remains however a members’ club with the company shares held by four trustees who act on behalf of and on the instructions of the 700 members."
That is all.

I doubt if Tigers' fans have much more (pro-rata) say in club affairs. But at least the invested members have their shareholders' rights to express a view in formal AGMs.

What other clubs/sides anywhere in Leagues can hold a sway over their owners - or more particularly call the owners to account?

Most of the Tigers board is fans/ex players isnt it?

Yes - but the mass of the individual shareholders are fans.