BT SPORT strengthens its hand

First topic message reminder :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9996440/BT-Sports-rugby-revolution-fronted-by-former-England-captain-Lawrence-Dallaglio-captures-French-Top-14.html

Pressure builds for movement in the HC talks.

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:

You do realise that at the end of the Rugby is just entertainment, no different to any other form of entertainment.

I realise Rugby entertains me - yes.

You can enjoy the extras, Nathan (and the extras that may or may not come to European rugby) and I'll continue to say I'm not gone on many of them. That all this thread is. People saying they'd like the extras, other people saying they wouldn't need them and that they feel they'd distract from the game on the field.

Thanks for the overview of the thread that i've read!

Well, some obviously need the overview as some seem to suggest BT would be changing rugby itself. Modernising it, making it more inclusive. Nope they wouldn't, they'd be adding 'entertainment' extras on the sidelines that the game itself will be oblivious to.

you mean adding entertainment extra's to a entertainment product.

.Rugby tends to attract higher socioeconomic groups so the marketing men at Range Rover and HSBC can target accordingly.Football attracts Knuckle Scrapers r Us or whoever to market their whares.A well-targeted marketing campaign is more effective than a blunderbuss approach....

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but your comments above are coming across as a tad arrogant, patronising and elitist.

While I agree that a well-targeted marketing campaign is effective, I disagree with the other generalisations that you have used.

Nobody can deny that there is an element of soccer supporters that can’t afford a BMW or a 5 bedroomed semi-detached house in Buckinghamshire and there are elements that will think with their fists rather than their brains, but don’t let the media generalisations lead you into thinking that the majority of soccer supporters are mindless morons that are all on benefit and electronically tagged.

I can imagine that if you analysed the cross sections of the crowds at St James Park (Newcastle United) and Kingston Park (Newcastle Falcons) you would find a pretty similar grouping of social backgrounds – the only difference being that on average there are 45k more people at St James than at Kingston Park.

It might be that the Falcons are a more working class club than some of the others, but somehow I doubt it.

And before you bring it up - I am well aware of how widely broadcast were the scenes that happened at following the Tyne-Wear derby . The point being Newcastle/Sunderland have an ‘issue’ that goes back even before the English Civil War and you don’t have to be a football supporter to pull on a black and white strip, go and get bevvied for four hours then roll out of the pub after the game finishes looking for trouble.

Wearing a strip doesn’t signify that you are a supporter that will go and pay money to watch them, just look at the sale of Osprey shirts and their game attendances.

Ok that was a bit below the belt but does illustrate the point – and I love a generalisation.

TrailApe wrote:

.Rugby tends to attract higher socioeconomic groups so the marketing men at Range Rover and HSBC can target accordingly.Football attracts Knuckle Scrapers r Us or whoever to market their whares.A well-targeted marketing campaign is more effective than a blunderbuss approach....

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but your comments above are coming across as a tad arrogant, patronising and elitist.

While I agree that a well-targeted marketing campaign is effective, I disagree with the other generalisations that you have used.

Nobody can deny that there is an element of soccer supporters that can’t afford a BMW or a 5 bedroomed semi-detached house in Buckinghamshire and there are elements that will think with their fists rather than their brains, but don’t let the media generalisations lead you into thinking that the majority of soccer supporters are mindless morons that are all on benefit and electronically tagged.

I can imagine that if you analysed the cross sections of the crowds at St James Park (Newcastle United) and Kingston Park (Newcastle Falcons) you would find a pretty similar grouping of social backgrounds – the only difference being that on average there are 45k more people at St James than at Kingston Park.

It might be that the Falcons are a more working class club than some of the others, but somehow I doubt it.

And before you bring it up - I am well aware of how widely broadcast were the scenes that happened at following the Tyne-Wear derby . The point being Newcastle/Sunderland have an ‘issue’ that goes back even before the English Civil War and you don’t have to be a football supporter to pull on a black and white strip, go and get bevvied for four hours then roll out of the pub after the game finishes looking for trouble.

Wearing a strip doesn’t signify that you are a supporter that will go and pay money to watch them, just look at the sale of Osprey shirts and their game attendances.

Ok that was a bit below the belt but does illustrate the point – and I love a generalisation.

Why do HSBC and Range Rover get involved in sponsoring/advertising through Rugby and Jaguar through Cricket.This is not arrogance merely recognition of what is going on and understanding why.

nathan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:

You do realise that at the end of the Rugby is just entertainment, no different to any other form of entertainment.

I realise Rugby entertains me - yes.

You can enjoy the extras, Nathan (and the extras that may or may not come to European rugby) and I'll continue to say I'm not gone on many of them. That all this thread is. People saying they'd like the extras, other people saying they wouldn't need them and that they feel they'd distract from the game on the field.

Thanks for the overview of the thread that i've read!

Well, some obviously need the overview as some seem to suggest BT would be changing rugby itself. Modernising it, making it more inclusive. Nope they wouldn't, they'd be adding 'entertainment' extras on the sidelines that the game itself will be oblivious to.

you mean adding entertainment extra's to a entertainment product.

I'll tell you what I mean and you can then tell me what you mean .

I mean rugby is entertainment enough.... for me. By all means, you enjoy the seasoning if you want to.

nathan wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

So everything that is new is good?

Do you want to watch rugby on the television?
Do you want to watch a decent standard of International rugby live?

If the answer to these is yes, then we have to fight for every £ that is out there and every couch potato that is flicking between the wall to wall dross that is on the TV at the minute.

In the UK the biggest sport is soccer. That’s it. Rugby Union is out there competing against a load of other sports fighting over the scraps of air time that are left. If we can make Union an attractive schedule filler (between the soccer) then we – as a sport- will get more money.

It’s as straight forward as that. And Union is NOT a simple sport, it’s like Shrek’s Onion, it has many layers and we have to explain to the couch potato - who cannot attend the soccer as he’s punched a horse and is under house arrest – what the hell all these huge guys are doing running around at high speeds hitting each other.

We don’t want this bloke at our games, but we want him to be a stat in the big media report that indicates to the media headsheds and the corporates that use the games to advertise, that it’s worth their ££££ going to Sky/BT/whoever as brain dead couch potatoes WILL watch Union. And the Brain Dead are often those that the Marketeers aim their messages at.


It's either that or stock up on your CD's of the recent 6N and Lions tours as they will be all that's left to you to watch on the box.

Having Will Greenwood highlighting the path of the ball that your eyes have just witnessed will hardly induce the couch potato to watch Rugby over Football.Football is a simple game that even the intellectually challenged can understand to a degree.
Rugby tends to attract higher socioeconomic groups so the marketing men at Range Rover and HSBC can target accordingly.Football attracts Knuckle Scrapers r Us or whoever to market their whares.A well targeted marketing campaign is more effective than a blunderbuss approach.

Taff, your being a little unfair. You know aswell as anyone who watches the game we get more than a "highlighting the path of the ball".

Rugby isn't an easy sport to understand and so in order expand the fan base, things need to be explained.

I accept that I highlighted a pet hate of mine but in general terms I cannot recall one earth shattering insight that gave me a eureka moment.The viewer is paying for all this stuff either through subscription or licence fee.I applaud the number of camera angles and the quality of the camera work but I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious.
Would the British public be drawn to Rugby over the behemoth that is Football simply because they were told of the difference between tight head props and loose head props?I think not.I may be wrong,it has happened before!

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

nathan wrote:

You do realise that at the end of the Rugby is just entertainment, no different to any other form of entertainment.

I realise Rugby entertains me - yes.

You can enjoy the extras, Nathan (and the extras that may or may not come to European rugby) and I'll continue to say I'm not gone on many of them. That all this thread is. People saying they'd like the extras, other people saying they wouldn't need them and that they feel they'd distract from the game on the field.

Thanks for the overview of the thread that i've read!

Well, some obviously need the overview as some seem to suggest BT would be changing rugby itself. Modernising it, making it more inclusive. Nope they wouldn't, they'd be adding 'entertainment' extras on the sidelines that the game itself will be oblivious to.

Do you walk in an odd manner? You know, what with your crystal balls and all....

"I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious."

You obviously think you're better than the rest of us, perhaps nuclear physics is more your thing? Or brain surgery? - actually, scratch that last one, you sound like you had a go at that one on yourself - and had a 'bit of bother'...

'knuckle dragging football supporters eh?"

Unbelievably patronising.

Jimpy wrote:

Do you walk in an odd manner? You know, what with your crystal balls and all....

Back again for another shot at the title, Jimpy? So the lineout on the 49th minute, that was the game changer, relied on the after-glow of the fireworks at the beginning? Or the try 3 minutes from the end had a lot to do with the guy in the crow's nest (with the Rugby scarf knot!) saying the circle ran in the direction of the arrow for the first try?

He's right...the circle did run in the direction of the arrow. My eyes usually miss those bits

Taffineastbourne wrote:

nathan wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

So everything that is new is good?

Do you want to watch rugby on the television?
Do you want to watch a decent standard of International rugby live?

If the answer to these is yes, then we have to fight for every £ that is out there and every couch potato that is flicking between the wall to wall dross that is on the TV at the minute.

In the UK the biggest sport is soccer. That’s it. Rugby Union is out there competing against a load of other sports fighting over the scraps of air time that are left. If we can make Union an attractive schedule filler (between the soccer) then we – as a sport- will get more money.

It’s as straight forward as that. And Union is NOT a simple sport, it’s like Shrek’s Onion, it has many layers and we have to explain to the couch potato - who cannot attend the soccer as he’s punched a horse and is under house arrest – what the hell all these huge guys are doing running around at high speeds hitting each other.

We don’t want this bloke at our games, but we want him to be a stat in the big media report that indicates to the media headsheds and the corporates that use the games to advertise, that it’s worth their ££££ going to Sky/BT/whoever as brain dead couch potatoes WILL watch Union. And the Brain Dead are often those that the Marketeers aim their messages at.


It's either that or stock up on your CD's of the recent 6N and Lions tours as they will be all that's left to you to watch on the box.

Having Will Greenwood highlighting the path of the ball that your eyes have just witnessed will hardly induce the couch potato to watch Rugby over Football.Football is a simple game that even the intellectually challenged can understand to a degree.
Rugby tends to attract higher socioeconomic groups so the marketing men at Range Rover and HSBC can target accordingly.Football attracts Knuckle Scrapers r Us or whoever to market their whares.A well targeted marketing campaign is more effective than a blunderbuss approach.

Taff, your being a little unfair. You know aswell as anyone who watches the game we get more than a "highlighting the path of the ball".

Rugby isn't an easy sport to understand and so in order expand the fan base, things need to be explained.

I accept that I highlighted a pet hate of mine but in general terms I cannot recall one earth shattering insight that gave me a eureka moment.The viewer is paying for all this stuff either through subscription or licence fee.I applaud the number of camera angles and the quality of the camera work but I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious.
Would the British public be drawn to Rugby over the behemoth that is Football simply because they were told of the difference between tight head props and loose head props?I think not.I may be wrong,it has happened before!

But your not the only viewer, there would be alot of people out there with less knowledge of the game (well i think so lol).

It wouldn't single handedly bring them over to rugby, but at least they might get a little understanding of whats happening. In order to grow the game we can't just bury our heads in the ground.

Jimpy wrote:"I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious."

You obviously think you're better than the rest of us, perhaps nuclear physics is more your thing? Or brain surgery? - actually, scratch that last one, you sound like you had a go at that one on yourself - and had a 'bit of bother'...

'knuckle dragging football supporters eh?"

Unbelievably patronising.

Are you therefore in favour of crass questions and the blooming obvious being stated?
Unbelievably dull.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:"I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious."

You obviously think you're better than the rest of us, perhaps nuclear physics is more your thing? Or brain surgery? - actually, scratch that last one, you sound like you had a go at that one on yourself - and had a 'bit of bother'...

'knuckle dragging football supporters eh?"

Unbelievably patronising.

Are you therefore in favour of crass questions and the blooming obvious being stated?
Unbelievably dull.

Except that in the main, I don't think people find those questions crass or to be stating the obvious, because in the main, I don't believe people to be pompous pricks with enormously self inflated egos. Of course, there are exceptions.

Your opinion has already had a nice round spanking on here, because you have demonstrably shown yourself to be as described. If you want to return to a time where the grass was greener, the taste sweeter and the world a gentler place, then as Trail ape suggested, dig out your old footage. Whatever media it is you use to watch it on.

nathan wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

nathan wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

So everything that is new is good?

Do you want to watch rugby on the television?
Do you want to watch a decent standard of International rugby live?

If the answer to these is yes, then we have to fight for every £ that is out there and every couch potato that is flicking between the wall to wall dross that is on the TV at the minute.

In the UK the biggest sport is soccer. That’s it. Rugby Union is out there competing against a load of other sports fighting over the scraps of air time that are left. If we can make Union an attractive schedule filler (between the soccer) then we – as a sport- will get more money.

It’s as straight forward as that. And Union is NOT a simple sport, it’s like Shrek’s Onion, it has many layers and we have to explain to the couch potato - who cannot attend the soccer as he’s punched a horse and is under house arrest – what the hell all these huge guys are doing running around at high speeds hitting each other.

We don’t want this bloke at our games, but we want him to be a stat in the big media report that indicates to the media headsheds and the corporates that use the games to advertise, that it’s worth their ££££ going to Sky/BT/whoever as brain dead couch potatoes WILL watch Union. And the Brain Dead are often those that the Marketeers aim their messages at.


It's either that or stock up on your CD's of the recent 6N and Lions tours as they will be all that's left to you to watch on the box.

Having Will Greenwood highlighting the path of the ball that your eyes have just witnessed will hardly induce the couch potato to watch Rugby over Football.Football is a simple game that even the intellectually challenged can understand to a degree.
Rugby tends to attract higher socioeconomic groups so the marketing men at Range Rover and HSBC can target accordingly.Football attracts Knuckle Scrapers r Us or whoever to market their whares.A well targeted marketing campaign is more effective than a blunderbuss approach.

Taff, your being a little unfair. You know aswell as anyone who watches the game we get more than a "highlighting the path of the ball".

Rugby isn't an easy sport to understand and so in order expand the fan base, things need to be explained.

I accept that I highlighted a pet hate of mine but in general terms I cannot recall one earth shattering insight that gave me a eureka moment.The viewer is paying for all this stuff either through subscription or licence fee.I applaud the number of camera angles and the quality of the camera work but I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious.
Would the British public be drawn to Rugby over the behemoth that is Football simply because they were told of the difference between tight head props and loose head props?I think not.I may be wrong,it has happened before!

But your not the only viewer, there would be alot of people out there with less knowledge of the game (well i think so lol).

It wouldn't single handedly bring them over to rugby, but at least they might get a little understanding of whats happening. In order to grow the game we can't just bury our heads in the ground.

Well, clearly, he's the only viewer with even a faint grasp on the sport. In fact, he's a world authority on the sport. The rest of us are just plebian.

Think i'll leave this thread alone - Must be play time.

Jimpy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:"I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious."

You obviously think you're better than the rest of us, perhaps nuclear physics is more your thing? Or brain surgery? - actually, scratch that last one, you sound like you had a go at that one on yourself - and had a 'bit of bother'...

'knuckle dragging football supporters eh?"

Unbelievably patronising.

Are you therefore in favour of crass questions and the blooming obvious being stated?
Unbelievably dull.

Except that in the main, I don't think people find those questions crass or to be stating the obvious, because in the main, I don't believe people to be pompous pricks with enormously self inflated egos. Of course, there are exceptions.

Your opinion has already had a nice round spanking on here, because you have demonstrably shown yourself to be as described. If you want to return to a time where the grass was greener, the taste sweeter and the world a gentler place, then as Trail ape suggested, dig out your old footage. Whatever media it is you use to watch it on.

I am sure that underneath you are a warm intelligent individual who has a charming side.Do us a favour and let it out.
I note that you too recognise the crass questions to which I refer as you appeare to know to what I am referring.Go on see the sense in what I post rather than follow your agenda.You may feel better.

Why do HSBC and Range Rover get involved in sponsoring/advertising through Rugby and Jaguar through Cricket.This is not arrogance merely recognition of what is going on and understanding why..

I’ll be very surprised if those brands you mention above, sponsor Rugby and Cricket solely, for example the Financial industry is willing to dive into Soccer - ‘Barclay’s Premiership’ ring a bell?

It could be a thought that the aforementioned firms can’t afford to sponsor a soccer side – here’s the total value of the sponsorship deals that some of English club sides get.

Man City £400 Million (Etihad Airways)
Man United £315 Million (General Motors' Chevrolet)
Arsenal £150 Million (Emirates Airlines)
Liverpool £80 Million (Standard Chartered)
Chelsea £41.4 Million (Invest in Africa)

Not a lot of ‘tacky’ names up there eh? No ‘Poundlands’ to be seen.

The Aviva Premiership top sides shirt sponsors are as below.

Saracens £8 million (Allianz)
Leicester £?? (Caterpillar)
Harlequins £?? (Etihad Airways)
Northampton £?? (Travis Perkins)
Gloucester £?? (Jewson)

Once again no ‘Poundland’ but not as elitist as the tone of your comments might suggest (and a big difference in the number of 000’s attached to them). And of course the Welsh national side has a really classy sponsor hasn’t it?

Which rugby sides do Range Rover and Jaguar sponsor? I hope I’m not being dense here, but they don’t spring to mind – sign of bad marketing perhaps?

Interesting debate.

My 2 cents.

The debate seems to be breaking into 2 camps. To use a phrase from the thread.

The "everything that is new is good" group

and the

"everything that is old is good" group.

We are going to end up in an American political style debate where everyone to the left of centre AUTOMATICALLY is a homosexual and a communist, and everyone to the right of centre is a gun toting fundamentalist Christian.

Like everything else in life nothing is black and white.

Here is my two tone view.

I am in favour of anything that expands the understanding of "new" rugby fans, which does not interfere with the focus of the players in the game.

Personally I was appalled when they started using dressing room cameras, and I am still not 100% comfortable with it now 10 years later (Or whatever) I am not a fan of the SH policy of shoving a camera in the face of a player leaving the field at HT. (No problem when the game is over)

Hate cheerleaders too. (Possibly for feminist reasons more than anything, but also because they have feck all to do with the game)

However all the new iPad stuff and the big screen studio stuff that Greenwood (Big fan of his) and the boys do is great.

You must remember that 99% of people on this site have watched and probably played rugby for years. Things that are "stating the bleeden obvious" to us are "A revelation" to others.

As has been mentioned on the thread, stuff that one person sees as "Will Greenwood tracing the line of a ball I have just watched" can reveal to others (and me) how a world class centre perceives and exploits space in a backline. Never mind non rugby people, it's a revelation to forwards too.

So innovation? Yes. Interference? No.

That's my policy

TrailApe wrote:

Why do HSBC and Range Rover get involved in sponsoring/advertising through Rugby and Jaguar through Cricket.This is not arrogance merely recognition of what is going on and understanding why..

I’ll be very surprised if those brands you mention above, sponsor Rugby and Cricket solely, for example the Financial industry is willing to dive into Soccer - ‘Barclay’s Premiership’ ring a bell?

It could be a thought that the aforementioned firms can’t afford to sponsor a soccer side – here’s the total value of the sponsorship deals that some of English club sides get.

Man City £400 Million (Etihad Airways)
Man United £315 Million (General Motors' Chevrolet)
Arsenal £150 Million (Emirates Airlines)
Liverpool £80 Million (Standard Chartered)
Chelsea £41.4 Million (Invest in Africa)

Not a lot of ‘tacky’ names up there eh? No ‘Poundlands’ to be seen.

The Aviva Premiership top sides shirt sponsors are as below.

Saracens £8 million (Allianz)
Leicester £?? (Caterpillar)
Harlequins £?? (Etihad Airways)
Northampton £?? (Travis Perkins)
Gloucester £?? (Jewson)

Once again no ‘Poundland’ but not as elitist as the tone of your comments might suggest (and a big difference in the number of 000’s attached to them). And of course the Welsh national side has a really classy sponsor hasn’t it?

Which rugby sides do Range Rover and Jaguar sponsor? I hope I’m not being dense here, but they don’t spring to mind – sign of bad marketing perhaps?

Put them right,Trail.
I thought that Barclaysvwere a bank for anyone.Their elite status will be pleasant news for my beloved who banks with them.HSBC are a worldwide brand so the Lions sponsorship makes sense to me and them.
Why would Welsh Rugby want a "classy" sponsor when it is rooted in the communities rather than public and grammar schools?I hope I am not being dense.Sign of good marketing perhaps.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:"I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious."

You obviously think you're better than the rest of us, perhaps nuclear physics is more your thing? Or brain surgery? - actually, scratch that last one, you sound like you had a go at that one on yourself - and had a 'bit of bother'...

'knuckle dragging football supporters eh?"

Unbelievably patronising.

Are you therefore in favour of crass questions and the blooming obvious being stated?
Unbelievably dull.

Except that in the main, I don't think people find those questions crass or to be stating the obvious, because in the main, I don't believe people to be pompous pricks with enormously self inflated egos. Of course, there are exceptions.

Your opinion has already had a nice round spanking on here, because you have demonstrably shown yourself to be as described. If you want to return to a time where the grass was greener, the taste sweeter and the world a gentler place, then as Trail ape suggested, dig out your old footage. Whatever media it is you use to watch it on.

I am sure that underneath you are a warm intelligent individual who has a charming side.Do us a favour and let it out.
I note that you too recognise the crass questions to which I refer as you appeare to know to what I am referring.Go on see the sense in what I post rather than follow your agenda.You may feel better.

If there were sense in it, perhaps I might....

Seriously, you don't seem to have a problem with either Nathan or Trail Ape who've basically said the same as me (more eleoquently perhaps). At least three people have spotted that you appear to be elitist, but you don't seem to have a problem with them.

Perhaps it is your agenda that requires scrutiny, not mine...

TrailApe wrote:

.Rugby tends to attract higher socioeconomic groups so the marketing men at Range Rover and HSBC can target accordingly.Football attracts Knuckle Scrapers r Us or whoever to market their whares.A well-targeted marketing campaign is more effective than a blunderbuss approach....

I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but your comments above are coming across as a tad arrogant, patronising and elitist.

While I agree that a well-targeted marketing campaign is effective, I disagree with the other generalisations that you have used.

Nobody can deny that there is an element of soccer supporters that can’t afford a BMW or a 5 bedroomed semi-detached house in Buckinghamshire and there are elements that will think with their fists rather than their brains, but don’t let the media generalisations lead you into thinking that the majority of soccer supporters are mindless morons that are all on benefit and electronically tagged.

I can imagine that if you analysed the cross sections of the crowds at St James Park (Newcastle United) and Kingston Park (Newcastle Falcons) you would find a pretty similar grouping of social backgrounds – the only difference being that on average there are 45k more people at St James than at Kingston Park.

It might be that the Falcons are a more working class club than some of the others, but somehow I doubt it.

And before you bring it up - I am well aware of how widely broadcast were the scenes that happened at following the Tyne-Wear derby . The point being Newcastle/Sunderland have an ‘issue’ that goes back even before the English Civil War and you don’t have to be a football supporter to pull on a black and white strip, go and get bevvied for four hours then roll out of the pub after the game finishes looking for trouble.

Wearing a strip doesn’t signify that you are a supporter that will go and pay money to watch them, just look at the sale of Osprey shirts and their game attendances.

Ok that was a bit below the belt but does illustrate the point – and I love a generalisation.

Did you see the video clip of the Newcastle fan who punched the police horse in the nose? I think its fair to brand some football fans as knuckle draggers when you see clips like this. Also I cant ever remember seing a rugby fan do something so stupid.

nathan wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

nathan wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

So everything that is new is good?

Do you want to watch rugby on the television?
Do you want to watch a decent standard of International rugby live?

If the answer to these is yes, then we have to fight for every £ that is out there and every couch potato that is flicking between the wall to wall dross that is on the TV at the minute.

In the UK the biggest sport is soccer. That’s it. Rugby Union is out there competing against a load of other sports fighting over the scraps of air time that are left. If we can make Union an attractive schedule filler (between the soccer) then we – as a sport- will get more money.

It’s as straight forward as that. And Union is NOT a simple sport, it’s like Shrek’s Onion, it has many layers and we have to explain to the couch potato - who cannot attend the soccer as he’s punched a horse and is under house arrest – what the hell all these huge guys are doing running around at high speeds hitting each other.

We don’t want this bloke at our games, but we want him to be a stat in the big media report that indicates to the media headsheds and the corporates that use the games to advertise, that it’s worth their ££££ going to Sky/BT/whoever as brain dead couch potatoes WILL watch Union. And the Brain Dead are often those that the Marketeers aim their messages at.


It's either that or stock up on your CD's of the recent 6N and Lions tours as they will be all that's left to you to watch on the box.

Having Will Greenwood highlighting the path of the ball that your eyes have just witnessed will hardly induce the couch potato to watch Rugby over Football.Football is a simple game that even the intellectually challenged can understand to a degree.
Rugby tends to attract higher socioeconomic groups so the marketing men at Range Rover and HSBC can target accordingly.Football attracts Knuckle Scrapers r Us or whoever to market their whares.A well targeted marketing campaign is more effective than a blunderbuss approach.

Taff, your being a little unfair. You know aswell as anyone who watches the game we get more than a "highlighting the path of the ball".

Rugby isn't an easy sport to understand and so in order expand the fan base, things need to be explained.

I accept that I highlighted a pet hate of mine but in general terms I cannot recall one earth shattering insight that gave me a eureka moment.The viewer is paying for all this stuff either through subscription or licence fee.I applaud the number of camera angles and the quality of the camera work but I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious.
Would the British public be drawn to Rugby over the behemoth that is Football simply because they were told of the difference between tight head props and loose head props?I think not.I may be wrong,it has happened before!

But your not the only viewer, there would be alot of people out there with less knowledge of the game (well i think so lol).

It wouldn't single handedly bring them over to rugby, but at least they might get a little understanding of whats happening. In order to grow the game we can't just bury our heads in the ground.

The danger is that in the attempt to encompass the greater masses the more knowledgeable will be alienated by the dumbing down.
An alien could sit down to watch a football match and get a pretty good grasp of what was going on after a few minutes.The same alien,I would suggest,would take considerably longer to fathom Rugby with or without Will Greenwood's highlighter.Our game is complex .Football is simple.All the gadgets and gizmos will not alter that.

Jimpy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:"I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious."

You obviously think you're better than the rest of us, perhaps nuclear physics is more your thing? Or brain surgery? - actually, scratch that last one, you sound like you had a go at that one on yourself - and had a 'bit of bother'...

'knuckle dragging football supporters eh?"

Unbelievably patronising.

Are you therefore in favour of crass questions and the blooming obvious being stated?
Unbelievably dull.

Except that in the main, I don't think people find those questions crass or to be stating the obvious, because in the main, I don't believe people to be pompous pricks with enormously self inflated egos. Of course, there are exceptions.

Your opinion has already had a nice round spanking on here, because you have demonstrably shown yourself to be as described. If you want to return to a time where the grass was greener, the taste sweeter and the world a gentler place, then as Trail ape suggested, dig out your old footage. Whatever media it is you use to watch it on.

I am sure that underneath you are a warm intelligent individual who has a charming side.Do us a favour and let it out.
I note that you too recognise the crass questions to which I refer as you appeare to know to what I am referring.Go on see the sense in what I post rather than follow your agenda.You may feel better.

If there were sense in it, perhaps I might....

Seriously, you don't seem to have a problem with either Nathan or Trail Ape who've basically said the same as me (more eleoquently perhaps). At least three people have spotted that you appear to be elitist, but you don't seem to have a problem with them.

Perhaps it is your agenda that requires scrutiny, not mine...

Neither of those inferred thatbI was a pompous Tinkywinky and a dinosaur.This could be a factor that cannot be overlooked.Give it some thought.

Jenifer - I'm with you there.

And I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to this forum, we are all reasonably knowlegeable, however do you not think that we sometimes draw from the different eras of this game when we get up onto our high horse?

I'm getting on a bit now, I haven't played in 15 years, I don't have access to sky and I only get to watch rugby live on the hoof, so perhaps my viewpoint will be totally different from those who only watch it on the box and are suffering ennui.

To be totally honest, sometimes I come away from the game not really knowing what has happened (short sighted and often blind drunk) bar the scoreline and I would REALLY like to have a replay of the game I just watched with all of the bits and bobs attached.

I'll give an example where the slo-mo replay with arrows and commentry helped me appreciate a bit of skill I would not have noticed otherwise.

It must have been the 6N or World Cup, but it was a pass that BOD flung out and the lad scampered on to either score or not score or something, but it was the analysis that brought it to the fore. What to me (as an ex forward) just looked like a pass, when brought down into freeze frame and with commentry showed how perfect the pass was in time and in space. He just put it into a place where the Irish lad could run onto it and the bloke marking him couldn't get to - not only that but he managed to put it beyond the marker so the recipient had a clear run.

In the heat of the battle, to me the unversed viewer, it wasn't much, but when it was explained the scales fell from my eyes and I was akin to St Paul on the Road to Damascus.

I think some of our fellow posters who were of the backs variety, forget that for a forward its just one rucking scrum to another - push yer guts out, balls gone, look up, trot to the next scrum - so any explanations about what the backs really get up to are welcome.

Im glad that football is a more popular game than rugby. As a fan I dont see why making rugby universally popular is a good thing. If anything it is a bad thing because it means compromise, adjustments and trimmings to make it more acessable to newbies.

I love the game as it is.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:"I resent paying for people asking crass questions or stating the blooming obvious."

You obviously think you're better than the rest of us, perhaps nuclear physics is more your thing? Or brain surgery? - actually, scratch that last one, you sound like you had a go at that one on yourself - and had a 'bit of bother'...

'knuckle dragging football supporters eh?"

Unbelievably patronising.

Are you therefore in favour of crass questions and the blooming obvious being stated?
Unbelievably dull.

Except that in the main, I don't think people find those questions crass or to be stating the obvious, because in the main, I don't believe people to be pompous pricks with enormously self inflated egos. Of course, there are exceptions.

Your opinion has already had a nice round spanking on here, because you have demonstrably shown yourself to be as described. If you want to return to a time where the grass was greener, the taste sweeter and the world a gentler place, then as Trail ape suggested, dig out your old footage. Whatever media it is you use to watch it on.

I am sure that underneath you are a warm intelligent individual who has a charming side.Do us a favour and let it out.
I note that you too recognise the crass questions to which I refer as you appeare to know to what I am referring.Go on see the sense in what I post rather than follow your agenda.You may feel better.

If there were sense in it, perhaps I might....

Seriously, you don't seem to have a problem with either Nathan or Trail Ape who've basically said the same as me (more eleoquently perhaps). At least three people have spotted that you appear to be elitist, but you don't seem to have a problem with them.

Perhaps it is your agenda that requires scrutiny, not mine...

Neither of those inferred thatbI was a pompous Tinkywinky and a dinosaur.This could be a factor that cannot be overlooked.Give it some thought.

So when another poster, one you mention, wrote:

"I hope you don’t take this the wrong way but your comments above are coming across as a tad arrogant, patronising and elitist."

You didn't think they were implying same?

Right, okay. Got your number.

Gve it some thought.

Could we all try to post only the appropriate bit of the quote we're going to respond to..... please?

The arrogant basteraud! The cheek of him!

It's just if this full quoting continues then one entire page will be one entire comment.


So go on...you can quote my most appropriate bit now to answer me.

Yeah, I know......................... "."

Jimpy,you are clearly not my type and I am clearly not your type.I could not imagine us conversing in the club house after a game.
This forum allows all to express their opinions freely.Folk can agree and folk can disagree.
As soon as things descend into personal slurs it saddens me.Because I don't pop at you please don't think that I am not thinking words that I feel not to be appropriate for this medium.I am simply trying to behave in a decent manner.Name calling only inflames and does no good in my opinion.You think it is ok.Each to their own.We have all been brought up differently and have had different life experiences which help to mould us.I have simply trodden a different path than the one you have been on.

TrailApe wrote:
It must have been the 6N or World Cup, but it was a pass that BOD flung out and the lad scampered on to either score or not score or something, but it was the analysis that brought it to the fore. What to me (as an ex forward) just looked like a pass, when brought down into freeze frame and with commentry showed how perfect the pass was in time and in space. He just put it into a place where the Irish lad could run onto it and the bloke marking him couldn't get to - not only that but he managed to put it beyond the marker so the recipient had a clear run.

In the heat of the battle, to me the unversed viewer, it wasn't much, but when it was explained the scales fell from my eyes and I was akin to St Paul on the Road to Damascus.

I think some of our fellow posters who were of the backs variety, forget that for a forward its just one rucking scrum to another - push yer guts out, balls gone, look up, trot to the next scrum - so any explanations about what the backs really get up to are welcome.

was it his pass to Zebo in the Welsh game in Feb? A thing of beauty. The rest of us would have to stop time, get a measuring tape out, move a defender a few inches back or forward and still have trouble threading the pass through.

He did it in real time, while running at speed, to a moving target, through 2 or 3 other moving targets. Just talent I guess

Did you see the video clip of the Newcastle fan who punched the police horse in the nose? I think its fair to brand some football fans as knuckle draggers when you see clips like this. Also I cant ever remember seing a rugby fan do something so stupid....

I thought I had touched on that in my earlier post.

Just because he/they were wearing black and white striped tops doesn’t make them actual supporters – you know supporters are the ones that turn up at the game and pay to support their team. If he is a supporter he will be a ‘former’ supporter as he’ll get a life ban.

So if some numpty from Newcastle, wearing a Falcons shirt (he has only got one because he wants to be associated with something bigger than himself and it was a lot cheaper than the soccer equivalent), gets into a punch up, does that make him a rugby fan behaving in an atrocious manner – or just a drunken oik who happens to be wearing a rugby shirt.

Does a professional rugby player having a scuffle with bouncers at a McDonald’s make all professional rugby players yobs? Does a professional rugby player hurling himself off a ferry into a harbour necessitate barring all rugby players from ferries?

And if the stories that emanate from some of the tours are even HALF true I’m sure rugby players - and fans – have done some obnoxious things. However until recently it was all hushed up, palms were greased and everything was swept under the carpet, so perhaps the ‘elitist’ view of rugby and everything associated with it (even its sponsors!) is verging on hypocrisy.

By the way you still haven’t told me which rugby team Jaguar sponsors.

was it his pass to Zebo in the Welsh game in Feb

Jenifer - no - it was a while back - mebbes against the Aussies?

Do Jaguar sponsor a Rugby team?Please tell me who it is ,Trail.

Taffineastbourne wrote:Jimpy,you are clearly not my type and I am clearly not your type.I could not imagine us conversing in the club house after a game.
This forum allows all to express their opinions freely.Folk can agree and folk can disagree.
As soon as things descend into personal slurs it saddens me.Because I don't pop at you please don't think that I am not thinking words that I feel not to be appropriate for this medium.I am simply trying to behave in a decent manner.Name calling only inflames and does no good in my opinion.You think it is ok.Each to their own.We have all been brought up differently and have had different life experiences which help to mould us.I have simply trodden a different path than the one you have been on.

I'm beginning to think there is a pair of you in it OK.

Taffineastbourne wrote:Jimpy,you are clearly not my type and I am clearly not your type.I could not imagine us conversing in the club house after a game.
This forum allows all to express their opinions freely.Folk can agree and folk can disagree.
As soon as things descend into personal slurs it saddens me.Because I don't pop at you please don't think that I am not thinking words that I feel not to be appropriate for this medium.I am simply trying to behave in a decent manner.Name calling only inflames and does no good in my opinion.You think it is ok.Each to their own.We have all been brought up differently and have had different life experiences which help to mould us.I have simply trodden a different path than the one you have been on.

"you are coming across as a tad arrogant, patronising and elitist"

A beautifully accurate posting - and I didn't say it either (more's the pity).

Old Merchant Taylors.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Jimpy,you are clearly not my type and I am clearly not your type.I could not imagine us conversing in the club house after a game.
This forum allows all to express their opinions freely.Folk can agree and folk can disagree.
As soon as things descend into personal slurs it saddens me.Because I don't pop at you please don't think that I am not thinking words that I feel not to be appropriate for this medium.I am simply trying to behave in a decent manner.Name calling only inflames and does no good in my opinion.You think it is ok.Each to their own.We have all been brought up differently and have had different life experiences which help to mould us.I have simply trodden a different path than the one you have been on.

I'm beginning to think there is a pair of you in it OK.

Jennifer,could you clarify as I am not getting your point.Cheers.

Do Jaguar sponsor a Rugby team?Please tell me who it is ,Trail..

Apologies - you didn't say that - you linked them to cricket.

Why do HSBC and Range Rover get involved in sponsoring/advertising through Rugby and Jaguar through Cricket.This is not arrogance merely recognition of what is going on and understanding why..


My mistake.

TrailApe wrote:

Do Jaguar sponsor a Rugby team?Please tell me who it is ,Trail..

Apologies - you didn't say that - you linked them to cricket.

Why do HSBC and Range Rover get involved in sponsoring/advertising through Rugby and Jaguar through Cricket.This is not arrogance merely recognition of what is going on and understanding why..


My mistake.

Accepted

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Jimpy,you are clearly not my type and I am clearly not your type.I could not imagine us conversing in the club house after a game.
This forum allows all to express their opinions freely.Folk can agree and folk can disagree.
As soon as things descend into personal slurs it saddens me.Because I don't pop at you please don't think that I am not thinking words that I feel not to be appropriate for this medium.I am simply trying to behave in a decent manner.Name calling only inflames and does no good in my opinion.You think it is ok.Each to their own.We have all been brought up differently and have had different life experiences which help to mould us.I have simply trodden a different path than the one you have been on.

I'm beginning to think there is a pair of you in it OK.

Jennifer,could you clarify as I am not getting your point.Cheers.

You and Jimpy are as bad as each other on this thread, just in different ways. He's more aggressive You are more subtle. But you are both winding each other up. Perhaps somewhat unintentionally?

GunsGerms wrote:Im glad that football is a more popular game than rugby. As a fan I dont see why making rugby universally popular is a good thing. If anything it is a bad thing because it means compromise, adjustments and trimmings to make it more acessable to newbies.

I love the game as it is.

To be honest I agree with this. I think a lot of what makes rugby great would be lost if the game was as big as football is.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Im glad that football is a more popular game than rugby. As a fan I dont see why making rugby universally popular is a good thing. If anything it is a bad thing because it means compromise, adjustments and trimmings to make it more acessable to newbies.

I love the game as it is.

To be honest I agree with this. I think a lot of what makes rugby great would be lost if the game was as big as football is.

THANKYOU!!! Finally someone agrees with me on this.

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Im glad that football is a more popular game than rugby. As a fan I dont see why making rugby universally popular is a good thing. If anything it is a bad thing because it means compromise, adjustments and trimmings to make it more acessable to newbies.

I love the game as it is.

To be honest I agree with this. I think a lot of what makes rugby great would be lost if the game was as big as football is.

THANKYOU!!! Finally someone agrees with me on this.

Elitest much???

thebluesmancometh wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Im glad that football is a more popular game than rugby. As a fan I dont see why making rugby universally popular is a good thing. If anything it is a bad thing because it means compromise, adjustments and trimmings to make it more acessable to newbies.

I love the game as it is.

To be honest I agree with this. I think a lot of what makes rugby great would be lost if the game was as big as football is.

THANKYOU!!! Finally someone agrees with me on this.

Elitest much???

No I am just very aware of what I like. No need to debate this with you again really is there?

GunsGerms wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Im glad that football is a more popular game than rugby. As a fan I dont see why making rugby universally popular is a good thing. If anything it is a bad thing because it means compromise, adjustments and trimmings to make it more acessable to newbies.

I love the game as it is.

To be honest I agree with this. I think a lot of what makes rugby great would be lost if the game was as big as football is.

THANKYOU!!! Finally someone agrees with me on this.

Elitest much???

No I am just very aware of what I like. No need to debate this with you again really is there?

I was joking. I see your point to an extent, the tarting up of the game to such an extent really does give away a lot of traits that rugby is loved for, but there is a fine line between resisting change, preserving traditions, and becoming elitest.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Im glad that football is a more popular game than rugby. As a fan I dont see why making rugby universally popular is a good thing. If anything it is a bad thing because it means compromise, adjustments and trimmings to make it more acessable to newbies.

I love the game as it is.

To be honest I agree with this. I think a lot of what makes rugby great would be lost if the game was as big as football is.

THANKYOU!!! Finally someone agrees with me on this.

Elitest much???

If everyone thought this way, we would still be an amateur game played for the "Enjoyment of the Players" alone and there would be 3 men and a dog at the games.

There is a happy medium between this, and removing scrums, rucks, mauls, flankers and lineouts.

Don't mid-ranking football players (mid ranking ability) earn as much in a week as most rugby players get in a year?

Now there's elite. But no! - it's a common man's game because it's all over the back pages, so maybe I'm wrong

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Im glad that football is a more popular game than rugby. As a fan I dont see why making rugby universally popular is a good thing. If anything it is a bad thing because it means compromise, adjustments and trimmings to make it more acessable to newbies.

I love the game as it is.

To be honest I agree with this. I think a lot of what makes rugby great would be lost if the game was as big as football is.

THANKYOU!!! Finally someone agrees with me on this.

Elitest much???

If everyone thought this way, we would still be an amateur game played for the "Enjoyment of the Players" alone and there would be 3 men and a dog at the games.

There is a happy medium between this, and removing scrums, rucks, mauls, flankers and lineouts.

Eh how do you arrive at that conclusion? Ireland games were always sold out in the amature days of the 80s and 90s. Indeed many people think the atmosphere was much better back then.

I think the sport has regressed in terms of a spectacle in the last few years because it is evolving into a hybrid form of League/Union with an over emphasis on colisions as opposed to free flowing rugby. This is a result of a number of factors, mostly amendments designed to make the game more exciting to wider viewership.

As Football has evolved it has also become less of a spectacle as the inevitable challenges presented by professionalism, such as cheating, corruption etc. have become much more prevalent and the values of sportsmanship less and less established.

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Jimpy,you are clearly not my type and I am clearly not your type.I could not imagine us conversing in the club house after a game.
This forum allows all to express their opinions freely.Folk can agree and folk can disagree.
As soon as things descend into personal slurs it saddens me.Because I don't pop at you please don't think that I am not thinking words that I feel not to be appropriate for this medium.I am simply trying to behave in a decent manner.Name calling only inflames and does no good in my opinion.You think it is ok.Each to their own.We have all been brought up differently and have had different life experiences which help to mould us.I have simply trodden a different path than the one you have been on.

I'm beginning to think there is a pair of you in it OK.

Jennifer,could you clarify as I am not getting your point.Cheers.

You and Jimpy are as bad as each other on this thread, just in different ways. He's more aggressive You are more subtle. But you are both winding each other up. Perhaps somewhat unintentionally?

Thanks for that.You are correct.I was always taught by my Uncle that if someone "has a go" verbally or physically to go back twice as hard but never lower yourself to their level.A lesson that I took on board for better,for worse.I refrained from stooping to his level which served to amplify the gulf between us.His Mum probably loves him,mind!

Jimpy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Jimpy,you are clearly not my type and I am clearly not your type.I could not imagine us conversing in the club house after a game.
This forum allows all to express their opinions freely.Folk can agree and folk can disagree.
As soon as things descend into personal slurs it saddens me.Because I don't pop at you please don't think that I am not thinking words that I feel not to be appropriate for this medium.I am simply trying to behave in a decent manner.Name calling only inflames and does no good in my opinion.You think it is ok.Each to their own.We have all been brought up differently and have had different life experiences which help to mould us.I have simply trodden a different path than the one you have been on.

"you are coming across as a tad arrogant, patronising and elitist"

A beautifully accurate posting - and I didn't say it either (more's the pity).

This one did make me chuckle.How do you think you come across?I am too much of a gentleman to enlighten you.Something to ponder methinks

Look, I know that I am going to sound stupid for asking this, as there has been a lot of talk about it on here, but how is BT going to air all this rugby ? Are they going to have their own channel ? Who is going to air this channel ? Will it be sky, Virgin, terrestrial ? Will it be a PPV channel ?

Don't know. They've said some are going to be free to air but I can't fine any details about how to get their channel. Whether that's because it's not been sorted or because it's so obvious no-ones saying it. There was a legal thing about Sky refusing to broadcast adverts for BT Sport.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Jimpy,you are clearly not my type and I am clearly not your type.I could not imagine us conversing in the club house after a game.
This forum allows all to express their opinions freely.Folk can agree and folk can disagree.
As soon as things descend into personal slurs it saddens me.Because I don't pop at you please don't think that I am not thinking words that I feel not to be appropriate for this medium.I am simply trying to behave in a decent manner.Name calling only inflames and does no good in my opinion.You think it is ok.Each to their own.We have all been brought up differently and have had different life experiences which help to mould us.I have simply trodden a different path than the one you have been on.

"you are coming across as a tad arrogant, patronising and elitist"

A beautifully accurate posting - and I didn't say it either (more's the pity).

This one did make me chuckle.How do you think you come across?I am too much of a gentleman to enlighten you.Something to ponder methinks

The personal messages I received from other posters about you appear to all be true. I need not ponder anything.