Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

by Pot Hale Sat 08 Sep 2012, 9:31 pm

First topic message reminder :

Since the 2000 season, the most games that a relegated team in the Aviva Premiership has won is 7 games - Bristol Shoguns in 2003. There have been 3 teams with 6 wins, one team with 5, and the remainder have had only 2-3 wins. One even managed none.

In short, relegated teams do pretty poorly in the Premiership, and it's fairly easy to spot early on who are the "drop" candidates and who are the rest of the teams that don't really have to worry about it. To use football parlance, anything over 30 points and you're generally safe. (Over the last five years, it's ranged from 12 points to 32 for Newcastle last year.)

In a recent newspaper article, Bernard Jackman, an assistant coach with French team, Grenoble, talked about their approach to the season whereby they target particular games and rest/rotate players accordingly.

Jackman says that Grenoble have known from the start of this season that they are relegation candidates, along with three to four other teams. The remainder fight for higher spots for mid-table security for another season, and then the top 6 spots for the playoffs and European qualification.

Presumably, a similar outlook must be taken in the Premiership. London Welsh seem to be the early favourites for returning from whence they came. Who else is in the relegation group that'll be spending the season in a dog-fight to get those precious 7-8 wins to stay up? Or if you prefer who doesn't really have to worry about it? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Saracens, Harlequins and Leicester won't be spending too many sleepless nights......

by Pot Hale Tue 11 Sep 2012, 4:42 pm

Coincidentally, the following article appeared today in The Times:

"A glance at the Aviva Premiership table, admittedly after only two rounds of the season, prompts a sense of déjà vu.

The top four places are occupied by the clubs who finished in the same positions last May. Harlequins, Leicester, Saracens and Northampton have, in their own styles, set the pace. With the resources and squads that each enjoy, they will be difficult to peg back.....

.....Alas, the same cannot be said for the situation at the other end of the table, where London Welsh already have the look of haunted men. On the evidence to date it might well be that they do not win a game all season......

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3534174.ece

by beshocked Tue 11 Sep 2012, 5:09 pm

Pot Hale wrote:Coincidentally, the following article appeared today in The Times:

"A glance at the Aviva Premiership table, admittedly after only two rounds of the season, prompts a sense of déjà vu.

The top four places are occupied by the clubs who finished in the same positions last May. Harlequins, Leicester, Saracens and Northampton have, in their own styles, set the pace. With the resources and squads that each enjoy, they will be difficult to peg back.....

.....Alas, the same cannot be said for the situation at the other end of the table, where London Welsh already have the look of haunted men. On the evidence to date it might well be that they do not win a game all season......

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3534174.ece

I wouldn't say it's that simple.

If you look at where the teams came last season

Quins played 11th and championship playoff winners

Leicester played 10th and championship playoff winners

Saracens played 6th and 7th

Saints played 9th and 5th

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 11 Sep 2012, 8:06 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:
viewtothegym wrote:Tigers would never drop down, they have to much political power behind the scenes

You mean like when they voted against the playoffs and even though everyone else wanted them they didn't happen...oh wait... they did come in.

Also each club has one vote on the PRL and, although Tigers are famous for being loved by everyone, I don't think they could sway votes that much.

They also continue to support PRL, if they broke away then they as the biggest drawing club would hold much more power to dictate in a block with the other big clubs. As it is the smaller ones keep the even spread of EPS payments, the even spread of TV money, 12 teams and digestive biscuits instead of rich tea and Tigers support that system of collectivism.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Tue 11 Sep 2012, 9:14 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
viewtothegym wrote:Tigers would never drop down, they have to much political power behind the scenes

You mean like when they voted against the playoffs and even though everyone else wanted them they didn't happen...oh wait... they did come in.

Also each club has one vote on the PRL and, although Tigers are famous for being loved by everyone, I don't think they could sway votes that much.

They also continue to support PRL, if they broke away then they as the biggest drawing club would hold much more power to dictate in a block with the other big clubs. As it is the smaller ones keep the even spread of EPS payments, the even spread of TV money, 12 teams and digestive biscuits instead of rich tea and Tigers support that system of collectivism.

Isn't that 10 teams with bourbons, 1 with rich tea, 1 demoted team with digestives and 1 promoted team with crumbs?

by Poorfour Tue 11 Sep 2012, 9:39 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
viewtothegym wrote:Tigers would never drop down, they have to much political power behind the scenes

You mean like when they voted against the playoffs and even though everyone else wanted them they didn't happen...oh wait... they did come in.

Also each club has one vote on the PRL and, although Tigers are famous for being loved by everyone, I don't think they could sway votes that much.

They also continue to support PRL, if they broke away then they as the biggest drawing club would hold much more power to dictate in a block with the other big clubs. As it is the smaller ones keep the even spread of EPS payments, the even spread of TV money, 12 teams and digestive biscuits instead of rich tea and Tigers support that system of collectivism.

Yes, and if they broke away and consolidated all that power, who would join them? You can't have competitive sport without, erm, competition.

Tigers only make money because they have enough games to play. Nearly all of the other teams in the Jeff make a loss, because rugby as a professional sport isn't fully mature yet. So the team's owners have to pump in money every year to keep their teams, and therefore the league, afloat. Tigers' profits are subsidised by other team's losses. The fact that Tigers share income evenly when they could demand the, ahem, lion's share only reduces the size of the subsidy.

If you can't see why that is, imagine for a moment what the gate and tv revenue would be with a much smaller league, or even a less competitive one in which Tigers win more of their games. And even if there were enough clubs to make a breakaway league, why would they vote to give one team a structural financial advantage?

by Pot Hale Tue 11 Sep 2012, 9:54 pm

Next step - a breakaway European Premier League of the big boy clubs?

by HammerofThunor Tue 11 Sep 2012, 9:57 pm

Poorfour wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:
viewtothegym wrote:Tigers would never drop down, they have to much political power behind the scenes

You mean like when they voted against the playoffs and even though everyone else wanted them they didn't happen...oh wait... they did come in.

Also each club has one vote on the PRL and, although Tigers are famous for being loved by everyone, I don't think they could sway votes that much.

They also continue to support PRL, if they broke away then they as the biggest drawing club would hold much more power to dictate in a block with the other big clubs. As it is the smaller ones keep the even spread of EPS payments, the even spread of TV money, 12 teams and digestive biscuits instead of rich tea and Tigers support that system of collectivism.

Yes, and if they broke away and consolidated all that power, who would join them? You can't have competitive sport without, erm, competition.

Tigers only make money because they have enough games to play. Nearly all of the other teams in the Jeff make a loss, because rugby as a professional sport isn't fully mature yet. So the team's owners have to pump in money every year to keep their teams, and therefore the league, afloat. Tigers' profits are subsidised by other team's losses. The fact that Tigers share income evenly when they could demand the, ahem, lion's share only reduces the size of the subsidy.

If you can't see why that is, imagine for a moment what the gate and tv revenue would be with a much smaller league, or even a less competitive one in which Tigers win more of their games. And even if there were enough clubs to make a breakaway league, why would they vote to give one team a structural financial advantage?

The PRL banned together because they generally get a better deal as a collective. The PRL couldn't kick Tigers out just because they didn't want to belong to it anymore. But they would have to negotiate their own deals for their own home game TV, sponsorship, RFU release money, etc. If the 'top' clubs (I'm thinking Tigers, Saints, Quins and Gloucester) felt the other clubs were taking the urine they could break off, sell their own TV deals, sponsorship, RFU deals, and may well be better off. However there would have to be a big change in circumstances for that to be beneficial for anyone in the long term.

Pot Hale, god I hope not.

by pjm1 Wed 12 Sep 2012, 1:15 pm

Poorfour wrote:Yes, and if they broke away and consolidated all that power, who would join them? You can't have competitive sport without, erm, competition.

Tigers only make money because they have enough games to play. Nearly all of the other teams in the Jeff make a loss, because rugby as a professional sport isn't fully mature yet. So the team's owners have to pump in money every year to keep their teams, and therefore the league, afloat. Tigers' profits are subsidised by other team's losses. The fact that Tigers share income evenly when they could demand the, ahem, lion's share only reduces the size of the subsidy.

If you can't see why that is, imagine for a moment what the gate and tv revenue would be with a much smaller league, or even a less competitive one in which Tigers win more of their games. And even if there were enough clubs to make a breakaway league, why would they vote to give one team a structural financial advantage?

Poorfour, I agree with much of what you say, but the bit in bold is wrong. The other clubs don't make a loss just because Tigers make a profit, and vice-versa. Tigers make a profit because their revenue is in excess of all of their costs. Their costs are not a million miles away from some other clubs' (excepting Sarries) but the revenue is higher than all the rest primarily because they put more bums on seats in Welford Road and sell more replica kit to more fans. Their argument, which I don't agree with, would be that because they have consistently the highest attendance, they deserve more of the TV income. Similarly, by supplying more EPS players, perhaps they should get more of the RFU money?

Of course, they don't and almost certainly won't. In fact, I'm not even sure if they're making these arguments themselves - I suspect it's more likely that Bath and Sarries are pushing for a greater share of revenue, given they have ambitions to raise the salary cap. But that's a different discussion entirely!

by Poorfour Wed 12 Sep 2012, 1:48 pm

pjm, perhaps I could have phrased it better but it's undeniable that Tigers are only able to make a profit because other clubs' owners are prepared to continue funding their clubs' losses.

And yes, Tigers' revenues are higher, but they are fortunate in where they started from when the game turned professional. Owning their own ground, having a long history of success and a unique ownership structure were advantages that not many clubs had.

It's not currently easy to make a profit in professional rugby; that's self evident, because if it were, plenty of others would be doing it. Until it is, the clubs need to act collectively to keep the league as a whole sustainable.

by pjm1 Wed 12 Sep 2012, 1:59 pm

Poorfour - I understand what you're saying and in the context of the current structure, it is true: if the sugar daddies withdrew, a number of other clubs may fold, the AP would collapse and Tigers would be left playing weekly Derby matches against Northampton! That might get a bit tedious, although it would be fun for a few months at least Wink

Seriously though, such a scenario isn't really conceivable, but if it did happen the RFU would almost certainly have to step in. Would they fund the entire gap? Probably not. Would Sky/ESPN/BT plug a bit of it? Maybe, in exchange for even better terms, I'm sure.

The RFU and other interested parties would simply not allow the top tier of professional rugby in England to collapse. Therefore, there would still be matches - maybe as many (perhaps more?) and I suspect Tigers' profitability would continue.

But it's all conjecture based on a pretty unlikely scenario, so who really cares!?

The actual cause of Tigers' profitability is fortune with the size of the fan base / location, investment in infrastructure, historical success (although that hasn't helped Wasps), careful and prudent financial management and a bit of magic dust. The fact that other clubs elsewhere may or may not make a profit is a statement of fact, but it isn't a direct cause of Tigers' own financial position.

Sport attracts fans and it attracts benefactors. While there is sport, there will be both, so we should just accept that as the situation and look more to what lessons can be learned from successful clubs and less successful ones.

by maestegmafia Fri 14 Sep 2012, 12:18 am

Paul Rees of the Gaurdian wrote:It may be too simplistic to say that the argument is whether wealth should be concentrated in the hands of a few or shared widely, but the crowd at Harlequins last Friday night were short-changed. The home followers would have been satisfied at a bonus point victory, but it was a match that reflected one side having three times the spending power of the other.

Newcastle, relegated last season, will receive more from Premiership Rugby this season than London Welsh in the form of a parachute payment designed to soften the club's fall. That money is effectively what should be distributed to the Exiles and it is hard not to resist the thought that the whole purpose of the payment is to expedite the return of the demoted side at the expense of the club that replaced it. Given that, Premiership Rugby has little in the way of moral authority when it lays down demands to the rest of Europe.

It is another reason why the criteria should be ripped up. All 12 clubs in the Premiership should have equal opportunity; all the salary cap does is achieve relative parity among the established members of the top flight. The likes of London Welsh are like beggars at a banquet, sneaking past the guards at the door.

Exeter and Worcester have enjoyed extended stays in the Premiership not least because, owning their own grounds, they can bake their own bread rather than rely on crumbs handed down to them. London Welsh are miles from home, fated to return from where they came and all the flowing rugby in the opening two weekends of the Premiership cannot dispel the feeling that there is something rotten at the core..

by BigTrevsbigmac Fri 14 Sep 2012, 7:19 am

maestegmafia wrote:
Paul Rees of the Gaurdian wrote:It may be too simplistic to say that the argument is whether wealth should be concentrated in the hands of a few or shared widely, but the crowd at Harlequins last Friday night were short-changed. The home followers would have been satisfied at a bonus point victory, but it was a match that reflected one side having three times the spending power of the other.

Newcastle, relegated last season, will receive more from Premiership Rugby this season than London Welsh in the form of a parachute payment designed to soften the club's fall. That money is effectively what should be distributed to the Exiles and it is hard not to resist the thought that the whole purpose of the payment is to expedite the return of the demoted side at the expense of the club that replaced it. Given that, Premiership Rugby has little in the way of moral authority when it lays down demands to the rest of Europe.

It is another reason why the criteria should be ripped up. All 12 clubs in the Premiership should have equal opportunity; all the salary cap does is achieve relative parity among the established members of the top flight. The likes of London Welsh are like beggars at a banquet, sneaking past the guards at the door.

Exeter and Worcester have enjoyed extended stays in the Premiership not least because, owning their own grounds, they can bake their own bread rather than rely on crumbs handed down to them. London Welsh are miles from home, fated to return from where they came and all the flowing rugby in the opening two weekends of the Premiership cannot dispel the feeling that there is something rotten at the core..

London Welsh achieving promotion without being ready (the whole purpose of the criteria set down in the first place) is & won't be any good for the Premiership or more importantly London Welsh themselves.
As I have said before they will reap what they have sown. The Premiership will thrive without them next season but what will become of LW?

by maestegmafia Fri 14 Sep 2012, 8:42 am

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:The Premiership will thrive without them next season but what will become of LW?

Well for starters that all depends on what happens to English rugby.

Despite the decision by the PRL to sell English Rugby to BT, the RFU are still weighing up whether they like promotion and relegation, the french and the ERC are having a civilised discussion about the future of European rugby later next month and all these factors will have something to do with London Welsh's future.

There are too many variables, possible out comes and random sales of entities that certain organisations possibly do not have the right to sell, to even vaguely consider what might or might not happen because of or to English club rugby today.

Hopefully it will all be sorted by the start of next season.

by BigTrevsbigmac Fri 14 Sep 2012, 11:36 am

I believe the HC will change but I can't see the Premiership changing for a while.
It is the European side of the deal that is causing the problems.

The deal for televising the Premiership games alone for the next 4 years will mean £1M to each club for those in the Premiership from next season onwards.

As John Taylor said, "We don't need any more incentive because the funding and the sponsorship and the business surrounding the Premiership is so much greater than the Championship."

Looking at Exeter he said,

"They are really strong club and we have to follow their example and stay in the Premiership"

I would be amazed if they did.

by Sponsored content

Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

Re: Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?