The Jeff: Will it survive the medium term (5-10 years) in its current format?

So far as I can see, despite every effort for a decade to maintain a strong league system, and every attempt by PRL members to neutralise domestic ascendancy, the only thing that has been achieved has been to slowly strangle and stultify English European performances at the altar of local equalisitic principles.

Over the period of the past ten years or so we've had in England a PRL-negotiated system designed to in most ways preserve the status quo of the privileged incumbents.

How do you see the future unfolding?

I imagine the Aviva Premiership will stay as it is.

The only changes I would/could see over the night 5 years is the figure that the salary cap is set at.

red_stag wrote:I imagine the Aviva Premiership will stay as it is.

The only changes I would/could see over the night 5 years is the figure that the salary cap is set at.

So that would be the first option and not the last (other) Staggy.

Agree with Red Stag. There will be no major changes as the smaller clubs will veto anything that moves internationals away from league games completely and those clubs who have sugar daddies but limited income themselves will veto any attempt to bring in a wage cap based on earnings. The PRL need a 75% voting agreement to pass a change in rules but everything is so political that is unlikely.

I see it staying much as it is with the salry cap slowly increasing.

One change I think may happen will be an increase to 14 clubs and then a form of ring-fencing introduced.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Agree with Red Stag. There will be no major changes as the smaller clubs will veto anything that moves internationals away from league games completely and those clubs who have sugar daddies but limited income themselves will veto any attempt to bring in a wage cap based on earnings. The PRL need a 75% voting agreement to pass a change in rules but everything is so political that is unlikely.

As the pressure piles on with (presumably) continued declining European performances, will not the big clubs not pile on an in enormous amount of 'paymaster' pressure to reform the Jeff?

Portnoy, as I see it you only have two "big clubs" - Tigers and Saints.

They alone aren't able to pile on the pressure against the rest.

red_stag wrote:Portnoy, as I see it you only have two "big clubs" - Tigers and Saints.

They alone aren't able to pile on the pressure against the rest.

That's a bit disrespectful to the Quins and Glaws and Bath and Exeter(five years on).

They aren't big clubs. They don't have the fan base for it.

Here is an article from 2010:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/7968118/Aviva-Premiership-clubs-get-11m-boost-before-the-big-kick-off.html

This incidcates that Northampton Saints were the only team to make a profit.

This changed slightly in 2011 with Tigers also making a profit once again. The reason they are making a profit is that they are bringing large numbers of fans in the gate.

Every other club is losing money each year. They wont want the wage cap increased and let Saints and Tigers bring in a few more marquee players. Why would they.

I think that the prem will go to the 14 teams sooner rather then later possibly in line so that more french and English teams will be in the HC and Amlin when it is next up for review.

What happens if a french or English get seven in the HC do they still get the rest of their teams in the Amlin which for england I assume is 6

Money talks and two extra games would do alot for gate receipts and also tv games. It would also allow the bigger clubs to rest players in those games

Exeter make a profit Staggy.

Cheers Carpe Diem. The last figures I had seen (start of the season) were that they were running at a small loss.

They are going about growing the club in the right way. I was so impressed when I was at Sandy Park.

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Portnoy, as I see it you only have two "big clubs" - Tigers and Saints.

They alone aren't able to pile on the pressure against the rest.

That's a bit disrespectful to the Quins and Glaws and Bath and Exeter(five years on).

Just because they are more traditional clubs doesn't make them big.

The only true big English club is Leicester. The rest ebb and flow.

Saints were in the Championship only 5 years ago albeit briefly. Same with Quins.

Also how do you define big? Is it brand awareness/media coverage? Revenue? Attendances? Past success? Current standings?

Is for example Exeter now seen as a bigger club than London Wasps?

Profits might be the best marker 'shocked.

And sustainability - like having a wage bill in line with income.

beshocked wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Portnoy, as I see it you only have two "big clubs" - Tigers and Saints.

They alone aren't able to pile on the pressure against the rest.

That's a bit disrespectful to the Quins and Glaws and Bath and Exeter(five years on).

Just because they are more traditional clubs doesn't make them big.

The only true big English club is Leicester. The rest ebb and flow.

Saints were in the Championship only 5 years ago albeit briefly. Same with Quins.

Also how do you define big? Is it brand awareness/media coverage? Revenue? Attendances? Past success? Current standings?

Is for example Exeter now seen as a bigger club than London Wasps?

Beshocked, your last is an interesting question - to be honest, even with my war bonnet on, no, Wasps remain a bigger club than Exe - Exe certainly have ambitions, but history in the big time/at the top table counts for so much in terms of folks' understanding of what makes a "bigger club" imo. Hopefully in 5-10 years tho, Exe will be counted as one of England's/Europe's 'BIG' clubs!

Portnoy I don't buy into that logic.

By your logic Saracens are the "smallest" club in the AP which just isn't right.

Brand awareness and media coverage wise Saracens have probably outstripped every other AP side this season.

Could a casual England fan actually name an Exeter player for example?

Probably the top 4 clubs in regards to current brand awareness and coverage IMO are Saracens,Quins,Leicester,Saints.

Size is a very contentious issue IMO. Leicester are indisputably top dogs though.

Maybe I should have included an option of a separate European league as the big Jeff/T14 teams get increasingly resentful and the Rabo begins to disintegrate under the extreme gravitational pull of Ireland.

Aslongasbut100ofus I agree.

I think Exeter are quietly going about their business - improving year on year.

They are not a particularly high profile club.

Heineken Cup rugby will of course help Exeter's profile.

Exeter is not a star studded team. They have good players but are not instantly noticeable. Still they have notched up some immense wins.

I see Exeter as almost the complete opposite of my club.

Exeter are one of the English clubs on the rise and could well be seen as a big club in 5-10 years.

This incidcates that Northampton Saints were the only team to make a profit.

This changed slightly in 2011 with Tigers also making a profit once again. The reason they are making a profit is that they are bringing large numbers of fans in the gate

As far as I'm aware that was only a tax loss, the loss came from ending the contract of Loffreda and was then carried forward to write off against profits the following year.

Brand awareness and media coverage wise Saracens have probably outstripped every other AP side this season.

I think Sarries have done the most to try and promote their brand this season but I think the older more established brands still probably hold sway. Tigers are still the most televised club (there's been 2 or 3 non-televised games this season) and still have the top average attendance. There's not a lot of difference between the big clubs but red, green and white is still the most common shirt I see worn when I go somewhere outside of Leicestershire.

Sam a simple question:

Do you genuinely think Leicester have had more publicity than Saracens this season?

Do you genuinely think Leicester have had more publicity than Saracens this season?

What do you define as publicity? Time on the television, interviews with news stations, newspaper articles or advertisements and gimmicks?

I'd say a big club is one with a big fan base, and therefore the capacity to be at the top table, even if their current finances and league position aren't good.

For a football analogy I'd say people would say Leeds Utd are a big club, despite not even being in the top tier.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Do you genuinely think Leicester have had more publicity than Saracens this season?

What do you define as publicity? Time on the television, interviews with news stations, newspaper articles or advertisements and gimmicks?

Do you mean within the M25 or outside 'shocked?

Personally out here in remotest, darkest, East Anglia I have never seen nor heard any publicity for either save the occasional news update from far-afield.

Portnoy, you talk about preserving the status quo as if it were a bad thing. In the medium term, I think preserving the status quo is a good thing for English rugby.

The bottom line is that professional rugby needs to be commercially successful to thrive. In those terms, only Leicester have consistently made a profit in the professional era. Saints seem to be getting there, Exeter are profitable but at a smaller scale and a couple of others are profitable at an operating level but burdened with debt from developing their grounds.

To put it another way, Mark Evans (former Quins CEO) was very clear about the minimum a club needs to be profitable: to own its own ground, and bring in 15,000 people week in, week out. How many clubs have hit that benchmark? Several are building towards it, but only the Tigers are really there at the moment.

The current system is designed to prevent the richer clubs from using their financial leverage to pull away from the smaller and poorer clubs. It needs to be there because even the bigger clubs need competition. Tigers are profitable because 18 times a year other clubs come to play at Welford Road and they sell tickets to people to come and watch. Take a couple of those games away, and the profits disappear. Given that most clubs make a loss, their owners are effectively subsidising the profitable clubs' profits by pumping in their own money to keep the competition afloat (though they do so in the eventual hope of making some money back).

There is, demonstrably, a finite pool of potentially profitable clubs in the UK. Leeds, Bristol, Newcastle, Sale and even Sarries all struggle to find a support base that might take them to profitability, and it's not as if there are clubs queueing up in the Championship to replace them. The only new club to successfully break into the Premiership hegemony since its inception are Exeter, which is only one reason why they are such good news.

Allow a few teams to spend to their earning power and it won't be that long before the fans go from the other clubs and the competition folds. Even the biggest clubs would not be profitable in an 8 or 9 team Premiership.

If the price for that is a temporary weakness in Europe until economic sense reasserts itself in the French leagues, then so be it. I'd rather have rugby for the long term than pots in the short term.

Poorfour wrote:Portnoy, you talk about preserving the status quo as if it were a bad thing. In the medium term, I think preserving the status quo is a good thing for English rugby.

The bottom line is that professional rugby needs to be commercially successful to thrive. In those terms, only Leicester have consistently made a profit in the professional era. Saints seem to be getting there, Exeter are profitable but at a smaller scale and a couple of others are profitable at an operating level but burdened with debt from developing their grounds.

To put it another way, Mark Evans (former Quins CEO) was very clear about the minimum a club needs to be profitable: to own its own ground, and bring in 15,000 people week in, week out. How many clubs have hit that benchmark? Several are building towards it, but only the Tigers are really there at the moment.

The current system is designed to prevent the richer clubs from using their financial leverage to pull away from the smaller and poorer clubs. It needs to be there because even the bigger clubs need competition. Tigers are profitable because 18 times a year other clubs come to play at Welford Road and they sell tickets to people to come and watch. Take a couple of those games away, and the profits disappear. Given that most clubs make a loss, their owners are effectively subsidising the profitable clubs' profits by pumping in their own money to keep the competition afloat (though they do so in the eventual hope of making some money back).

There is, demonstrably, a finite pool of potentially profitable clubs in the UK. Leeds, Bristol, Newcastle, Sale and even Sarries all struggle to find a support base that might take them to profitability, and it's not as if there are clubs queueing up in the Championship to replace them. The only new club to successfully break into the Premiership hegemony since its inception are Exeter, which is only one reason why they are such good news.

Allow a few teams to spend to their earning power and it won't be that long before the fans go from the other clubs and the competition folds. Even the biggest clubs would not be profitable in an 8 or 9 team Premiership.

If the price for that is a temporary weakness in Europe until economic sense reasserts itself in the French leagues, then so be it. I'd rather have rugby for the long term than pots in the short term.

All the necessary leverage is in place.

And what has happened?

Zurich Premiership 2001/02 / League Table
1 Leicester Tigers 22 18 0 4 658 349 309 10 1 83
2 Sale Sharks 22 14 1 7 589 517 72 9 2 69
3 Gloucester 22 14 0 8 692 485 207 8 4 68
4 London Irish 22 11 3 8 574 465 109 3 4 57
5 Northampton Saints 22 12 1 9 506 426 80 4 2 56
6 Newcastle Falcons 22 12 1 9 490 458 32 3 3 56
7 London Wasps 22 12 0 10 519 507 12 3 3 54
8 Bristol 22 9 1 12 591 632 -41 7 5 50
9 Harlequins 22 5 3 14 434 507 -73 5 4 35
10 Saracens 22 7 0 15 425 671 -246 1 5 34
11 Bath 22 7 0 15 311 524 -213 5 33
12 Leeds Carnegie 22 6 0 16 406 654 -248 2 2 28

Guinness Premiership 2005/06 / League Table
1 Sale Sharks 22 16 1 5 573 444 129 6 2 74
2 Leicester Tigers 22 14 3 5 518 415 103 5 1 68
3 London Irish 22 14 0 8 493 454 39 6 4 66
4 London Wasps 22 12 3 7 527 447 80 7 3 64
5 Gloucester 22 11 1 10 483 385 98 4 9 59
6 Northampton Saints 22 10 1 11 464 488 -24 4 7 53
7 Newcastle Falcons 22 9 1 12 416 433 -17 3 6 47
8 Worcester 22 9 1 12 451 494 -43 3 6 47
9 Bath 22 9 1 12 441 494 -53 3 5 46
10 Saracens 22 8 1 13 433 483 -50 5 7 46
11 Bristol 22 8 1 13 393 445 -52 7 41
12 Leeds Carnegie 22 5 0 17 363 573 -210 1 7 28

Aviva Premiership Rugby 11/12 / League Table
# Club Pld W D L F A PD 4T 7L P
1 Harlequins 20 16 1 3 469 336 133 4 1 71
2 Leicester Tigers 20 13 1 6 576 439 137 8 3 65
3 Saracens 20 14 1 5 440 325 115 2 4 64
4 Exeter 20 12 0 8 399 363 36 3 7 58
5 Northampton Saints 20 12 0 8 479 345 134 4 4 56
6 Sale Sharks 20 9 0 11 419 495 -76 2 7 45
7 Gloucester 20 8 1 11 419 431 -12 1 8 43
8 Bath 20 8 0 12 345 372 -27 2 6 40
9 London Irish 20 6 1 13 437 482 -45 2 9 37
10 Worcester 20 7 1 12 292 381 -89 6 36
11 London Wasps 20 6 0 14 341 471 -130 1 6 31
12 Newcastle Falcons 20 5 2 13 334 510 -176 3 27


ANSWER - NOT A LOT (Save European prizes)

Portnoy wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Portnoy, you talk about preserving the status quo as if it were a bad thing. In the medium term, I think preserving the status quo is a good thing for English rugby.

The bottom line is that professional rugby needs to be commercially successful to thrive. In those terms, only Leicester have consistently made a profit in the professional era. Saints seem to be getting there, Exeter are profitable but at a smaller scale and a couple of others are profitable at an operating level but burdened with debt from developing their grounds.

To put it another way, Mark Evans (former Quins CEO) was very clear about the minimum a club needs to be profitable: to own its own ground, and bring in 15,000 people week in, week out. How many clubs have hit that benchmark? Several are building towards it, but only the Tigers are really there at the moment.

The current system is designed to prevent the richer clubs from using their financial leverage to pull away from the smaller and poorer clubs. It needs to be there because even the bigger clubs need competition. Tigers are profitable because 18 times a year other clubs come to play at Welford Road and they sell tickets to people to come and watch. Take a couple of those games away, and the profits disappear. Given that most clubs make a loss, their owners are effectively subsidising the profitable clubs' profits by pumping in their own money to keep the competition afloat (though they do so in the eventual hope of making some money back).

There is, demonstrably, a finite pool of potentially profitable clubs in the UK. Leeds, Bristol, Newcastle, Sale and even Sarries all struggle to find a support base that might take them to profitability, and it's not as if there are clubs queueing up in the Championship to replace them. The only new club to successfully break into the Premiership hegemony since its inception are Exeter, which is only one reason why they are such good news.

Allow a few teams to spend to their earning power and it won't be that long before the fans go from the other clubs and the competition folds. Even the biggest clubs would not be profitable in an 8 or 9 team Premiership.

If the price for that is a temporary weakness in Europe until economic sense reasserts itself in the French leagues, then so be it. I'd rather have rugby for the long term than pots in the short term.

All the necessary leverage is in place.

And what has happened?

Zurich Premiership 2001/02 / League Table
1 Leicester Tigers 22 18 0 4 658 349 309 10 1 83
2 Sale Sharks 22 14 1 7 589 517 72 9 2 69
3 Gloucester 22 14 0 8 692 485 207 8 4 68
4 London Irish 22 11 3 8 574 465 109 3 4 57
5 Northampton Saints 22 12 1 9 506 426 80 4 2 56
6 Newcastle Falcons 22 12 1 9 490 458 32 3 3 56
7 London Wasps 22 12 0 10 519 507 12 3 3 54
8 Bristol 22 9 1 12 591 632 -41 7 5 50
9 Harlequins 22 5 3 14 434 507 -73 5 4 35
10 Saracens 22 7 0 15 425 671 -246 1 5 34
11 Bath 22 7 0 15 311 524 -213 5 33
12 Leeds Carnegie 22 6 0 16 406 654 -248 2 2 28

Guinness Premiership 2005/06 / League Table
1 Sale Sharks 22 16 1 5 573 444 129 6 2 74
2 Leicester Tigers 22 14 3 5 518 415 103 5 1 68
3 London Irish 22 14 0 8 493 454 39 6 4 66
4 London Wasps 22 12 3 7 527 447 80 7 3 64
5 Gloucester 22 11 1 10 483 385 98 4 9 59
6 Northampton Saints 22 10 1 11 464 488 -24 4 7 53
7 Newcastle Falcons 22 9 1 12 416 433 -17 3 6 47
8 Worcester 22 9 1 12 451 494 -43 3 6 47
9 Bath 22 9 1 12 441 494 -53 3 5 46
10 Saracens 22 8 1 13 433 483 -50 5 7 46
11 Bristol 22 8 1 13 393 445 -52 7 41
12 Leeds Carnegie 22 5 0 17 363 573 -210 1 7 28

Aviva Premiership Rugby 11/12 / League Table
# Club Pld W D L F A PD 4T 7L P
1 Harlequins 20 16 1 3 469 336 133 4 1 71
2 Leicester Tigers 20 13 1 6 576 439 137 8 3 65
3 Saracens 20 14 1 5 440 325 115 2 4 64
4 Exeter 20 12 0 8 399 363 36 3 7 58
5 Northampton Saints 20 12 0 8 479 345 134 4 4 56
6 Sale Sharks 20 9 0 11 419 495 -76 2 7 45
7 Gloucester 20 8 1 11 419 431 -12 1 8 43
8 Bath 20 8 0 12 345 372 -27 2 6 40
9 London Irish 20 6 1 13 437 482 -45 2 9 37
10 Worcester 20 7 1 12 292 381 -89 6 36
11 London Wasps 20 6 0 14 341 471 -130 1 6 31
12 Newcastle Falcons 20 5 2 13 334 510 -176 3 27


ANSWER - NOT A LOT (Save European prizes)

Portnoy, not sure that I understand your post. What is your goal:
1. To ensure that the Tigers are always the best club in England?
2. To provide a decent pool of international quality players for England?
3. To improve the overall quality of the AP?

Unlimited spending, or a wage cap related to turnover, simply won't work. You will end up reducing the number of clubs that are capable of competing either with the rich (sugar daddy) or with the wealthy (ie Tigers). If you lessen the number of decent club games that the Tigers will face, I can almost guarantee you that their performances in Europe will suffer as a consequence

Sam I mean all those things.

Portnoy do you not receive a national newspaper like the Telegraph where you live?

I think we will see the 14 team happen soon with leeds and bristol or newcastle brought up. That would allow for two more games.

So for Exeter at 8k @ £20 that is £320k more a year so that is two to three more players for the lower teams if you keep the cap as is and makes it more compeditive as it gives the lower teams more money to make the cap.

One downside is that teams that rent will have to pay more.

Scap the LV and it would be fine

What I would do:

Aviva Premiership

Expand the AP to 14 teams

Two teams get relegated

Scrap the LV Cup

Encourage more rotation and development of English youngsters. Maybe make a rule that you need a certain number starting and on the bench.

Reward teams with excellent academies.

8 EQ starting,5 on the bench.

Make a Championship shield for table toppers at the end of the season like Rugby League.

Championship:

Scrap the ridiculous Championship play off system.

Top 2 Championship sides are promoted.

No restrictions on who can be promoted but Championship sides must show plans to develop their stadiums.

you could always go down the girl points system

For every game where under 23s play 160mins in total you get one extra try for points

So tigers score three tries and have the 160 mins but lose by five

They still lose but get a TBP and add seven to their points difference

you could do a simillar thing for EQ or ok the opposite and do a deduction so if you scored 4 tries you could end up on on four points as not TBP

I think that two up and down would help alot if it went to 14

Brendan that just sounds very confusing to me.

I know did you never play teams with girls in it that had those systems they suck.

The EPS will never allow funding to not be equal among clubs

Also will clubs play people for the betterment of the game no

So only place to hit them is in league points

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Portnoy, you talk about preserving the status quo as if it were a bad thing. In the medium term, I think preserving the status quo is a good thing for English rugby.

The bottom line is that professional rugby needs to be commercially successful to thrive. In those terms, only Leicester have consistently made a profit in the professional era. Saints seem to be getting there, Exeter are profitable but at a smaller scale and a couple of others are profitable at an operating level but burdened with debt from developing their grounds.

To put it another way, Mark Evans (former Quins CEO) was very clear about the minimum a club needs to be profitable: to own its own ground, and bring in 15,000 people week in, week out. How many clubs have hit that benchmark? Several are building towards it, but only the Tigers are really there at the moment.

The current system is designed to prevent the richer clubs from using their financial leverage to pull away from the smaller and poorer clubs. It needs to be there because even the bigger clubs need competition. Tigers are profitable because 18 times a year other clubs come to play at Welford Road and they sell tickets to people to come and watch. Take a couple of those games away, and the profits disappear. Given that most clubs make a loss, their owners are effectively subsidising the profitable clubs' profits by pumping in their own money to keep the competition afloat (though they do so in the eventual hope of making some money back).

There is, demonstrably, a finite pool of potentially profitable clubs in the UK. Leeds, Bristol, Newcastle, Sale and even Sarries all struggle to find a support base that might take them to profitability, and it's not as if there are clubs queueing up in the Championship to replace them. The only new club to successfully break into the Premiership hegemony since its inception are Exeter, which is only one reason why they are such good news.

Allow a few teams to spend to their earning power and it won't be that long before the fans go from the other clubs and the competition folds. Even the biggest clubs would not be profitable in an 8 or 9 team Premiership.

If the price for that is a temporary weakness in Europe until economic sense reasserts itself in the French leagues, then so be it. I'd rather have rugby for the long term than pots in the short term.

All the necessary leverage is in place.

And what has happened?

Zurich Premiership 2001/02 / League Table
1 Leicester Tigers 22 18 0 4 658 349 309 10 1 83
2 Sale Sharks 22 14 1 7 589 517 72 9 2 69
3 Gloucester 22 14 0 8 692 485 207 8 4 68
4 London Irish 22 11 3 8 574 465 109 3 4 57
5 Northampton Saints 22 12 1 9 506 426 80 4 2 56
6 Newcastle Falcons 22 12 1 9 490 458 32 3 3 56
7 London Wasps 22 12 0 10 519 507 12 3 3 54
8 Bristol 22 9 1 12 591 632 -41 7 5 50
9 Harlequins 22 5 3 14 434 507 -73 5 4 35
10 Saracens 22 7 0 15 425 671 -246 1 5 34
11 Bath 22 7 0 15 311 524 -213 5 33
12 Leeds Carnegie 22 6 0 16 406 654 -248 2 2 28

Guinness Premiership 2005/06 / League Table
1 Sale Sharks 22 16 1 5 573 444 129 6 2 74
2 Leicester Tigers 22 14 3 5 518 415 103 5 1 68
3 London Irish 22 14 0 8 493 454 39 6 4 66
4 London Wasps 22 12 3 7 527 447 80 7 3 64
5 Gloucester 22 11 1 10 483 385 98 4 9 59
6 Northampton Saints 22 10 1 11 464 488 -24 4 7 53
7 Newcastle Falcons 22 9 1 12 416 433 -17 3 6 47
8 Worcester 22 9 1 12 451 494 -43 3 6 47
9 Bath 22 9 1 12 441 494 -53 3 5 46
10 Saracens 22 8 1 13 433 483 -50 5 7 46
11 Bristol 22 8 1 13 393 445 -52 7 41
12 Leeds Carnegie 22 5 0 17 363 573 -210 1 7 28

Aviva Premiership Rugby 11/12 / League Table
# Club Pld W D L F A PD 4T 7L P
1 Harlequins 20 16 1 3 469 336 133 4 1 71
2 Leicester Tigers 20 13 1 6 576 439 137 8 3 65
3 Saracens 20 14 1 5 440 325 115 2 4 64
4 Exeter 20 12 0 8 399 363 36 3 7 58
5 Northampton Saints 20 12 0 8 479 345 134 4 4 56
6 Sale Sharks 20 9 0 11 419 495 -76 2 7 45
7 Gloucester 20 8 1 11 419 431 -12 1 8 43
8 Bath 20 8 0 12 345 372 -27 2 6 40
9 London Irish 20 6 1 13 437 482 -45 2 9 37
10 Worcester 20 7 1 12 292 381 -89 6 36
11 London Wasps 20 6 0 14 341 471 -130 1 6 31
12 Newcastle Falcons 20 5 2 13 334 510 -176 3 27


ANSWER - NOT A LOT (Save European prizes)

Portnoy, not sure that I understand your post. What is your goal:
1. To ensure that the Tigers are always the best club in England?
2. To provide a decent pool of international quality players for England?
3. To improve the overall quality of the AP?

Unlimited spending, or a wage cap related to turnover, simply won't work. You will end up reducing the number of clubs that are capable of competing either with the rich (sugar daddy) or with the wealthy (ie Tigers). If you lessen the number of decent club games that the Tigers will face, I can almost guarantee you that their performances in Europe will suffer as a consequence

Strangely Asbo (along with a huge number of critics), you don't join in my campaigns to make all of rugby more accessible to the likes of Exeter.

No support to open up the 6Ns. No support anywhere really - except a strong desire to keep your own nest feathered.

Which of course is exactly what you accuse me of.

One of us must feel a bit embarrassed. And as I have only ever encouraged pan-national success on financial terms whilst you have always supported the PRL line of fixing the weights to the faster swimmer/runners like a handicap race (and if the still win, burden them more).

Portnoy,

Nobody has to feel embarassed. Obviously you and all other Premiership fans want the Premiership to do well.

My own take is that you need to work as a team. There is no good with Saints and Tigers rushing off on your own. You'll end up with a situation akin to the Scottish Football League with Celtic or Rangers winning every year.

I think that Quins could be added to that and also bath i think bath could get 2000 per game more if it was bigger thats 2kx£20x6 = 240k a year not much but goes along way

Getting HC in lots aswell so not winning but doing well in HC will always see success

red_stag wrote:Portnoy,

Nobody has to feel embarassed. Obviously you and all other Premiership fans want the Premiership to do well.

My own take is that you need to work as a team. There is no good with Saints and Tigers rushing off on your own. You'll end up with a situation akin to the Scottish Football League with Celtic or Rangers winning every year.

Much like Leinster and Munster then? As the financial brakes have been heavily applied to the Regions, their day is probably done as a European contender.

So as it stands, that leaves France and Ireland to smack it out for the gongs with the occasional unwelcome interloper.

The think that the regions have going that the english don't but acedemies has is playing for the region its yours.

People play for ulster at a poorer rate because it is theres. they won't play for the others because that is like a saints man playing for tigers that is why Irish players go abroad over changing aligance

Brendan wrote:The think that the regions have going that the english don't but acedemies has is playing for the region its yours.

People play for ulster at a poorer rate because it is theres. they won't play for the others because that is like a saints man playing for tigers that is why Irish players go abroad over changing aligance

Translation anyone?

the problem is that english players will play for the big clubs in england

Wales and Irish and Scotland players don't move around they wait or they move abroad.

The two development sides for the Rabo are the only exception.

It is easy for Saints and Tigers to get all the top english players it is much hard for the Celtic countries.

My dad alway gives out at my sentence structure just a thick irish man

Portnoy wrote:Much like Leinster and Munster then?

Not quite. Munster and Leinster have never dominated anything:

It has only ever happened once that two Irish teams won successive ERC trophies.

Leinster haven't won the Celtic League since 2008 and we have seen the Cardiff Blues, Ospreys and Edinburgh all repsented in finals in the last 5 years as well as them.

There is no Leinster-Munster cartel apart for about 6 months in 2008-2009 when both were playing great rugby.

Portnoy wrote:
Strangely Asbo (along with a huge number of critics), you don't join in my campaigns to make all of rugby more accessible to the likes of Exeter.

No support to open up the 6Ns. No support anywhere really - except a strong desire to keep your own nest feathered.

Which of course is exactly what you accuse me of.

One of us must feel a bit embarrassed. And as I have only ever encouraged pan-national success on financial terms whilst you have always supported the PRL line of fixing the weights to the faster swimmer/runners like a handicap race (and if the still win, burden them more).

I have? Sorry, I'll be requiring you to demonstrate that.

However, i will unashamedly take pleasure in pointing out that while you might champion one or two issues (that coincidentally would help the Tigers cause), you show no interest in any others

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Portnoy,

Nobody has to feel embarassed. Obviously you and all other Premiership fans want the Premiership to do well.

My own take is that you need to work as a team. There is no good with Saints and Tigers rushing off on your own. You'll end up with a situation akin to the Scottish Football League with Celtic or Rangers winning every year.

Much like Leinster and Munster then? As the financial brakes have been heavily applied to the Regions, their day is probably done as a European contender.

So as it stands, that leaves France and Ireland to smack it out for the gongs with the occasional unwelcome interloper.

Unwelcome to whom?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Portnoy,

Nobody has to feel embarassed. Obviously you and all other Premiership fans want the Premiership to do well.

My own take is that you need to work as a team. There is no good with Saints and Tigers rushing off on your own. You'll end up with a situation akin to the Scottish Football League with Celtic or Rangers winning every year.

Much like Leinster and Munster then? As the financial brakes have been heavily applied to the Regions, their day is probably done as a European contender.

So as it stands, that leaves France and Ireland to smack it out for the gongs with the occasional unwelcome interloper.

Unwelcome to whom?

I'm sorry, Ill rephrase that - unusual interloper

Portnoy -

Red Stag's Rangers / Celtic analogy (and potentially just Celtic, now) is the scenario I'm afraid of - with the addition of the lethal kicker that while soccer fans seem willing to turn out week-in, week-out to watch smaller teams hope to get lucky against bigger teams, the rugby fanbase who will do the same is much smaller. To survive as a competitive sport, rugby needs competitiveness and for now that means "fixing the weights". Which is a good analogy, by the way. Horse racing has done it for generations because it makes for a more exciting sport - and no-one complains. NFL does something similar with the draft system. Soccer had a salary cap for a very long time until there was enough money sloshing around for a critical mass of clubs to support an uncapped model.

If I could see more clubs within realistic reach of financial security, then I'd support a relaxing of the salary cap rules. If I could see a way to fit more clubs into the Premiership without damaging either financial stability or player welfare, I'd support it.

I do support a 2 tier 6 Nations, with promotion and relegation - but I can't see the existing RFUs ever voting for it.

Poorfour wrote:Portnoy -

Red Stag's Rangers / Celtic analogy (and potentially just Celtic, now) is the scenario I'm afraid of - with the addition of the lethal kicker that while soccer fans seem willing to turn out week-in, week-out to watch smaller teams hope to get lucky against bigger teams, the rugby fanbase who will do the same is much smaller. To survive as a competitive sport, rugby needs competitiveness and for now that means "fixing the weights". Which is a good analogy, by the way. Horse racing has done it for generations because it makes for a more exciting sport - and no-one complains. NFL does something similar with the draft system. Soccer had a salary cap for a very long time until there was enough money sloshing around for a critical mass of clubs to support an uncapped model.

If I could see more clubs within realistic reach of financial security, then I'd support a relaxing of the salary cap rules. If I could see a way to fit more clubs into the Premiership without damaging either financial stability or player welfare, I'd support it.

+1

I'd also encourage a wider review of the pro-game in England, a confirmation of the needs of the RFU and the clubs, and a strategy for how to bring it all together (ie not just financial aspects, but also infrastructure, academies, promotion/relegation, etc.)

Well said Poofour

That is the problem with union

Russia where meant to be close as were USA but italy schooled them and it was a B team against Russia

The reason that the welsh went regional was because teams were getting schooled

Poorfour wrote:Portnoy -

Red Stag's Rangers / Celtic analogy (and potentially just Celtic, now) is the scenario I'm afraid of - with the addition of the lethal kicker that while soccer fans seem willing to turn out week-in, week-out to watch smaller teams hope to get lucky against bigger teams, the rugby fanbase who will do the same is much smaller. To survive as a competitive sport, rugby needs competitiveness and for now that means "fixing the weights". Which is a good analogy, by the way. Horse racing has done it for generations because it makes for a more exciting sport - and no-one complains. NFL does something similar with the draft system. Soccer had a salary cap for a very long time until there was enough money sloshing around for a critical mass of clubs to support an uncapped model.

If I could see more clubs within realistic reach of financial security, then I'd support a relaxing of the salary cap rules. If I could see a way to fit more clubs into the Premiership without damaging either financial stability or player welfare, I'd support it.

I do support a 2 tier 6 Nations, with promotion and relegation - but I can't see the existing RFUs ever voting for it.

Wrong in one important sense. Footy had an individual wage cap which was broken by the likes of John Charles (Wales), Jimmy Greaves (England) and Denis Law (Scotland) going freelance abroad in Italy.

Not least involved in the abolition of the cap was Jimmy Hill. (So he did have a use after all!)

So Footy Clubs never had wage caps - players did.

Man U and Arsenal had 100k but Roy the boy broke it as he didn't see why some one should be on the same as him. It all fell apart after that though it is questionable if it would still work as Arsenal struggle keeping one