Does relegation really matter to all of the Aviva clubs?

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......

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:Kingshu you seriously big up the Irish sides.

No Ulster,Munster and Leinster couldn't have put out those sides against the top teams in the AP and won.

I wouldn't be so sure. Worcester gave Leicester a game.

Who are the 9 Ospreys Welsh internationals you refer to?

Saracens and Leicester do rotate.

I didn't say top teams, Leinster and Munster were playing teams expected to finish near the bottom of the table, so try to think of their English equalivents, not top teams.
Only Ulster were playing a title contending team.

Like I said they put out the team they think will win, and rest those that they can and rotate, you'd see very different teams if they were playing London Welsh, compared to playing Leicester Tigers.

https://www.606v2.com/t34489p150-ospreys-vs-ulster

Shiftys comment

"Truth be told though 9 Welsh internationals started that game against Ulster's reserve team"

If that Ulster team beat an Ospreys team with 9 internationals, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't be able to do the same to an AP side that would have less internationals?

And do you really think Worcester would have done any better than the Dragons, in the RDS this weekend?? Really?

And you give out at the Pro 12, rotating squads,yet admit Saracens and Leicester (about the best teams in the AP) do rotate. If its good enough for the top teams in England to do, its good enough for the top Pro 12 teams to do as well.

And do you really think the Dragons would have done any better than Worcester at Welford Road this weekend?? Really?

beshocked wrote:
In the IWs all Pro12 sides lose players bar Connacht. In comparison in the AP it's mainly 4/5 teams who lose the most amount of players in the IW. This means the weaker teams have full strength teams during the IW which makes them tougher.

In the Pro12 even the likes of Treviso and Edinburgh are depleted.

Also on this point we can agree to disagree, while you believe that the top teams missing internationals, while bottom teams don't, makes it tougher on the top teams and a better League. I hold with the idea that with all teams (maybe expect Connacht) missing players it makes it a fairer league. Both point are Valid though.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

beshocked wrote:Kingshu you seriously big up the Irish sides.

No Ulster,Munster and Leinster couldn't have put out those sides against the top teams in the AP and won.

I wouldn't be so sure. Worcester gave Leicester a game.

Who are the 9 Ospreys Welsh internationals you refer to?

Saracens and Leicester do rotate.

I didn't say top teams, Leinster and Munster were playing teams expected to finish near the bottom of the table, so try to think of their English equalivents, not top teams.
Only Ulster were playing a title contending team.

Like I said they put out the team they think will win, and rest those that they can and rotate, you'd see very different teams if they were playing London Welsh, compared to playing Leicester Tigers.

https://www.606v2.com/t34489p150-ospreys-vs-ulster

Shiftys comment

"Truth be told though 9 Welsh internationals started that game against Ulster's reserve team"

If that Ulster team beat an Ospreys team with 9 internationals, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't be able to do the same to an AP side that would have less internationals?

And do you really think Worcester would have done any better than the Dragons, in the RDS this weekend?? Really?

And you give out at the Pro 12, rotating squads,yet admit Saracens and Leicester (about the best teams in the AP) do rotate. If its good enough for the top teams in England to do, its good enough for the top Pro 12 teams to do as well.

And do you really think the Dragons would have done any better than Worcester at Welford Road this weekend?? Really?

No I don't and never said anywhere that they would.

I'm comparing the two as about Equal teams, do you think Warriors are a much better team than Dragons, or Dragons much better than Warriors? Like I said I think they are about equal so hence the comparsion, you can change it to who ever you think the prems equalivent to Dragons are, and then ask would they have done any better?

Poorfour wrote:

That's really the point of this article, to my mind. More games matter in the AP, so they have fewer opportunities to blood new players. This costs the teams in the long run, especially against the better Rabo teams in the HEC.

Every game matters in the Pro12. Yet again, we have someone suggest that losing games is something that some Pro12 coaches plan for - strategy if you will, which is offensive actually because it's saying the League, the Pro12, isn't an important enough league to need to win - it's training ground runs for the HC. Is the Aviva a training ground for the HC? - No? - Offensive to one of the world's great leagues that I'd even suggest so? - Then don't suggest the Pro12 League, that includes a few multiple HC champions, is either easy or lax.

It is better managed. In order to sustain a competitive edge throughout a five year period, or a decade, you simply Need to give time to blooding new players and giving them ample opportunity to get up to speed at club and Heineken Cup level rugby - that's a requirement for consistency at club level. If the English can't get their heads around that, then that's their problem. 'They can't afford to,' we're told, - the can't afford not to is my response, but they stubbornly go about their business anyway, forever sacrificing the future to the greedy present.

If only one top AP side started to turn the tides, started to substantively 'risk' some of the games against lower teams, put the bulk of a rookie team on, then I guarantee you, they'd all start doing it. And then it would become the norm - but because of greed for the present, nobody wants to be the first to 'risk' it. That's all that's wrong with the balance in the AP, nobody prepared to be the first to take a 'risk'.

Poorfour wrote:
In the second half of last season, Quins had enough of a buffer at the top of the table that they could make real choices in terms of prioritising games. If a first team player wasn't quite fit, they had the option to rest them (and increase the chances of them being fit for the playoffs) because they could afford to lose a couple of games. Other AP teams did not have that luxury; because there are very few dead rubbers, there is huge pressure to play your best available team even if some of those players would benefit from longer to recover. Leicester, for instance, had to put on an almighty charge to recover from a weak start to the season - and I think it cost them in the final.

That's really the point of this article, to my mind. More games matter in the AP, so they have fewer opportunities to blood new players. This costs the teams in the long run, especially against the better Rabo teams in the HEC.

Your last line brings things back on topic, Poorfour. The Pro 12 is irrelevant to this discussion.

The point was how much does the issue of relegation affect all Premiership teams. Obviously, the top teams are pursuing the four playoff places (and four of the EC spots at the same time). The winner of the Anglo-Welsh cup gets the next spot. And then people chase the next one or two spots depending on whether there's been an English european cup winner the previous season.

The key driver for winning for most AP teams is getting one of the four play-off/EC spots. Next is any remaining HC spots. And for a small number of teams, avoiding relegation is the main battle e.g. Worcester, London Welsh.

Pot Hale wrote:

The key driver for winning for most AP teams is getting one of the four play-off/EC spots. Next is any remaining HC spots. And for a small number of teams, avoiding relegation is the main battle e.g. Worcester, London Welsh.

And for each of those requirements, the simple practical objective never changes - not once does the strategy change for any side. To be in the play-offs, win as many games as you can. To chase HC spots, win as many games as you can. To avoid relegation, win as many games as you can.

I repeat yet again - the pressure on any rugby player or team is to win their next game. That premium requirement is there in every league, from the beginning of it to its end. If your HC spot is secured, you still want to win your next game to perhaps go for a play off spot - the imperative is always there to win your next game. There is not one occasion in any league season where a team can have a meeting and come to the conclusion that "Now listen lads, this is the game we need to lose to position ourselves better for the season's conclusion." Pressure is constant and it's the same for all leagues.

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

The key driver for winning for most AP teams is getting one of the four play-off/EC spots. Next is any remaining HC spots. And for a small number of teams, avoiding relegation is the main battle e.g. Worcester, London Welsh.

And for each of those requirements, the simple practical objective never changes - not once does the strategy change for any side. To be in the play-offs, win as many games as you can. To chase HC spots, win as many games as you can. To avoid relegation, win as many games as you can.

I repeat yet again - the pressure on any rugby player or team is to win their next game. That premium requirement is there in every league, from the beginning of it to its end. If your HC spot is secured, you still want to win your next game to perhaps go for a play off spot - the imperative is always there to win your next game. There is not one occasion in any league season where a team can have a meeting and come to the conclusion that "Now listen lads, this is the game we need to lose to position ourselves better for the season's conclusion." Pressure is constant and it's the same for all leagues.

Bang on. Which is why a knock out cup final is played in exactly the same way as a mid season league game.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

beshocked wrote:Fine you got me there smirnoffpriest. Don't forget when you pick from 4 teams it's not that difficult to have a team full of internationals. Treviso and Zebre are full of internationals too.

By your logic Saracens had 10 internationals starting vs Sale.

The teams to beat in Europe are Clermont and Leinster. The rest I am confident of victory against.

Secretfly we beat the Pro12 champs home and away in the HC. It wasn't plain sailing for the Pro12 in the HC.


In the IWs all Pro12 sides lose players bar Connacht. In comparison in the AP it's mainly 4/5 teams who lose the most amount of players in the IW. This means the weaker teams have full strength teams during the IW which makes them tougher.

In the Pro12 even the likes of Treviso and Edinburgh are depleted.

I like how dismissive you are of the likes of Trevisio and Edinburgh, one's a team who have beaten/drawn against some good sides and the other are European semi-finalists.

And while the Scarlets struggle to beat the likes of Leinster/Munster we have beaten Saints & LI in recent seasons while we haven't had a front 5.

And it's not so much my logic, it's a fact (trusting you - I haven't looked at the Saracens team) that Saracens have 10 internationals. pretty good though...

Not dismissive at all. Treviso put up a hell of a fight at their home ground in the HC. Edinburgh as you say did well in the HC. This is because they could pour all their eggs into one basket. Having the weakest HC pool of course helped too.

Secretfly you don't seem to understand that certain games hold more significance than others.

Edinburgh are the perfect example of not taking the Pro12 seriously because they don't have to.

So why do you say 'even teams like Treviso and Edinburgh are depleted' especially as both have quite good teams with lots of internationals in (just no squad depth).

And in response to your sentence to Secret Fly - Yes all games have significance in whatever league/competition your part of, and all games have different levels of significance based on your situation and the context.
For example in the HEC this season, the Scarlets might need to win 1 game out of the last 2 to go through - they then might play their best possible side and go hell for leather to beat Leinster in Wales, and as a result may have to send a slightly weaker (because of injuries/fatigue) team out to France to play Clermont. This isn't because the HEC is a weak competition, or because the Scarlets are disrespecting the competition, or because only the Leinster game has anything riding on it - but because by doing the above might give the Scarlets the best chance of a favourable outcome - which is what every team does.
That's why every team studies the fixture list and identifies games with a high likelihood of winning, one's which are 50/50 and ones which will need their absolute best players to be in as good a condition as possible (ie not playing them into the ground the game(s) before), and games where they should be able to win while bringing through their fringe players/youngsters.
It's called being smart and using your squad, maximising your depth and keeping your players fresh.

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

The key driver for winning for most AP teams is getting one of the four play-off/EC spots. Next is any remaining HC spots. And for a small number of teams, avoiding relegation is the main battle e.g. Worcester, London Welsh.

And for each of those requirements, the simple practical objective never changes - not once does the strategy change for any side. To be in the play-offs, win as many games as you can. To chase HC spots, win as many games as you can. To avoid relegation, win as many games as you can.

I repeat yet again - the pressure on any rugby player or team is to win their next game. That premium requirement is there in every league, from the beginning of it to its end. If your HC spot is secured, you still want to win your next game to perhaps go for a play off spot - the imperative is always there to win your next game. There is not one occasion in any league season where a team can have a meeting and come to the conclusion that "Now listen lads, this is the game we need to lose to position ourselves better for the season's conclusion." Pressure is constant and it's the same for all leagues.

You're stating the obvious in saying win as many games as you can, and overlooking additional or tactical pressures and the chances of success. Bernard Jackman's interview re Grenoble clearly demonstrated that they pragmatically target certain games against lower clubs to try and get the points they need to stay up in the Top 14. And they rest/rotate players according to their needs and their priorities. Applying that theoretically to the AP, London Welsh would focus on having their best 15 turn out against Worcester, Sale and possibly Wasps for example, and rest certain players if they're playing against say Leicester, Saracens, or Harlequins. Stands to reason in managing your resources and your expectations.

Relegation matters to some clubs, not others. They'll prioritise accordingly.

Pot Hale wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

The key driver for winning for most AP teams is getting one of the four play-off/EC spots. Next is any remaining HC spots. And for a small number of teams, avoiding relegation is the main battle e.g. Worcester, London Welsh.

And for each of those requirements, the simple practical objective never changes - not once does the strategy change for any side. To be in the play-offs, win as many games as you can. To chase HC spots, win as many games as you can. To avoid relegation, win as many games as you can.

I repeat yet again - the pressure on any rugby player or team is to win their next game. That premium requirement is there in every league, from the beginning of it to its end. If your HC spot is secured, you still want to win your next game to perhaps go for a play off spot - the imperative is always there to win your next game. There is not one occasion in any league season where a team can have a meeting and come to the conclusion that "Now listen lads, this is the game we need to lose to position ourselves better for the season's conclusion." Pressure is constant and it's the same for all leagues.

You're stating the obvious in saying win as many games as you can, and overlooking additional or tactical pressures and the chances of success. Bernard Jackman's interview re Grenoble clearly demonstrated that they pragmatically target certain games against lower clubs to try and get the points they need to stay up in the Top 14. And they rest/rotate players according to their needs and their priorities. Applying that theoretically to the AP, London Welsh would focus on having their best 15 turn out against Worcester, Sale and possibly Wasps for example, and rest certain players if they're playing against say Leicester, Saracens, or Harlequins. Stands to reason in managing your resources and your expectations.

Relegation matters to some clubs, not others. They'll prioritise accordingly.

So you mean there is an admittance that AV teams do indeed rest players?

Smirnoffpriest wrote:So why do you say 'even teams like Treviso and Edinburgh are depleted' especially as both have quite good teams with lots of internationals in (just no squad depth).

And in response to your sentence to Secret Fly - Yes all games have significance in whatever league/competition your part of, and all games have different levels of significance based on your situation and the context.
For example in the HEC this season, the Scarlets might need to win 1 game out of the last 2 to go through - they then might play their best possible side and go hell for leather to beat Leinster in Wales, and as a result may have to send a slightly weaker (because of injuries/fatigue) team out to France to play Clermont. This isn't because the HEC is a weak competition, or because the Scarlets are disrespecting the competition, or because only the Leinster game has anything riding on it - but because by doing the above might give the Scarlets the best chance of a favourable outcome - which is what every team does.
That's why every team studies the fixture list and identifies games with a high likelihood of winning, one's which are 50/50 and ones which will need their absolute best players to be in as good a condition as possible (ie not playing them into the ground the game(s) before), and games where they should be able to win while bringing through their fringe players/youngsters.
It's called being smart and using your squad, maximising your depth and keeping your players fresh.

7

Yes they have lots of internationals but it doesn't mean they are all necessary good ones. I say even Treviso and Edinburgh because they are sides near the bottom of the Pro12 table. If Edinburgh were so good as you seem to think they wouldn't have been 11th in the Pro12.

Not true. Most LV games are insignificant except for blooding 2nd/3rd string players for more important competitions.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

The key driver for winning for most AP teams is getting one of the four play-off/EC spots. Next is any remaining HC spots. And for a small number of teams, avoiding relegation is the main battle e.g. Worcester, London Welsh.

And for each of those requirements, the simple practical objective never changes - not once does the strategy change for any side. To be in the play-offs, win as many games as you can. To chase HC spots, win as many games as you can. To avoid relegation, win as many games as you can.

I repeat yet again - the pressure on any rugby player or team is to win their next game. That premium requirement is there in every league, from the beginning of it to its end. If your HC spot is secured, you still want to win your next game to perhaps go for a play off spot - the imperative is always there to win your next game. There is not one occasion in any league season where a team can have a meeting and come to the conclusion that "Now listen lads, this is the game we need to lose to position ourselves better for the season's conclusion." Pressure is constant and it's the same for all leagues.

You're stating the obvious in saying win as many games as you can, and overlooking additional or tactical pressures and the chances of success. Bernard Jackman's interview re Grenoble clearly demonstrated that they pragmatically target certain games against lower clubs to try and get the points they need to stay up in the Top 14. And they rest/rotate players according to their needs and their priorities. Applying that theoretically to the AP, London Welsh would focus on having their best 15 turn out against Worcester, Sale and possibly Wasps for example, and rest certain players if they're playing against say Leicester, Saracens, or Harlequins. Stands to reason in managing your resources and your expectations.

Relegation matters to some clubs, not others. They'll prioritise accordingly.

So you mean there is an admittance that AV teams do indeed rest players?

An admittance from who?

No-one plans to lose games, and I am not implying at all that the Pro12 is not worth winning or is just a training ground for the HEC. But it is just as offensive to say that there isn't a difference in the consequences of losing games between the Rabo and the AP.

Losing games in the AP has a much bigger financial impact on the clubs than it does in the Rabo. Lose a few too many, and you're out of the HEC next season with a drop in income of several hundred thousand pounds. Lose a lot too many, and you're relegated, with a drop in income of millions. All AP clubs are independent businesses, backed by investors who (realistically) don't expect to see much of a return on their investment but equally don't have limitless pockets. Being in the HEC and being in the AP makes an enormous difference to them, and to the club as a whole.

All Rabo clubs are guaranteed to be in the league next year, short of an Aironi-style financial collapse, and nearly all of them are guaranteed HEC gate receipts. Losing games - if you do it repeatedly for a long time - damages gate receipts, but the short term impact is nowhere near as severe as it is in the AP.

Of course the players and coaches want to win, but the pressures are very different, and the consequences of losing are different. Arguing that that doesn't have an impact on motivation and strategy just isn't credible.

Given an identical dilemma - do I play my preferred First XV player at 95% or blood an unproven youngster? - it is in the interests of a Rabo DoR to choose the latter option and it is nearly always in the interests of an AP DoR to choose the former. This is not a matter of greed. It is a matter of survival.

I'm not saying that is where I would want things to be. SecretFly is absolutely correct that in the long term it is much, much better to give younger players experience and build squad depth. It should be short term pain for long term gain. But the reality is that the consequences of short term pain are undeniably more severe for the AP and very few teams are in a position where their ownership and management teams can accept the short term risk in order to be stronger in the long term.

I am lucky enough to support one of the clubs that can - and then only because they have borne the pain of relegation (a lot of good people in the club - not the players - lost their jobs for that) and pursued a deliberate strategy of promoting academy players that has taken seven years to come to fruition. It's not an overnight thing.

Pot Hale wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

The key driver for winning for most AP teams is getting one of the four play-off/EC spots. Next is any remaining HC spots. And for a small number of teams, avoiding relegation is the main battle e.g. Worcester, London Welsh.

And for each of those requirements, the simple practical objective never changes - not once does the strategy change for any side. To be in the play-offs, win as many games as you can. To chase HC spots, win as many games as you can. To avoid relegation, win as many games as you can.

I repeat yet again - the pressure on any rugby player or team is to win their next game. That premium requirement is there in every league, from the beginning of it to its end. If your HC spot is secured, you still want to win your next game to perhaps go for a play off spot - the imperative is always there to win your next game. There is not one occasion in any league season where a team can have a meeting and come to the conclusion that "Now listen lads, this is the game we need to lose to position ourselves better for the season's conclusion." Pressure is constant and it's the same for all leagues.

You're stating the obvious in saying win as many games as you can, and overlooking additional or tactical pressures and the chances of success. Bernard Jackman's interview re Grenoble clearly demonstrated that they pragmatically target certain games against lower clubs to try and get the points they need to stay up in the Top 14. And they rest/rotate players according to their needs and their priorities. Applying that theoretically to the AP, London Welsh would focus on having their best 15 turn out against Worcester, Sale and possibly Wasps for example, and rest certain players if they're playing against say Leicester, Saracens, or Harlequins. Stands to reason in managing your resources and your expectations.

Relegation matters to some clubs, not others. They'll prioritise accordingly.

So you mean there is an admittance that AV teams do indeed rest players?

An admittance from who?

Well you said that AV teams rest players to ensure they are fit for their pritority games.

I was merely congratulating that admittance, as many people have used the claim 'that the AV teams always plays their strongest side' to discredit the Rabo

It would probably be a better strategy for London Welsh and any other teams at the bottom of the table to play a weaker squad against the top four and rest their players for the games against the mid-lower table teams - except of course in the international windows when the top teams may be weakened.
If London Welsh can nick a few LBPs on the way and at least one of the other sides have a stutter (Worcester, LI, Sale) then maybe a few home wins plus some LBP's will be enough.
On a more general note this all still points towards capping the pyramid and either ringfencing the Jeff alone or forming a ringfenced Jeff 1 & 2 to allow clubs to have a period of stability to sort themselves out and plan financially.

Poorfour wrote:No-one plans to lose games, and I am not implying at all that the Pro12 is not worth winning or is just a training ground for the HEC. But it is just as offensive to say that there isn't a difference in the consequences of losing games between the Rabo and the AP.

Losing games in the AP has a much bigger financial impact on the clubs than it does in the Rabo. Lose a few too many, and you're out of the HEC next season with a drop in income of several hundred thousand pounds. Lose a lot too many, and you're relegated, with a drop in income of millions. All AP clubs are independent businesses, backed by investors who (realistically) don't expect to see much of a return on their investment but equally don't have limitless pockets. Being in the HEC and being in the AP makes an enormous difference to them, and to the club as a whole.

All Rabo clubs are guaranteed to be in the league next year, short of an Aironi-style financial collapse, and nearly all of them are guaranteed HEC gate receipts. Losing games - if you do it repeatedly for a long time - damages gate receipts, but the short term impact is nowhere near as severe as it is in the AP.

Of course the players and coaches want to win, but the pressures are very different, and the consequences of losing are different. Arguing that that doesn't have an impact on motivation and strategy just isn't credible.

Given an identical dilemma - do I play my preferred First XV player at 95% or blood an unproven youngster? - it is in the interests of a Rabo DoR to choose the latter option and it is nearly always in the interests of an AP DoR to choose the former. This is not a matter of greed. It is a matter of survival.

I'm not saying that is where I would want things to be. SecretFly is absolutely correct that in the long term it is much, much better to give younger players experience and build squad depth. It should be short term pain for long term gain. But the reality is that the consequences of short term pain are undeniably more severe for the AP and very few teams are in a position where their ownership and management teams can accept the short term risk in order to be stronger in the long term.

I am lucky enough to support one of the clubs that can - and then only because they have borne the pain of relegation (a lot of good people in the club - not the players - lost their jobs for that) and pursued a deliberate strategy of promoting academy players that has taken seven years to come to fruition. It's not an overnight thing.

I'd say that the Rabo regions/provinces have already taken the big financial hit by being condenced from 12 clubs down to 2/4 regions/provinces/clubs - and if a Welsh or Irish side looses continually then they take a further hit of not qualifying for the HEC (unless their country provides a winner). England could be in a similar position if they either A, reduce their teams down to 2 and join the Rabo, or B reduce their league down to 7 and give automatic HEC qualification to all 7 clubs/regions. (ie take the hit 1st and then build).

And while yes the English clubs do take a hit from failure to qualify for the HEC/or relegation, so do the 1 Irish and Welsh club, while there is automatic qualification for the 2 Scottish and Italian clubs because they not only couldn't afford to take any sort of hit, they needed to demote clubs (to a 2nd tier) just to compete with the English clubs. There maybe a lot more money to lose in the AV, but there's a lot less money in the Rabo - so losing less can impact a lot more.

beshocked wrote:

Secretfly you don't seem to understand that certain games hold more significance than others.
.

beshocked, and you don't seem to understand my point at all.

In order to be in line for anything, you need to win games, as many as you can in a season - same for everyone. Treviso wants to win the Pro12. Just because it 'can't' or 'won't' doesn't mean it won't play to try. It'll try to win all games it plays in - same pressure as the lowly AP side trying to keep off relegation - ie, trying to win every game that comes their way. You agree?

Of course you don't. All AP sides have to fight for more, you say and, therefore, according to you, they need to 'win' more than the lowly Pro12 sides. I say it doesn't matter what they need to do, everyone in the Premiership knows the teams that 'can' and the teams that 'can't' - just as we know them in the Pro12. The seasonal underdogs. It doesn't matter how much they need to 'win' a game, if they're not up to it they'll play as badly as at any other time of the year and still won't win. Wanting to win and needing to win does not increase quality of players or quality of game. The same standard applies - AP side in fear of relegation plays to win a game in the very same way lowly Zebre or Treviso or Connacht play to win their games for pride and to keep above each other in the table. The pressure is to win, not in the thinking of what specific reasons are in your head for needing to win.

The story goes that ALL AP games have equal significance, in that nobody can afford to blood young players, too much at stake etc, etc - and yet in your very post above you admit that some games DO hold more significance than others. That proves my point. Top AP sides could easily play lesser teams against lowly opposition as those games for them will mean significantly less than a game the following week against a hard hitting rival. Not all AP games need topline intensity and yet the myth persists that they do.

PS - for PotHale - yes, I am very much "stating the obvious" about winning - the obvious always gets sidetracked in these debates so I always try to keep it alive

Irish Londoner wrote:It would probably be a better strategy for London Welsh and any other teams at the bottom of the table to play a weaker squad against the top four and rest their players for the games against the mid-lower table teams - except of course in the international windows when the top teams may be weakened.
If London Welsh can nick a few LBPs on the way and at least one of the other sides have a stutter (Worcester, LI, Sale) then maybe a few home wins plus some LBP's will be enough.
On a more general note this all still points towards capping the pyramid and either ringfencing the Jeff alone or forming a ringfenced Jeff 1 & 2 to allow clubs to have a period of stability to sort themselves out and plan financially.

That begs the question whether it will be more beneficial for LW to rest players, or play together regularly. LW have recruited fairly heavily, with the most recent arriving only a couple of weeks ago - they're a new team that needs to gel. Add to that, the remaining Championship players will be up against unknown abilities and intensities - it's a steep learning curve.

I'm sure LW will improve game on game, and they need to continue playing their best players so they climb that curve. Players can be rested during LV and Amlin breaks. That's the strategy that worked for Exeter two seasons ago.

The Pro 12 competition is irrelevant to this topic discussion.

Any chance that people can post without referencing it? As the last two posts from Londoner and Dubble Yew have done?

So your suggesting that LW play their strongest players throughout every single game of the season, bar the LV and Amlin breaks? That's a hell of a lot of games for their 1st team, and would more than likely mean that they are nowhere near full fitness towards the middle and end of the season (particularly the Championship players) and its likely would increase injuries dramatically.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

I was merely congratulating that admittance, as many people have used the claim 'that the AV teams always plays their strongest side' to discredit the Rabo

a) Sorry, Smirnoff, you weren't congratulating - you asked a question.
b) Given that I don't actively support teams in the AP, I'm not sure why you're setting such great store and delight by what I said.

It was more of a rhetorical question that I was using to highlight/congratulate what I saw as an acceptance that AV sides rest players - of course that was before I knew you didn't support an AV side.

That of course changes the slant on things, but the point of my comments was to show that (of course) AV sides do rest players, and that is contrary to what some posters on here have claimed.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:So your suggesting that LW play their strongest players throughout every single game of the season, bar the LV and Amlin breaks? That's a hell of a lot of games for their 1st team, and would more than likely mean that they are nowhere near full fitness towards the middle and end of the season (particularly the Championship players) and its likely would increase injuries dramatically.

It's only 22 games - International players will probably play more. I should add that it should be their strongest XXIII. Some rotation between bench and starting will still help the team improve overall. That's what Exeter did (at least I can't recall any voluntary resting of players) and most played some LV and Amlin games too.

In a rare tip of the hat to the Jeff, I think relegation has a good impact on that league but not necessarily how it is explained here on 606v2 most days. I believe promotion into the Jeff is what helps the Jeff and gives it some good characteristics. Quins/Saints going down was sad to see, but I don't look at the relegation of those sides years ago as something great about the league, it was those clubs turning around and getting promoted back into the Jeff. And Exeter stepping up into the Jeff is great for that league.

The Rabo doesn't have a second division. There are only 12 clubs available to be in the league. But is it a young league and I believe it is growing into a quite a good league in its infancy. But there are no clubs to promote into the Pro12 so that means any chat on relegation is a mute point. The Rabo has fledgling rivalries, it is just getting beyond the classic derby needle and is starting to pick up inter-union niggle that will grow it into a great league.

On the OP, I don't think relegation tends to matter to any Jeff clubs outside of the bottom 3 sides (usually with 2 sides battling it out and the 3rd last team nervously staying in front). The rest of the teams are fighting for the best finish in the league and have their eyes looking up the table.

Keep the comments on topic?

Very well. Relegation doesn't matter to the top Aviva clubs. No. They're too busy trying to win the Premiership - and because of relegation they've always the resources to do so.

Relegation only matters to the sides who are in with a chance of 'reaching it' - but that's the cruelty of the relegation/promotion system.

No, I don't mean that it makes lowly teams fret about the hole in the floor they might fall into (which incidently is bad enough in itself given that it plays with a club's funding potential, as big potential sponsors wait and wait every year to see if any of the bottom sides are worth any money at all. I'm sure none of them want to see their very important brand name slipping through the hole!)

But my main dislike of the relegation system is that it ensures the top stays on the top longer than they might do so if the competition was a closed one. It seems a fair system but I think it a very unfair one - so no, top dogs laugh at the 'competitive' games between the sides that fear relegation because they know the real money keeps flowing their way - perpetual motion.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:So your suggesting that LW play their strongest players throughout every single game of the season, bar the LV and Amlin breaks? That's a hell of a lot of games for their 1st team, and would more than likely mean that they are nowhere near full fitness towards the middle and end of the season (particularly the Championship players) and its likely would increase injuries dramatically.

It's only 22 games - International players will probably play more. I should add that it should be their strongest XXIII. Some rotation between bench and starting will still help the team improve overall. That's what Exeter did (at least I can't recall any voluntary resting of players) and most played some LV and Amlin games too.

Ahh but that's different, as if you're talking about the best 22, then the manager could decide to rest his best hooker or outside half for one or two games, so he can guarentee their availability for a third game which they are more likely to win, but the manager would still be using the 22.

SecretFly wrote:Keep the comments on topic?

Very well. Relegation doesn't matter to the top Aviva clubs. No. They're too busy trying to win the Premiership - and because of relegation they've always the resources to do so.

Relegation only matters to the sides who are in with a chance of 'reaching it' - but that's the cruelty of the relegation/promotion system.

No, I don't mean that it makes lowly teams fret about the hole in the floor they might fall into (which incidently is bad enough in itself given that it plays with a club's funding potential, as big potential sponsors wait and wait every year to see if any of the bottom sides are worth any money at all. I'm sure none of them want to see their very important brand name slipping through the hole!)

But my main dislike of the relegation system is that it ensures the top stays on the top longer than they might do so if the competition was a closed one. It seems a fair system but I think it a very unfair one - so no, top dogs laugh at the 'competitive' games between the sides that fear relegation because they know the real money keeps flowing their way - perpetual motion.

Are you suggesting that Leicester and Sarries wouldn't be at the top if the likes of Rotherham, Leeds, West Hartlepool, Bedford, Bristol, Newcastle, Quins and Saints hadn't been relegated?

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:So your suggesting that LW play their strongest players throughout every single game of the season, bar the LV and Amlin breaks? That's a hell of a lot of games for their 1st team, and would more than likely mean that they are nowhere near full fitness towards the middle and end of the season (particularly the Championship players) and its likely would increase injuries dramatically.

It's only 22 games - International players will probably play more. I should add that it should be their strongest XXIII. Some rotation between bench and starting will still help the team improve overall. That's what Exeter did (at least I can't recall any voluntary resting of players) and most played some LV and Amlin games too.

Ahh but that's different, as if you're talking about the best 22, then the manager could decide to rest his best hooker or outside half for one or two games, so he can guarentee their availability for a third game which they are more likely to win, but the manager would still be using the 22.

Well, I'm more talking about bench/starting rotation, with all the bench players being used. If a hooker or outside half is rested on the bench completely, he loses 80 minutes of learning for that game. If he comes on for 20 minutes, he's got that experience to learn from, and that amount of analysis for the coaches.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Keep the comments on topic?

Very well. Relegation doesn't matter to the top Aviva clubs. No. They're too busy trying to win the Premiership - and because of relegation they've always the resources to do so.

Relegation only matters to the sides who are in with a chance of 'reaching it' - but that's the cruelty of the relegation/promotion system.

No, I don't mean that it makes lowly teams fret about the hole in the floor they might fall into (which incidently is bad enough in itself given that it plays with a club's funding potential, as big potential sponsors wait and wait every year to see if any of the bottom sides are worth any money at all. I'm sure none of them want to see their very important brand name slipping through the hole!)

But my main dislike of the relegation system is that it ensures the top stays on the top longer than they might do so if the competition was a closed one. It seems a fair system but I think it a very unfair one - so no, top dogs laugh at the 'competitive' games between the sides that fear relegation because they know the real money keeps flowing their way - perpetual motion.

Are you suggesting that Leicester and Sarries wouldn't be at the top if the likes of Rotherham, Leeds, West Hartlepool, Bedford, Bristol, Newcastle, Quins and Saints hadn't been relegated?

But with the money/increased sponsorship that would come from the guarenteed exposure of the Prem then it's very possible that Bristol would be as good/better than Exeter are now, or Newcastle better than the Saints, ect.

They then would have created a lot more problems for the top teams and stood a better chance of the money being spread around the prem more equally, in turn giving each a bigger chance of toping the Prem

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

Are you suggesting that Leicester and Sarries wouldn't be at the top if the likes of Rotherham, Leeds, West Hartlepool, Bedford, Bristol, Newcastle, Quins and Saints hadn't been relegated?

I'm saying what I'm saying. A bottom you fall through usually means the big money (sponsors that might come onboard) doesn't particularly want to fall through that hole with you (time and time again) and therefore the attention and money collects at the top end (like ze footeball for example). The true bottom feeders find it too hard to achieve the consistency of effort needed to interest the real money men because the money men are always worried about their name and product going through the hole with you.

Just an observation, from an outsider.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Keep the comments on topic?

Very well. Relegation doesn't matter to the top Aviva clubs. No. They're too busy trying to win the Premiership - and because of relegation they've always the resources to do so.

Relegation only matters to the sides who are in with a chance of 'reaching it' - but that's the cruelty of the relegation/promotion system.

No, I don't mean that it makes lowly teams fret about the hole in the floor they might fall into (which incidently is bad enough in itself given that it plays with a club's funding potential, as big potential sponsors wait and wait every year to see if any of the bottom sides are worth any money at all. I'm sure none of them want to see their very important brand name slipping through the hole!)

But my main dislike of the relegation system is that it ensures the top stays on the top longer than they might do so if the competition was a closed one. It seems a fair system but I think it a very unfair one - so no, top dogs laugh at the 'competitive' games between the sides that fear relegation because they know the real money keeps flowing their way - perpetual motion.

Are you suggesting that Leicester and Sarries wouldn't be at the top if the likes of Rotherham, Leeds, West Hartlepool, Bedford, Bristol, Newcastle, Quins and Saints hadn't been relegated?

But with the money/increased sponsorship that would come from the guarenteed exposure of the Prem then it's very possible that Bristol would be as good/better than Exeter are now, or Newcastle better than the Saints, ect.

They then would have created a lot more problems for the top teams and stood a better chance of the money being spread around the prem more equally, in turn giving each a bigger chance of toping the Prem

The existence of the salary cap means that the top sides are less likely to build an unassailable advantage al la the top English football sides. And the current struggles of past winners like Wasps and Newcastle, and considering that the likes of Quins and Saints have both been relegated rather indicate that the competitiveness of the Prem is pretty good. Leicester are the only side to stay consistently at the top, and that has more to do with consistently excellent management on their part.

Super XV doesn't have relegation, yet the Crusaders have managed to stay at or near the top for most of the past 15 years largely again down to a good run of management.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Keep the comments on topic?

Very well. Relegation doesn't matter to the top Aviva clubs. No. They're too busy trying to win the Premiership - and because of relegation they've always the resources to do so.

Relegation only matters to the sides who are in with a chance of 'reaching it' - but that's the cruelty of the relegation/promotion system.

No, I don't mean that it makes lowly teams fret about the hole in the floor they might fall into (which incidently is bad enough in itself given that it plays with a club's funding potential, as big potential sponsors wait and wait every year to see if any of the bottom sides are worth any money at all. I'm sure none of them want to see their very important brand name slipping through the hole!)

But my main dislike of the relegation system is that it ensures the top stays on the top longer than they might do so if the competition was a closed one. It seems a fair system but I think it a very unfair one - so no, top dogs laugh at the 'competitive' games between the sides that fear relegation because they know the real money keeps flowing their way - perpetual motion.

Are you suggesting that Leicester and Sarries wouldn't be at the top if the likes of Rotherham, Leeds, West Hartlepool, Bedford, Bristol, Newcastle, Quins and Saints hadn't been relegated?

But with the money/increased sponsorship that would come from the guarenteed exposure of the Prem then it's very possible that Bristol would be as good/better than Exeter are now, or Newcastle better than the Saints, ect.

They then would have created a lot more problems for the top teams and stood a better chance of the money being spread around the prem more equally, in turn giving each a bigger chance of toping the Prem

The existence of the salary cap means that the top sides are less likely to build an unassailable advantage al la the top English football sides. And the current struggles of past winners like Wasps and Newcastle, and considering that the likes of Quins and Saints have both been relegated rather indicate that the competitiveness of the Prem is pretty good. Leicester are the only side to stay consistently at the top, and that has more to do with consistently excellent management on their part.

Super XV doesn't have relegation, yet the Crusaders have managed to stay at or near the top for most of the past 15 years largely again down to a good run of management.

That they could afford? Managers, coaches, players - they tend to want to play with, be with, the best - or certainly in the best part of the table towards the top.
Of course nothing is as clear cut as I gave in my outline of the 'problem' I see with the system of promotion/relegation. But my reservations remain about the inequality of the system whereby clubs that manage to capture a foothold at or around the top, or clinch a sugardaddy, make life a whole lot easier for themselves staying there than the in and out brigade at the bottom who can't promise that they'll always have big televisual games against Leicester etc to sponsors who like to do deals of more than one year.

Maybe even extending the duration of the hard-fought-for entry to perhaps 5 years? At least give them some working space to do some guaranteed planning of more than one year.

Well managed teams do well. Poorly managed ones don't. Regardless of money or time or anything else. Newcastle went down but Gold showed what they could have done towards the end of the season. Gloucester showed at the end of last season what happens when things are badly managed. Exeter have shown what you can do with a well managed side. As are Leicesters continuous high level of performance (they are very ruthless, when Loffreda didn't settle in they got rid before the end of the season).

If relegation encourages management structures are pushing for the best they can be (rather than just bringing in as many top players as possible, which the cap limits) then I'm happy for it.

Relegation is a negative for one team. It's a positive for all the others.

SecretFly wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Keep the comments on topic?

Very well. Relegation doesn't matter to the top Aviva clubs. No. They're too busy trying to win the Premiership - and because of relegation they've always the resources to do so.

Relegation only matters to the sides who are in with a chance of 'reaching it' - but that's the cruelty of the relegation/promotion system.

No, I don't mean that it makes lowly teams fret about the hole in the floor they might fall into (which incidently is bad enough in itself given that it plays with a club's funding potential, as big potential sponsors wait and wait every year to see if any of the bottom sides are worth any money at all. I'm sure none of them want to see their very important brand name slipping through the hole!)

But my main dislike of the relegation system is that it ensures the top stays on the top longer than they might do so if the competition was a closed one. It seems a fair system but I think it a very unfair one - so no, top dogs laugh at the 'competitive' games between the sides that fear relegation because they know the real money keeps flowing their way - perpetual motion.

Are you suggesting that Leicester and Sarries wouldn't be at the top if the likes of Rotherham, Leeds, West Hartlepool, Bedford, Bristol, Newcastle, Quins and Saints hadn't been relegated?

But with the money/increased sponsorship that would come from the guarenteed exposure of the Prem then it's very possible that Bristol would be as good/better than Exeter are now, or Newcastle better than the Saints, ect.

They then would have created a lot more problems for the top teams and stood a better chance of the money being spread around the prem more equally, in turn giving each a bigger chance of toping the Prem

The existence of the salary cap means that the top sides are less likely to build an unassailable advantage al la the top English football sides. And the current struggles of past winners like Wasps and Newcastle, and considering that the likes of Quins and Saints have both been relegated rather indicate that the competitiveness of the Prem is pretty good. Leicester are the only side to stay consistently at the top, and that has more to do with consistently excellent management on their part.

Super XV doesn't have relegation, yet the Crusaders have managed to stay at or near the top for most of the past 15 years largely again down to a good run of management.

That they could afford? Managers, coaches, players - they tend to want to play with, be with, the best - or certainly in the best part of the table towards the top.
Of course nothing is as clear cut as I gave in my outline of the 'problem' I see with the system of promotion/relegation. But my reservations remain about the inequality of the system whereby clubs that manage to capture a foothold at or around the top, or clinch a sugardaddy, make life a whole lot easier for themselves staying there than the in and out brigade at the bottom who can't promise that they'll always have big televisual games against Leicester etc to sponsors who like to do deals of more than one year.

Maybe even extending the duration of the hard-fought-for entry to perhaps 5 years? At least give them some working space to do some guaranteed planning of more than one year.

There's plenty of reasons for a a club to gain a foothold at the top - Auckland dominated NZ rugby in the decade before professionalism because they (a) had the biggest population base and (b) lots of players gravitated to the "big city" for jobs. Otago gained a nursery of players moving to Dunedin from all over NZ for university and struggled once professionalism limited that avenue of squad reinforcement.

The Crusaders built a professional dynasty on the back of initial on-field success followed by developing a name for turning other region's journeymen into All Blacks - hence talented young players wanted to move there. Leinster have started a similar dynasty backed by having a relatively large share of Ireland's population, good crowd numbers drawn in by success and having their Ireland player's salaries covered by the IRFU. Leicester stay at the top as they're a club with a very long story of success, and a "family" atmosphere that players are willing to accept less money to become/stay part of. Sarries have come up on the back of a sugar daddy, yet Bath have struggled despite having one.

Exeter have shown that a team can come up and make an impact - without promotion/relegation they'd never have gotten the chance - and there's more chance they'll win the AP in the next 5 years than of Connacht winning the Pro12.

Given that the history of the Prem in the pro era suggests that most teams fluctuate up and down the table over time, it appears that at the moment the relegation threat isn't deterring sponsors too much at the moment. It may well do so in the future, in which case a change could be looked at.

I think it really matters............................when they need an excuse after a celtic team has beat them.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that the teams need to win 80% home games and all is safe.

The standard of reffing in Tigers v Welsh also showed who the committee want out this season.

Lets not forget legal contention can insure you don't get dropped anyway .

All this fighting over who has the strongest league is easy to settle, if the current champs Quins went into the rambo,the stats say they have Won eight times against a rambo teams (four times was against connacht) but have lost twelve times against Rambo teams, so a bottom of the league finish would be on the cards.

The current Rambo champs ospreys have won twenty six times against teams from the Jeff and lost 12, so a top four finish would be on the cards.

Head to head It's Ospreys 4 games Quins have never beat the current Rambo champs.

Surely you have to look at recent performances not over all time. So the Ospreys lost 100% of their games against Jeff sides so they would be bottom. Right? That's logical. In fact that means Saracens would have walked the league as they had 100% record against the winners. More excellent logic. Gloucester also had 100% record against Pro12 sides last year. But Quins didn't so they would be behind Gloucester...but...but...but Quins had a 100% record against Gloucester so they should be ahead of them....arrrgh, damn you logic.

How about Quins HC group this year! Connacht and Zebre in the group, so if they qualify from this group would it be deserved? because they face the two weakest teams in Europe according to the Jeff side of the fence?

Well, Harlequins also play Biarritz, who are doing well so far this season.
So it will be a bit hard to say a QF would not be deserved. In fact, both teams might get through.

But look at Toulon: They play Cardiff, Montpelier, and Sale. So if they win through and have max/highest points, they will play the lowest ranked qualifier (based upon points in the pool stages) at home. Then they play a tougher match, but also in their home cauldron. Therefore, by this logic, they will be in the finals, and might win the whole thing. Oh, baby, how are we going to deal with that? A French team with almost no Frenchmen. These things can be argued endlessly.

Are you saying no-one deserves to go through in that group? Otherwise, if they qualify of course it's deserved.

Stop bamboozling me with your logic.

viewtothegym wrote:I think it really matters............................when they need an excuse after a celtic team has beat them.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that the teams need to win 80% home games and all is safe.

The standard of reffing in Tigers v Welsh also showed who the committee want out this season.

Lets not forget legal contention can insure you don't get dropped anyway .

All this fighting over who has the strongest league is easy to settle, if the current champs Quins went into the rambo,the stats say they have Won eight times against a rambo teams (four times was against connacht) but have lost twelve times against Rambo teams, so a bottom of the league finish would be on the cards.

The current Rambo champs ospreys have won twenty six times against teams from the Jeff and lost 12, so a top four finish would be on the cards.

Head to head It's Ospreys 4 games Quins have never beat the current Rambo champs.

Celtic teams, rabo, rambo, we've done this, you haven't done that, nyah, nyah, nyah, drone, drone, drone......

So whats tohe conclusion?

Relegation, suits AP and TOP 14 due to the number of clubs in those countries, it gives them all a chance to strive for the top tier rather than a select number, and makes the bottom of the table a bit more intresting, with the scraps for survivial, however it does mean that the bottom clubs cannot focus on long term planing and have to go from season to season, playing for the now rather than playing to build for the future.

Super XV and Rabo don't have teams that can enter the top teir, so relegration as there are no teams to come up to that level, however the bottom clubs can plan and biuld for the future, and have a long term plan on how to reach the top end of the table.

So in summary
Relegation good for AP, and Top 14
No Relegation good for Rabo and Super XV

It depends on the League model, if you have limited teams and a League to benefit national sides, no relegation, if you have a lot of teams, but only so many can be at the top table relegation is good, as it gives every team a chance.

As both Quins and Saints have shown sometimes things go wrong, no matter who you are.

So yes it does matter.

I hope I see the day the Tigers drop down for a season or two.

Tigers would never drop down, they have to much political power behind the scenes

Thats true.

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.

As time passes, it seems to me that there ar four or five clubs that inexorably move further away from the rest. And Exeter may be among them at some stage.

Saints, Tigers, Gloucester and Quins each have their own traditional ground-base of support. Two of them have survived relegation and bounced back the stronger for it.

Bath is a club which at the start of the pro era was the dominant force but lost its way through a mixture of poor (rally poor) management from quick-fix, expensive foreign signings and the like to the their slothful energies in relocation. It's a money pit and every penny appears to be poured down the pi$$ hole.

Saracens are trying a new venture but are tainted by the South African connection but are certainly moving positively in that they are developing their own new ground in Hendon - (a project that relies on 'temporary' stands to hold 10000ish tops). But it is a side prone to grand posturing with transcontinental H'E'C matches and over-elaborate grandstanding matches. Without doubt once again, Sarries will top the league attendance table but don't (can't?) make money.

Sale have found a new, much more suitable home both in size and facilities (apparently). I really can't say much more except they will probably (continue?) see the avoidance of relegation as their priority.

That leaves the clubs playing in concrete holes. Which can't both progress whilst paying exorbitant rents in front of crowds that can't make books balance without the enormous benefits they've voted for.

LI, Wasps,

I agree with most of that Portnoy.

No mention of LW,Worcester or Gloucester though.

Portnoy wrote:As time passes, it seems to me that there ar four or five clubs that inexorably move further away from the rest. And Exeter may be among them at some stage.

Saints, Tigers, Gloucester and Quins each have their own traditional ground-base of support. Two of them have survived relegation and bounced back the stronger for it.

Bath is a club which at the start of the pro era was the dominant force but lost its way through a mixture of poor (rally poor) management from quick-fix, expensive foreign signings and the like to the their slothful energies in relocation. It's a money pit and every penny appears to be poured down the pi$$ hole.

Saracens are trying a new venture but are tainted by the South African connection but are certainly moving positively in that they are developing their own new ground in Hendon - (a project that relies on 'temporary' stands to hold 10000ish tops). But it is a side prone to grand posturing with transcontinental H'E'C matches and over-elaborate grandstanding matches. Without doubt once again, Sarries will top the league attendance table but don't (can't?) make money.

Sale have found a new, much more suitable home both in size and facilities (apparently). I really can't say much more except they will probably (continue?) see the avoidance of relegation as their priority.

That leaves the clubs playing in concrete holes. Which can't both progress whilst paying exorbitant rents in front of crowds that can't make books balance without the enormous benefits they've voted for.

LI, Wasps,

And that wraps up that discussion nicely.

Thanks folks.

I did mention Glaws. Wuss I did omit. I worry for them as they are on apar with Exeter and those Championship sides. Serious rugby clubs with ambition.

Owners/clubs have piled in cash and enthusiasm. Primarily the type of club not modelled on the concept of opening the front door to income whilst leaving the back door open and watch it flow away.