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

First topic message reminder :

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?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

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.

Yes, of course the Provinces have an advantage over the regions when considering the history of the Provinces. The WRU created a flawed model in the regions, but that is not to say that regions wouldn't work in Wales. I believe they would, but only as a result of intensive research into how they can work. A geohistorical foundation for each, myths, ancient rivalries, public perception, the mind of present rugby fans, and great PR. The business model in Wales hasn't worked, and I'm not convinced it can work. The sad thing is that Wales has fantastic potential, and regions should really be up there with the best in terms of European competition.

We already have a European elite - they are called the R12, T14 & AP12 who are all, to varying degrees, virtually ringfenced by different means.

There is far more Rugby played elsewhere that doesn't get a look in.

At elite level if you are financially second to the team down the road or over the water,  that simply means you have not generated enough interest. Sport is not going to change economics or demography and if you don't like it then fair enough but it won't change. Anything else is artificial or already generates enough wealth to make any differences non material.

And Exeter do well on minimal bucks.
Reading Irish may be getting some backing and bucks from a consortium of Irish businessmen...seeing as how the banking / construction crisis appears over    in Ireland.

Ideologue's of whatever persuasion have such closed minds and are so wilfully blind to reality that they make me chuckle. How could anyone with any sense think that unrestrained capitalism is always right or indeed always wrong? Same with the people who think top down centralized control is always right/wrong. Are ye simple or what?

Even in the amateur era there were elite clubs and I don't recall too many complaints about that their existence then. Why would anyone want or expect the professional era to suddenly produce leagues comprised of teams with roughly equal ability?

Rugby Fan wrote:Even in the amateur era there were elite clubs and I don't recall too many complaints about that their existence then. Why would anyone want or expect the professional era to suddenly produce leagues comprised of teams with roughly equal ability?

Surely that's the objective of PRL for the AP? No? Maybe not so much for European competition...
Nothing wrong with elite teams, but also nothing wrong in wanting more teams reaching that standard. Raises standards, increases competition, increases revenue.

Munchkin wrote:Surely that's the objective of PRL? No? Nothing wrong with elite teams, but also nothing wrong in wanting more teams reaching that standard. Raises standards, increases competition, increases revenue.

Not really. The agreement underlying the PRL isn't aiming at a league of complete equals. It's to ensure that teams have financially viable opponents, which is a different goal.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Surely that's the objective of PRL? No? Nothing wrong with elite teams, but also nothing wrong in wanting more teams reaching that standard. Raises standards, increases competition, increases revenue.

Not really. The agreement underlying the PRL isn't aiming at a league of complete equals. It's to ensure that teams have financially viable opponents, which is a different goal.

Complete equality is unachievable. Putting sides on a similar financial footing is the best that can be hoped for.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Surely that's the objective of PRL? No? Nothing wrong with elite teams, but also nothing wrong in wanting more teams reaching that standard. Raises standards, increases competition, increases revenue.

Not really. The agreement underlying the PRL isn't aiming at a league of complete equals. It's to ensure that teams have financially viable opponents, which is a different goal.

Financially viable? You mean an equal share of revenue? Thought McCafferty's view was that money brings success - Rabo at an unfair advantage in Europe as it receives 52% of the pot... An equal share of the revenue could then be seen as an equal opportunity for AP teams to compete for the top in that league.

Munchkin wrote:...Financially viable? You mean an equal share of revenue?..

It takes many forms - a salary cap agreement, a joint deal with the RFU on player release, an attempt to ensure any promoted clubs have the facilities to host Premiership matches etc. Not all of them work but they aren't just lip service agreements.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Financially viable? You mean an equal share of revenue?..

It takes many forms - a salary cap agreement, a joint deal with the RFU on player release, an attempt to ensure any promoted clubs have the facilities to host Premiership matches etc. Not all of them work but they aren't just lip service agreements.

Yes, although that, more or less, agrees with my point. I know there are problems for sides being promoted into AP, but I wouldn't say the measures you talk about are purely lip service. I like the idea of sharing the revenue across all 12 teams.

Sport is about money these days, since professionalism took over the writing was on the wall that you would have the haves and have nots.

It is a simple fact of life that the best players will get the most money.

There is however a fundamental difference in Club rugby vs test rugby.

In club rugby it doesn't matter from which nation you hail, if a club can afford to pay you what you want, you will move there.

However what must not be ignored is that the very best players are but 1 or 2 percent better than the rest and rugby remains a team sport.

So even if the best 23 players in the world are contracted to one club they still need the best coach, the best plans and execute all of them as a team.

That means every team can lose, but similar to international rugby each team depending all these factors have a limit as to how well they can perform, but they also have their off days.

The reason why people often support the underdog is because if the underdog's best is good enough to beat the top dog on an average day they can win.

That makes sport intriguing, because nothing is affair guaranteed.

Test rugby conversely has a better balance in that you can't buy all the best talent in the world, even if you are prone to poaching you still have to develop the majority of your players, hence you cannot "buy" the best team, even if you wish to.

That is why test rugby for me is still the best sporting events to enjoiy.

There is still a resemblance of "us vs them" whereas club rugby is purely about the richest teams win the trophies most often.

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.

but the Toulon fans, sponsors, players and town area all happily voting with their feet. and unfortunately you everyone else, they are the only ones that matter.

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Even in the amateur era there were elite clubs and I don't recall too many complaints about that their existence then. Why would anyone want or expect the professional era to suddenly produce leagues comprised of teams with roughly equal ability?

Surely that's the objective of PRL for the AP? No? Maybe not so much for European competition...
Nothing wrong with elite teams, but also nothing wrong in wanting more teams reaching that standard. Raises standards, increases competition, increases revenue.

no. the objective of PRL for AP clubs is to put rules and agreements into place that will make the most commercial sense for all the clubs in the AP - salary caps, losing bonus points, renegotiating TV deals, etc, etc. Teams with greater support all almost always likely to have more success, and not just for financial reasons - influencing referee at home games, attractiveness to players, likelihood of academy success for example.

doddieman wrote:
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?

Rugby doesn't have to become soccer. In fact the introductions of wage caps etc show that there is a large fraternity that wish it would not.

The other argument is that rugby can not afford to be run like soccer. There is not enough money in the game and it is about time that measures were made to stop the ridiculous inflation of the cost of the game now before it gets completely out of control and clubs start to regularly declare bankruptcy.

Ten years ago there were several clubs in all leagues in Europe that were making profits at the end of each season.

That number has shrunk to one or two clubs in each league.

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Even in the amateur era there were elite clubs and I don't recall too many complaints about that their existence then. Why would anyone want or expect the professional era to suddenly produce leagues comprised of teams with roughly equal ability?

Surely that's the objective of PRL for the AP? No? Maybe not so much for European competition...
Nothing wrong with elite teams, but also nothing wrong in wanting more teams reaching that standard. Raises standards, increases competition, increases revenue.

no. the objective of PRL for AP clubs is to put rules and agreements into place that will make the most commercial sense for all the clubs in the AP - salary caps, losing bonus points, renegotiating TV deals, etc, etc. Teams with greater support all almost always likely to have more success, and not just for financial reasons - influencing referee at home games, attractiveness to players, likelihood of academy success for example.

Agree with most of what you wrote here.  The league business rules are absolutely there to ensure financial viability of the member clubs and league.  Secondary - but contributory to the financial viability - is competitive balance.  Competitive balance delivers more interesting matches and more teams with an opportunity to win, which brings in more fans, more revenue, and higher tv ratings.  However it is about opportunity, not guarantees.  

There is no replacement for a great organisation, which is outside the salary cap.  Clubs with more drawing power have more ability to spend to improve infrastructure or bring in better management talent.  Coaches, talent scouts, med staff, locker rooms, training facilities, better stadia, and more fall under this umbrella.  These are very attractive to players and could easily lead players to sign for less money knowing they are in well run organisations.  My Saints are a good example:  They had previously been poorly run despite their financial advantages and were relegated for it.  Now the team is competitive every year and the vastly rebuilt organisation is the primary reason (along with Stevie Myler!!!!!).  And they remain profitable.

1. Toulon is a horrible bussiness model. I would rather have a company having turnover of 1k and profit of €1 each year than a company with 1b turnover making 1m loss.  Till toulon make money it is a bad business model.  Ask certain French and English and Rabo regions who couldn't sustain yearly losses.
Also for the money invested their cups won is poor.

2. The welsh region are privately owned businesses who get funds from the WRU just like the french do from local goverment.  Their failure has been raising money.  They welsh teams have local businesses on their shirt but connacht have Mazda, an internationally recognized company.
The regions have failed not because of identity but failure on the pitch just like the failed clubs/regions that have fallen since professionalism.  You rarely hear of teams doing well on the pitch failing

3. Elite teams are the ones who always do well.  Look at munster they have filled lots of stadia by themselves bring in large wealth allowing them to maintain it.

So ownership has nothing to do with it.  Remember Connacht almost got the chop because they weren't performing. Since then they have built up an academy whose u18s own the interpros for the first time ever.  Ulster's return to sucess followed them sorting out their business side and now they will have an 18k stadium they will fill for the big games (8+) each year

quinsforever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Even in the amateur era there were elite clubs and I don't recall too many complaints about that their existence then. Why would anyone want or expect the professional era to suddenly produce leagues comprised of teams with roughly equal ability?

Surely that's the objective of PRL for the AP? No? Maybe not so much for European competition...
Nothing wrong with elite teams, but also nothing wrong in wanting more teams reaching that standard. Raises standards, increases competition, increases revenue.

no. the objective of PRL for AP clubs is to put rules and agreements into place that will make the most commercial sense for all the clubs in the AP - salary caps, losing bonus points, renegotiating TV deals, etc, etc. Teams with greater support all almost always likely to have more success, and not just for financial reasons - influencing referee at home games, attractiveness to players, likelihood of academy success for example.

quins, I was obviously talking about the AP league, as is. I wasn't talking about the attempted PRL power grab dressed up 'good commercial sense', or 'for the good of the game', or anything else.

Brendan,I think you will find that Toulon make a profit

bb, dont argue facts or numbers w brendan. fruitless exercise.

I dislike Toulon because they play crap rugby*. And because they're Leinsters next HC opponents I've been angrying up the blood by setting "pilou pilou" as my morning alarm, hanging pictures of Bakkies Botha up and staring at them while I'm doing the ironing etc.

I'm conditioning myself into a Toulon hating machine. Don't blame me, blame Pavlov.

*One hiding dished out to Glasgow does not a good team make

I think auld Bakkies might be more intimidated if you weren't doing the ironing whilst eye-balling him Mick.....

broadlandboy wrote:Brendan,I think you will find that  Toulon make a profit

Does anyone have a source for the French profit+loss by club - woudl be interesting to read.

whocares (the poster) is where I heard. You could try PMing him to find out where he got it from.

Will do thanks