Is there a European elite emerging, and is it bad for the game? - guscott says...

Is there a European elite emerging, and is it bad for the game?

Guscotts reply:
"As much as rugby has to be about inclusion, and will remain so at the community level, at the professional level it can't be, and I don't think it should be.
It is about who has the best side and, if they are the best throughout the season or during a tournament, they deserve to win, regardless of whether their resources are so much bigger than another team. That is the way it is.
I don't know many professional sports played on an equal footing. Look at football's Premier League, where the same clubs - Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool - are in the top four every year.
As much as we might want a bit more equality across nations, there is nothing wrong with the best teams making the quarter-finals of European competition every year. The likes of Newport Gwent Dragons, Connacht or Zebre, traditionally some of the weaker sides in the Pro 12, only deserve to be there if they have the players and the quality to be there. We shouldn't worry about it."

I whole-heartedly 150% disagree.

Where's the enjoyment of watching competitions where the same teams always come out on top? What's the point in sport if it's not remotely even in competitiveness?
Would anybody turn up to watch toulon v Zebre?

There should be some sort of controls put in to at least try an even out the playing field. European salary caps? Player quotas? %age of own academy produced players?

Maybe it's coming from a welsh perspective but I've not much interest in the HC as I know we don't stand a snowflakes chance in hell.

But I couldn't disagree with him more. What do you thin?

You can never get an even playing field off the pitch. But on the pitch it is only 15 v 15.

The top teams have as much to do with the coach as the players.

Look at some of the team in France who have not so good players but great teams. Sale brough in loads of good players and were rubbish

doddieman wrote:Is there a European elite emerging, and is it bad for the game?

Guscotts reply:

I don't know many professional sports played on an equal footing. Look at football's Premier League, where the same clubs - Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool - are in the top four every year.

That is 5 teams jerry. Great player, he never had a reputation as being smart did he ?

It's pretty bad for the competition- the more teams that are capable of winning the competition, the more exciting that competition will naturally be.

It was brilliant when Edinburgh made their run to the semi-finals of the Heineken Cup in 2011/2012. That for me is what we want to see more of not less of! Shock results, upsets, underdogs having their day.

this is just not true.

even allowing for guscott saying that 5 teams are always in the top 4 (even though we all know what he means) that doesnt seem to have harmed the appeal and popularity of football in england in the slightest.

the welsh regions have had very little success in HC since its inception. is it 1 final i believe? likewise they have never really gotten the matchday support where it needs to be to make them commercially successful. these things are linked. ireland is the perfect example, where they have used success to build support, a more solid commercial footing, and further success.

do you all realise that a communist-era reallocation of resources is nothing more than rewarding the failures? so the worse your nations team do the more of a transfer payment they need?

the sport is either professional or its not. period. end of. the practical difficulties in getting profitable english or french clubs (of which there are 3 each currently, moving to most of the french ones being profitable with their new TV deal) to agree to subsidize less successful clubs in wales, scotland or italy, where the union has a far greater role will make resolving the Heineken cup dispute look like a walk in the park.

Notch, The only trouble with that is that for every underdog having their day there would be a greater number of onesided games which would be boring. Do you want the games to be competitive?

This is one reason why I want a European-wide salary cap. A world wide one would be even better. The same few clubs competing for the same prizes every year is a real bore. We already have this at the international level, I would hate the club competitions to be as predictable.

Intotouch wrote:This is one reason why I want a European-wide salary cap. A world wide one would be even better. The same few clubs competing for the same prizes every year is a real bore. We already have this at the international level, I would hate the club competitions to be as predictable.

this is a 10,000% impossibility until all the clubs are playing under the same, for-profit, umbrella. salary caps can only be self-imposed, not externally. it's a legal thing.

think NFL. for-proft. and all its member clubs are for-profit. thats the only way you get everyone pulling in the same direction, and even then, the european club competitions need to be by far the most commercially important to all participants in order for them to agree. which is also completely not the case - france's domestic league generates more than, i dunno, 3 or 4 times the total revenue of the celtic clubs. europe is financially irrelevant to them.

broadlandboy wrote:Notch, The only trouble with that is that for every underdog having their day there would be a greater number of onesided games which would be boring. Do you want the games to be competitive?

Of course. And I very much appreciate that. The trick is trying to find the structure that strikes the best balance and we're still a long way off it. The problem is, that if a few teams do breakaway and form an elite- that makes it less exciting. We were able to call the group winners from very early on this year- the only real point of interest on the last weekend was whether Ulster or Leicester would top their pool, same with Saracens and Toulouse albeit that was settled in Round 5 and in both those cases we knew the runner-up would be in the quarters anyway pretty early on. That for me is damaging for the tournament.

This years quarter-finals look set to be the highest calibre I can remember, the pool stages were the least exciting I can remember. If we get to the point where the pools stages get more and more one-sided then that is of massive concern for European rugby. I really do believe that.

get rid of ERC, 4 makeweight teams from the rabo, and the pool stages themselves become an awful lot more close and compelling. and the seeding, once reconfigured, will make an awful lot more sense.

quinsforever wrote:get rid of ERC, 4 makeweight teams from the rabo, and the pool stages themselves become an awful lot more close and compelling. and the seeding, once reconfigured, will make an awful lot more sense.

You might well be right there quins. Thats been agreed to though, hasn't it? The reduction to 20 teams, in return for the guarantee that no team will receive less revenue than they currently do. I thought that the issues holding back an agreement are the quandary over who has the broadcast rights and were the organisation that runs the tournament will be based?

I feel we are in danger now of re-treading old ground here. With all due respect, I'm not sure I have the stamina to go ten rounds of the ERC vs PRL blame game tonight! It's been done to death and I just hope some kind of compromise happens soon.

yes it's been more or less agreed. not trying to introduce the prl vs debate.

sport is not socialist. it is very much the epitomoy of survival of the fittest. and once it's professional, that part too becomes survival of the fittest.

would anyone expect any of the 6N unions to subsidise each other's national teams?

quinsforever wrote:yes it's been more or less agreed. not trying to introduce the prl vs debate.

sport is not socialist. it is very much the epitomoy of survival of the fittest. and once it's professional, that part too becomes survival of the fittest.

would anyone expect any of the 6N unions to subsidise each other's national teams?

Sport is not socialist but it has rules which keep participants playing on the same level. (Mike tyson never took on Barry mcguigan). So rules can be introduced to ensure that teams must stay within reach of each other in competitiveness. Otherwise it's pointless and one sided.

Rewarding failure is a misnomer. Seeking ways to make worse off teams better makes the sport on the whole better and more enjoyable for all.

And if any 6 nations union was drastically underperforming to such an extent that they were losing every game without so much as a fighting chance the yes the other unions should support them otherwise it creates a game nobody would want to see. Italy games are the easiest to get tickets for, should this be the case when we all want to see our nation win and it's the game we're most likely to see that occur?

doddieman wrote:Is there a European elite emerging, and is it bad for the game?

Guscotts reply:......I don't know many professional sports played on an equal footing. Look at football's Premier League, where the same clubs - Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool - are in the top four every year.

 
Learn to count man, how can 5 teams always be in the top 4 every year?   

Ooops been said before, sorry BlueDragon didn't mean to copy

To be fair, I think that if you are going to call it a European Cup, then it should have a minimum of one team per nation in there. However at the same time, I must admit that if you want a good tournament from the off, then some of the dead weight needs to be shed.

However, taking football into account, the Premier League has the likes of Norwich and Cardiff (not big into football, but know a bit about those two) who are a distance off the level of the top or even consistent middling teams. And even the Champions League has teams in there who would be destroyed by the reserves from the big boys. So to take it back to rugby are Connacht or Zebre really any worse than their equivalent football sides like Marseille, CSKA Moscow etc.

I dont agree with Guscott. No surprises there really. Last thing we want if for rugby to take any lessons from footballl Jerry ya fool.

quinsforever wrote:yes it's been more or less agreed. not trying to introduce the prl vs debate.

sport is not socialist. it is very much the epitomoy of survival of the fittest. and once it's professional, that part too becomes survival of the fittest.

would anyone expect any of the 6N unions to subsidise each other's national teams?

Totally agree. That's why all the competitions should be left as they are and people should stop whining all the bloody time.

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:yes it's been more or less agreed. not trying to introduce the prl vs debate.

sport is not socialist. it is very much the epitomoy of survival of the fittest. and once it's professional, that part too becomes survival of the fittest.

would anyone expect any of the 6N unions to subsidise each other's national teams?

Totally agree. That's why all the competitions should be left as they are and people should stop whining all the bloody time.

The ideals of sport are much closer to socialism than capitalism. As soon as a sport becomes all about money it isnt a sport anymore but a business.

Personally I think the Welsh and Scottish clubs only have themselves to blame for not competing well enough in the HC. Treviso too but to a lesser extent, Zebre simply are not good enough to be in the HC.

It's bad for the game that the Welsh and Scottish clubs are uncompetitive in the HC but that's their own fault in my opinion.

The WRU do not give the regions enough help - guess what - this is now biting Welsh rugby in the bottom. Surprise,surprise.

An elite is not ideal but it will inevitably emerge if certain sides are better run and have more resources.

Many French sides have a higher salary than the AP and Irish clubs but this doesn't turn into successful results.

Look at Racing Metro - pots of money but this haven't yielded results.

GunsGerms wrote:

The ideals of sport are much closer to socialism than capitalism. As soon as a sport becomes all about money it isnt a sport anymore but a business.

Yeah the last thing you want in sport is competition as a driving force and reward based on merit.   

beshocked wrote:Personally I think the Welsh and Scottish clubs only have themselves to blame for not competing well enough in the HC. Treviso too but to a lesser extent, Zebre simply are not good enough to be in the HC.

It's bad for the game that the Welsh and Scottish clubs are uncompetitive in the HC but that's their own fault in my opinion.

The WRU do not give the regions enough help - guess what - this is now biting Welsh rugby in the bottom. Surprise,surprise.

An elite is not ideal but it will inevitably emerge if certain sides are better run and have more resources.

Many French sides have a higher salary than the AP and Irish clubs but this doesn't turn into successful results.

Look at Racing Metro - pots of money but this haven't yielded results.

And here come's Beshocked again, thinking he knows the ins and out of what is wrong with Welsh rugby. It might suprise you, but there could could be valid reasons as to why the WRU do not give the regions enough help.

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Personally I think the Welsh and Scottish clubs only have themselves to blame for not competing well enough in the HC. Treviso too but to a lesser extent, Zebre simply are not good enough to be in the HC.

It's bad for the game that the Welsh and Scottish clubs are uncompetitive in the HC but that's their own fault in my opinion.

The WRU do not give the regions enough help - guess what - this is now biting Welsh rugby in the bottom. Surprise,surprise.

An elite is not ideal but it will inevitably emerge if certain sides are better run and have more resources.

Many French sides have a higher salary than the AP and Irish clubs but this doesn't turn into successful results.

Look at Racing Metro - pots of money but this haven't yielded results.

And here come's Beshocked again, thinking he knows the ins and out of what is wrong with Welsh rugby. It might suprise you, but there could could be valid reasons as to why the WRU do not give the regions enough help.

Lorddowlais what are the valid reasons then?

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of Welsh rugby. Of course I know it's complicated but it's brought on by yourself.

My thoughts are:

The North of Wales is being completely ignored - this is wrong in my opinion.

The regional system is fundamentally flawed due to a lack of identity.

The 4th international that Wales play boosts the WRU coffers but harms the regions competitiveness in the HC

The WRU have not put in sufficient structures to protect their players from clubs in the AP and Top 14. Simply saying that if you don't play in Wales you forfeit international rugby would help. As well as financially making sure, the regions can protect their top players.

beshocked wrote:

The regional system is fundamentally flawed due to a lack of identity.

What system would you put in place to combat this?

I have a lot of time and admiration for teams who started at the bottom and made it to the top. Ulster, Harlequins and Queensland Reds for example, more teams should be allowed the opportunity to do that and that means a level playing field in Europe (the opposite of what Guscott is saying). I'm not particulary a fan of Saracens or Toulon who had to heavily buy in the players and expertise (though I see Sarries have a strong academy structure so I assume they've invested in that? Smart).

The Saint wrote:I have a lot of time and admiration for teams who started at the bottom and made it to the top. Ulster, Harlequins and Queensland Reds for example, more teams should be allowed the opportunity to do that and that means a level playing field in Europe (the opposite of what Guscott is saying).

Why don't you include Toulon in that?

I'm not particulary a fan of Saracens or Toulon who had to heavily buy in the players and expertise (though I see Sarries have a strong academy structure so I assume they've invested in that? Smart).

So Ulster haven't "bought in the players" ?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

The Saint wrote:I have a lot of time and admiration for teams who started at the bottom and made it to the top. Ulster, Harlequins and Queensland Reds for example, more teams should be allowed the opportunity to do that and that means a level playing field in Europe (the opposite of what Guscott is saying).

Why don't you include Toulon in that?

I'm not particulary a fan of Saracens or Toulon who had to heavily buy in the players and expertise (though I see Sarries have a strong academy structure so I assume they've invested in that? Smart).

So Ulster haven't "bought in the players" ?

Check the next part of what I said.

True, they strengthened wisely with Botha (who left), Afoa, Muller and Pineaar. But they are quite some way off the two I mentioned for 'buying in players/success.' I've also had this discussion with Ulsters fans before, I'm pretty sure they mentioned how they can put out an IQ 23, and did so in the league last season to great effect. All of the IQ players came from their academy.

beshocked wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Personally I think the Welsh and Scottish clubs only have themselves to blame for not competing well enough in the HC. Treviso too but to a lesser extent, Zebre simply are not good enough to be in the HC.

It's bad for the game that the Welsh and Scottish clubs are uncompetitive in the HC but that's their own fault in my opinion.

The WRU do not give the regions enough help - guess what - this is now biting Welsh rugby in the bottom. Surprise,surprise.

An elite is not ideal but it will inevitably emerge if certain sides are better run and have more resources.

Many French sides have a higher salary than the AP and Irish clubs but this doesn't turn into successful results.

Look at Racing Metro - pots of money but this haven't yielded results.

And here come's Beshocked again, thinking he knows the ins and out of what is wrong with Welsh rugby. It might suprise you, but there could could be valid reasons as to why the WRU do not give the regions enough help.

Lorddowlais what are the valid reasons then?

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of Welsh rugby. Of course I know it's complicated but it's brought on by yourself.

My thoughts are:

The North of Wales is being completely ignored - this is wrong in my opinion.

The regional system is fundamentally flawed due to a lack of identity.

The 4th international that Wales play boosts the WRU coffers but harms the regions competitiveness in the HC

The WRU have not put in sufficient structures to protect their players from clubs in the AP and Top 14. Simply saying that if you don't play in Wales you forfeit international rugby would help. As well as financially making sure, the regions can protect their top players.

The identities are what they are now, due to clubs kicking and screaming from the offset, so there is no point arguing about that, we are where we are for now. The WRU already fund the regions academies and fund the regions to the tune of just over three and a half million quid each. The owners of the regions have had a decade to try and make these regions viable but yet they still want more money. Look, I am no lover of the powers to be at the WRU especially Roger Lewis, but if you were ploughing millions into something, and that something wanted more millions surely you would want to know just what the extra money is for and where it is going. The way I see it is that there are far too many ego's in Welsh rugby at the moment, the owners of the regions did not make their multi million pound empires by giving into other people, and Roger Lewis did not get where he is today by backing down and giving into others, so there is where the fundamental problem lies, for me if the regions get their own way, that still leaves four very big ego's and when the fight with the WRU is over then they will more than likely start bickering amongst themselves, until we get a person running the show who has the best interest of all Welsh rugby at heart then the regions will still start to struggle, first and foremost though, let's get rid of all the big ego's.

Chunky Norwich-

We have bought in players and expertise from abroad which has made a massive difference, but at the same time we are subject to restrictions from the IRFU that prevent that getting out of hand.

For instance, John Afoa is leaving for Gloucester and as a result of having had him for the past three years we won't be allowed to replace him with a tight head that is not qualified for Ireland.

If Toulon lose a key player like Wilkinson they can go out and buy a new player with no ties to France to replace him (or two players, if Flood joins Halfpenny).

I think the 'worst' Ulster sides that we've put out with regards to Irish eligibility have had about 10 out of 15 players qualified for Ireland and the bench too. We have less non-irish qualified players in our squad than Toulon have in their typical starting XV.

So it's a question of degree, and a difference in philosophy. You are quite in saying that some high-profile signings have been the catalyst for a climb up the rankings but those guys would be nothing without a strong Academy system and home-grown players around them.

The Saint wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

The Saint wrote:I have a lot of time and admiration for teams who started at the bottom and made it to the top. Ulster, Harlequins and Queensland Reds for example, more teams should be allowed the opportunity to do that and that means a level playing field in Europe (the opposite of what Guscott is saying).

Why don't you include Toulon in that?

I'm not particulary a fan of Saracens or Toulon who had to heavily buy in the players and expertise (though I see Sarries have a strong academy structure so I assume they've invested in that? Smart).

So Ulster haven't "bought in the players" ?

Check the next part of what I said.

True, they strengthened wisely with Botha (who left), Afoa, Muller and Pineaar. But they are quite some way off the two I mentioned for 'buying in players/success.' I've also had this discussion with Ulsters fans before, I'm pretty sure they mentioned how they can put out an IQ 23, and did so in the league last season to great effect. All of the IQ players came from their academy.

So because Toulon's business model is so good, and the fact they can attract far more players of far better quality - you dislike them?

Having said that, Saint, we're still some way off increasing the quality of our Academy to put out whole 23s of home-grown players and win European Cups!

Thats the long-term ambition that Ulster have though, which is a very different philosophy to Toulon imo. We're currently investing a huge amount in our Academy but that will take a long time to bear fruit I think.

Notch wrote:Chunky Norwich-

We have bought in players and expertise from abroad which has made a massive difference, but at the same time we are subject to restrictions from the IRFU that prevent that getting out of hand.

For instance, John Afoa is leaving for Gloucester and as a result of having had him for the past three years we won't be allowed to replace him with a tight head that is not qualified for Ireland.

If Toulon lose a key player like Wilkinson they can go out and buy a new player with no ties to France to replace him (or two players, if Flood joins Halfpenny).

I think the 'worst' Ulster sides that we've put out with regards to Irish eligibility have had about 10 out of 15 players qualified for Ireland and the bench too. We have less non-irish qualified players in our squad than Toulon have in their typical starting XV.

So it's a question of degree, and a difference in philosophy. You are quite in saying that some high-profile signings have been the catalyst for a climb up the rankings but those guys would be nothing without a strong Academy system and home-grown players around them.

That's a nice story, but as private business, Toulon are one of the biggest success stories in world sport. How this gets overlooked is beyond me.

There are issues over the JIFF law and how much they contribute to the national side. But I'll say ti again, their major concern is to perform as well as they can for their shareholders and season ticket holders.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

So because Toulon's business model is so good, and the fact they can attract far more players of far better quality - you dislike them?

Would you mind explaining what this business model is? Because as far as the rest of us can see it's just the owner having an expensive hobby. He isn't going to be rich forever and when he departs I don't see how Toulon will survive. The juggernaut that is Boudjellal's credit card is a blight on rugby.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

The ideals of sport are much closer to socialism than capitalism. As soon as a sport becomes all about money it isnt a sport anymore but a business.

Yeah the last thing you want in sport is competition as a driving force and reward based on merit.   

Whilst top level sport should always be based on competition and reward based on merit the question is what model of competition we want rugby both in home nations and worldwide to follow - do we want a "devil take the hindmost" approach of the Premier League, do we want a model based on US franchised sports with salary caps, equal shares of revenue or follow the Bundesliga route of the clubs effectively being mutuals - with input from supporters, schools, etc.

Chunky Norwich that's a tough one. I don't know the answer to that one.

The regional system is flawed but the Irish have made it effective because they have a compliant union. The Irish union and the Irish "clubs" are joined together.

You could not describe the Welsh regions enjoying the same sort of relationship that the Irish have.

The Welsh have chosen the regional system so must look to make it workable.

The Saint I don't like the comparison between us and Toulon - two completely different clubs with different ways of doing things. The only similarity in my opinion is the wealthy backers. Other than that - not much in common really. Both clubs are at loggerheads when it comes to the European issue too.

I would hardly say Quins have started at the bottom. Exeter would be a more apt description.

I think Notch mentioned it on another thread - a smart CEO/owners make a massive difference.

Mark Evans for example did a magnificent job with Quins - the current CEO of Quins is just making the most of his predecessor's foundations.

If certain clubs were run better I am sure they could be much better.

The Saint wrote:

Would you mind explaining what this business model is? Because as far as the rest of us can see it's just the owner having an expensive hobby.

Toulon have increased their turnover from 9m to 22m since the owner has taken over.

They get 9.2m from sponsors like Volkswagen. 9.2 million is an immense amount of money for a rugby team to get. It's due to good business nous.

They get 5m Euros from the city and regional board. Every team in France gets money this way.

The owner has put in 6.5m Euros in the last 8 years. What's that £600k? a season. Not exactly megabucks.

They have no debt

They break even

So once again, why are people so against this massive success story?

He isn't going to be rich forever and when he departs I don't see how Toulon will survive. The juggernaut that is Boudjellal's credit card is a blight on rugby.

See above. You seem to think that he puts in billions. FWIW, The owner of Cardiff Blues is 3 times richer than the owner of Toulon.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Would you mind explaining what this business model is? Because as far as the rest of us can see it's just the owner having an expensive hobby.

Toulon have increased their turnover from 9m to 22m since the owner has taken over.

They get 9.2m from sponsors like Volkswagen. 9.2 million is an immense amount of money for a rugby team to get. It's due to good business nous.

They get 5m Euros from the city and regional board. Every team in France gets money this way.

The owner has put in 6.5m Euros in the last 8 years. What's that £600k? a season. Not exactly megabucks.

They have no debt

They break even

So once again, why are people so against this massive success story?

He isn't going to be rich forever and when he departs I don't see how Toulon will survive. The juggernaut that is Boudjellal's credit card is a blight on rugby.

See above. You seem to think that he puts in billions. FWIW, The owner of Cardiff Blues is 3 times richer than the owner of Toulon.

Yes, but he is just an arrogant barsteward who only purchased a rugby club to massage his ego in the first place. Look, the story in Wales back in the day was, if you were successful and had a little bit of cash on the hip, then by yourself a rugby club and take all your hangers on there, and for the owners of the regions, that is all very much the same. Have any of you on here seen the film Twin Town filmed in and around Swansea ? If not, watch it, not only is it a riot, but it will show you how a rich man who has bought himself a rugby club and how he is portrayed.

Chunky Norwich

I think people are against it due to the damage Toulon are doing to the French national side.

The lack of Frenchman in the Toulon team. The buying up of talent for themselves when most aren't necessary.

If Toulon were like Toulouse and Clermont in terms of squad make up I don't think they would get as criticised.

beshocked wrote:Chunky Norwich

I think people are against it due to the damage Toulon are doing to the French national side.

The lack of Frenchman in the Toulon team. The buying up of talent for themselves when most aren't necessary.

If Toulon were like Toulouse and Clermont in terms of squad make up I don't think they would get as criticised.

Ah right, It was the "wealthy backers" argument that confused me then.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:Chunky Norwich-

We have bought in players and expertise from abroad which has made a massive difference, but at the same time we are subject to restrictions from the IRFU that prevent that getting out of hand.

For instance, John Afoa is leaving for Gloucester and as a result of having had him for the past three years we won't be allowed to replace him with a tight head that is not qualified for Ireland.

If Toulon lose a key player like Wilkinson they can go out and buy a new player with no ties to France to replace him (or two players, if Flood joins Halfpenny).

I think the 'worst' Ulster sides that we've put out with regards to Irish eligibility have had about 10 out of 15 players qualified for Ireland and the bench too. We have less non-irish qualified players in our squad than Toulon have in their typical starting XV.

So it's a question of degree, and a difference in philosophy. You are quite in saying that some high-profile signings have been the catalyst for a climb up the rankings but those guys would be nothing without a strong Academy system and home-grown players around them.

That's a nice story, but as private business, Toulon are one of the biggest success stories in world sport. How this gets overlooked is beyond me.

There are issues over the JIFF law and how much they contribute to the national side. But I'll say ti again, their major concern is to perform as well as they can for their shareholders and season ticket holders.

It might be a nice story, but true nonetheless. Put any of the three Union owned provinces against one of the 'biggest success stories in world sport', who are equipped with a huge squad, and any one of those Provinces have it in them to knock Toulon out.

Munchkin wrote:

It might be a nice story, but true nonetheless. Put any of the three Union owned provinces against one of the 'biggest success stories in world sport', who are equipped with a huge squad, and any one of those Provinces have it in them to knock Toulon out.

So?

One could say that the provinces have been handed success to them on a plate. By their Union.

Toulon have had to fight to survive, and had some luck in getting a very good President on board, who has provided immense business accumen into the club to enable it to Flourish.

The idea that Toulon are nothing but a sugar daddy plaything club is massively misplaced.

The IRFU is a business too, Chunky. Our success is due to the fact people are willing to pay to follow both the national and provincial teams.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

It might be a nice story, but true nonetheless. Put any of the three Union owned provinces against one of the 'biggest success stories in world sport', who are equipped with a huge squad, and any one of those Provinces have it in them to knock Toulon out.

So?

One could say that the provinces have been handed success to them on a plate. By their Union.

Toulon have had to fight to survive, and had some luck in getting a very good President on board, who has provided immense business accumen into the club to enable it to Flourish.

The idea that Toulon are nothing but a sugar daddy plaything club is massively misplaced.

The four Provinces are branches of the Union....... Three of those Provinces are generating money now on the back of success. That success is a result of very careful planning, good coaching, player development through the academies, excellent signings, and great support.

It just shows the potential for Union owned clubs in comparison to privately owned with huge external investment.

Notch wrote:The IRFU is a business too, Chunky. Our success is due to the fact people are willing to pay to follow both the national and provincial teams.

I don't disagree. (Although I did read somewhere that the IRFU had to borrow 22m euros last year because of a lack of debenture tickets at the Aviva stadium being sold).

It's the lack of appreciation of what Toulon have done business wise that gets my goat.

Munchkin wrote:

The four Provinces are branches of the Union....... Three of those Provinces are generating money now on the back of success. That success is a result of very careful planning, good coaching, player development through the academies, excellent signings, and great support.

It just shows the potential for Union owned clubs in comparison to privately owned with huge external investment.

To be fair, those provinces were always provinces geographically. So you have a ready made fan base. And the coaching..........well the WRU for example does like the welsh regions to employ coaches that gained their coaching badges in Wales.

Give me privately owned any day. Rugby's strength lies in it's independence.

beshocked wrote:

The Saint I don't like the comparison between us and Toulon - two completely different clubs with different ways of doing things. The only similarity in my opinion is the wealthy backers. Other than that - not much in common really. Both clubs are at loggerheads when it comes to the European issue too.

I would hardly say Quins have started at the bottom. Exeter would be a more apt description.

I think Notch mentioned it on another thread - a smart CEO/owners make a massive difference.

Mark Evans for example did a magnificent job with Quins - the current CEO of Quins is just making the most of his predecessor's foundations.

If certain clubs were run better I am sure they could be much better.

I'm sorry if you don't like that but that's how I, and lets face it a lot of England rugby supporters viewed Saracens in the past. I do know that they're a lot more 'ethical' nowadays as they have mostly England players in their starting team, some of which bought from other clubs though. How do you think your academy is doing?

I'm a rugby fan myself, not a capitalist ideologue. I'll judge a team by what I feel they bring to the part of the sport that happens on the field including what they contribute to their national side. I'm quite relaxed with people disagreeing with me   

Anyway, I have been away from this forum for a few months and when I come back, low and behold, Ntch is now a moderator, oh well, keep up the good work Notch.  

LordDowlais wrote:Anyway, I have been away from this forum for a few months and when I come back, low and behold, Ntch is now a moderator, oh well, keep up the good work Notch.  

Thanks, good to have you back. Now move along

Nah, justy kidding   

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

The ideals of sport are much closer to socialism than capitalism. As soon as a sport becomes all about money it isnt a sport anymore but a business.

Yeah the last thing you want in sport is competition as a driving force and reward based on merit.   

There is nothing wrong with competition and reward. There are all kinds of rewards for sporting success, they dont necessarly need to be financial.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

The Saint wrote:

Would you mind explaining what this business model is? Because as far as the rest of us can see it's just the owner having an expensive hobby.

Toulon have increased their turnover from 9m to 22m since the owner has taken over.

They get 9.2m from sponsors like Volkswagen. 9.2 million is an immense amount of money for a rugby team to get. It's due to good business nous.

They get 5m Euros from the city and regional board. Every team in France gets money this way.

The owner has put in 6.5m Euros in the last 8 years. What's that £600k? a season. Not exactly megabucks.

They have no debt

They break even

So once again, why are people so against this massive success story?

He isn't going to be rich forever and when he departs I don't see how Toulon will survive. The juggernaut that is Boudjellal's credit card is a blight on rugby.

See above. You seem to think that he puts in billions. FWIW, The owner of Cardiff Blues is 3 times richer than the owner of Toulon.

No doubt that financial wise, Toulon are doing particulary well. I'm not saying Boud puts in billions but I have read that the majority of players wages were from his own pocket (which was apparently a claim he made). Also, he must have put in a lot at the start just when they were getting promoted. It's no surprise the wealthy sponsors have come in now that he has brought in all of those players, and continues to do so.

Peter Thomas is richer? News to me. Cardiff RFC or the Blues don't see any of it.... So I don't think a comparison can be drawn. Ulster, Quins and Reds never had millions and they've worked their way to the top. That's rugby.