The Jeff is too big

First topic message reminder :

Once again the Jeff is being exposed for what it is in International windows - a mess.

If the league was reduced (gradually, over time (1 up, two down) over four years with concomitant adjustment to the Championship and lower leagues) to eight teams then there would be no irrational conflict between club and country.
There would be no need for playoffs whilst a meaningful end-of-year Cup final could be enjoyed and a full-season champion could be celebrated.

The current system stinks by holding clubs back from any proper competitive advantage to be made in Europe.

Fixtures for the remainder of the the 6Ns emphasise the need to separate Jeff from England matches as if the past two weeks haven't already re-exposed arse about face fudged/expedient thinking by Jeff/PRL representatives to ensure sub-optimising the optimal result - successful clubs in Europe alongside a successful England.

Proper club values with meaningful leagues without franchisation without mutual conflict of club/country values.

As true as that is LT, at the begining of the season I would/did say that Quins, Tigers and Sarries would be in the top 4. They are now and almost certainly will be come the playoffs. There was only really the 1 spot where it is unclear who will make it. I would argue thats pretty similar most seasons, the playoffs are often sides who did well the previous year, plus another.

Quite honestly I don't GASh who wins the Jeff. (although it would be nice for any supporter to have their team come out top.)

My problem is the faux competition during the season which is not representative of club and is buggered up by a simulated playoff system which is further crapped up by an assumed PRL 'intelligence' of home ties for the fortunate top two.

Aye we know that GT. I respect your opinion, just do not share it.

greytiger wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Guys stop tarnishing all of us on here due to one person's whinge. this happens far too often and just creates bad feeling.

Don't worry LT, we'll never pigeon hole you with Portnoy!

Tarnishing an opinion as a whinge is a strategy which may work HKC.

I express my beliefs as valid.

For ten years now English clubs have been held back by the cartel (imo not as heinous as the franchise model) but this is not a matter of the provision of state subsidies or social support. It's about maintaining professional rugby in a professional manner - not having the 'right' to survive off others' success.

A different view to the mainstream, but based on a certain rationality. And presented on a discussion board openly.

What is wrong with suggesting that Jeff games should be played outside IWs?
The concept or just Portnoy?

greytiger, you've misunderstood my point. I haven't suggested it was a whinge, but merely commenting following my tongue in cheek comment about level floors that LT and other Tigers fans are not tarnished with the wum brush of Portnoy. I feel you're making a very valid point (it doesn't help the aforementioned wum did this topic to death); I personally don't agree with it but this forum would be a boring place if we all agreed all the time

beshocked wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

beshocked wrote:HKC who did Gloucester miss due to international commitments?

Have you not been watching the 6N?

We were without Hamilton, Morgan and 36 and you could add Burns to the list. Versus Saints Hartley, Lawes, Wood and the injured Foden.

Morgan and Burns were both injured so don't really count as international commitments.

Gordon Bennett you're nit-picking! Morgan was injured whilst playing for England and there is no suggestion he wouldn't have played against Ireland based upon his performance against Scotland. As I said you could add Burns to the list, in the same way I added Foden to Saints list.

HongKongCherry wrote:

beshocked wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

beshocked wrote:HKC who did Gloucester miss due to international commitments?

Have you not been watching the 6N?

We were without Hamilton, Morgan and 36 and you could add Burns to the list. Versus Saints Hartley, Lawes, Wood and the injured Foden.

Morgan and Burns were both injured so don't really count as international commitments.

Gordon Bennett you're nit-picking! Morgan was injured whilst playing for England and there is no suggestion he wouldn't have played against Ireland based upon his performance against Scotland. As I said you could add Burns to the list, in the same way I added Foden to Saints list.

You sound almost suprised...

Jimpy wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

beshocked wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

beshocked wrote:HKC who did Gloucester miss due to international commitments?

Have you not been watching the 6N?

We were without Hamilton, Morgan and 36 and you could add Burns to the list. Versus Saints Hartley, Lawes, Wood and the injured Foden.

Morgan and Burns were both injured so don't really count as international commitments.

Gordon Bennett you're nit-picking! Morgan was injured whilst playing for England and there is no suggestion he wouldn't have played against Ireland based upon his performance against Scotland. As I said you could add Burns to the list, in the same way I added Foden to Saints list.

You sound almost suprised...

now, now. There's no need for that. A gentle rebuke was all that was needed

Maybe the point is that attendances (the earliest I can quickly find) is
Club Average Total Highest Lowest
Leicester Tigers 13,410 80,458 15,873 11,226
Saracens 9,808 88,276 17,346 5,261
Bath 7,650 45,900 8,500 4,800
London Wasps 7,298 29,191 9,526 5,104
Richmond 7,205 28,818 9,621 2,613
Northampton Saints 7,191 21,573 8,253 5,870
Gloucester 6,615 46,307 10,109 4,935
Harlequins 4,423 8,845 5,236 3,609
Newcastle Falcons 4,381 21,907 5,207 3,452
London Irish 3,777 26,440 6,710 2,200
Sale Sharks 2,842 5,684 3,570 2,114
London Scottish 2,383 7,150 3,000 1,200
West Hartlepool 2,059 2,059 2,059 2,059
Bedford Blues 1,828 3,655 2,347 1,308
Total 6,824 416,263

1998/99 http://www.statbunker.com/rugby/btb/index.php?PL=competition&CompID=55&statType=home_Att

And a tiny bit of research will probably reveal that effectively nothing (and I'd exclude Wuss and Exeter from that generalisation) nothing much has changed.

But big clubs seem to be held back by the mediocre or (more realistically smaller) Jeff clubs just want to defy their aspirant contenders by creating artificial barriers.

Nobody would be sadder to see RU disappear from Northern England whilst London and the South-West are over-represented, but maybe market forces alone will distribute the success.

My guess is that market manipulation won't help - it'll hinder.

And I speak as a socialist.

Don't those stats show that attendances have increased significantly? In all cases the highest attendance in 1998 is less than the lowest attendance in 2012. So the game is growing nicely.

Those figures also show a couple of clubs which weren't constrained and subsequently went pop. Interestingly Richmond had higher attendances than Quins then. As an aside, would Quin's recent popularity have happened without Ldn Scottish/Richmond's demise I wonder?

So your socialist views don't exist where your own (well Leicester's) interests could suffer?