The Real World

Today,we live in the world of money and one has to face those realities
from 3 viewpoints,the players,clubs/provinces/franchises/national sides.
From the players point of view he has a finite life of say 10-15 years
as a player.Then he needs a new life as Coach,pundit or whatever if
he`s good enough he will be in demand to the highest bidder.He will
go Union,League,even Boxing or whatever.Have an agent to maximise
his profile contracts to be broken at will,as long as the IRB allows it.
For the club its about silverware,tv rights,advertising the player doesn't
count he`s an asset or a lump of meat.He`s just another cog in the
machine.
Money means more games for players,bigger squads,or mercenaries
IRB regulations over Club or Country first bent or ignored.
Players end up tired or burnt out over ever lengthening seasons.
The Universal Season has been discussed and even tentavily
agreed on by a IRB working party then shelved for some reasons
unknown to me.
The recent farce of tired/weakened/squads touring SH with varying
results was known by the IRB and ignored a year ago.
England,SA,Wales blamed tiredness for uneven results and weakened
teams.France the Top14 where there top side has 2 out of 15 for
there starting lineups.
Clubs as the employers insist on Club before Country only 2 countries
insist on only home based players being selected[England are now doing so]
Only one Country[to the best of my knowledge]has centrally contracted
players at Province/Super/National level[NZ]
Super Rugby the main base of Nz/Aus selections has virtually no non-qualified
players in them [with one Aus franchise excepted].
Only SA use overseas based players which at 3/4 Ns level explains in my
opinion.There relative lack of results by there high former standards in
these comps.
The idea to me there is only one Prize once every 4 years is more important
than a 4/6 Ns title any year or a Test Match ANY Test match as unimportant
disgusts me.
As long as the Club first attitude mentality continues the Nh will never consistently
succeed vesus the SH sides.

emack2 wrote:As long as the Club first attitude mentality continues the Nh will never consistently
succeed vesus the SH sides.

You don't mean southern hemisphere sides, you mean South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Argentina, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga all rely heavily on players contracted to professional clubs, regions and provinces.

Those four teams generally also perform better at World Cups, which is as close as our sport ever gets to having teams competing on a level playing field (Only in the sense that all teams aim to peak for the tournament from a long way out. Not in terms of seeding, match scheduling etc).

It's also notable that the two sides with the most prominent club cultures, France and England, fare reasonably well at the tournament, between them making all but one of the finals. France has a better record against New Zealand at World Cups than outside, and the same is true for England against Australia.

Japan is probably the only union with a predominantly club culture which underperforms at World Cups compared with results outside the tournament

emack2 wrote:Clubs as the employers insist on Club before Country

If that was true, then the Premiership clubs would have no agreement with the RFU to allow player release outside the international window.

emack2 wrote:Today,we live in the world of money and one has to face those realities from 3 viewpoints, the players,clubs/provinces/franchises/national sides. From the players point of view he has a finite life of say 10-15 years as a player. Then he needs a new life as Coach,pundit or whatever if he`s good enough he will be in demand to the highest bidder. He will go Union, League, even Boxing or whatever. Have an agent to maximise his profile contracts to be broken at will,as long as the IRB allows it.

For the club its about silverware, tv rights,advertising the player doesn't count he`s an asset or a lump of meat. He`s just another cog in the machine. Money means more games for players,bigger squads, or mercenaries IRB regulations over Club or Country first bent or ignored. Players end up tired or burnt out over ever lengthening seasons.

The Universal Season has been discussed and even tentatively agreed on by a IRB working party then shelved for some reasons unknown to me. The recent farce of tired/weakened/squads touring SH with varying results was known by the IRB and ignored a year ago. England, SA, Wales blamed tiredness for uneven results and weakened teams. France the Top14 where their top side has 2 out of 15 for their starting lineups. Clubs as the employers insist on Club  before Country only 2 countries insist on only home based players being selected[England are now doing so].

Only one Country[to the best of my knowledge]has centrally contracted players at Province/Super/National level[NZ]. Super Rugby the main base of Nz/Aus selections has virtually no non-qualified players in them [with one Aus franchise excepted]. Only SA use overseas based players which at 3/4 Ns level explains in my opinion. Their relative lack of results by there high former standards in these comps.

The idea to me that there is only one Prize once every 4 years and it s more important than a 4/6 Ns title any year or a Test Match ANY Test match as unimportant disgusts me. As long as the Club first attitude mentality continues the NH will never consistently succeed versus the SH sides.

Reformatted it for you Allan. Interesting ideas. I think there's an element of truth here. We've seen England modify the rules controlling their club structure and France will start this this year to try and deal with some of the issues. Interesting to note it's not unique to rugby, but there are similar issues in football and basketball.

Rugby Fan wrote:

emack2 wrote:As long as the Club first attitude mentality continues the Nh will never consistently
succeed vesus the SH sides.

You don't mean southern hemisphere sides, you mean South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Argentina, Samoa, Fiji and Tonga all rely heavily on players contracted to professional clubs, regions and provinces.

Those four teams generally also perform better at World Cups, which is as close as our sport ever gets to having teams competing on a level playing field (Only in the sense that all teams aim to peak for the tournament from a long way out. Not in terms of seeding, match scheduling etc).

It's also notable that the two sides with the most prominent club cultures, France and England, fare reasonably well at the tournament, between them making all but one of the finals. France has a better record against New Zealand at World Cups than outside, and the same is true for England against Australia.

Japan is probably the only union with a predominantly club culture which underperforms at World Cups compared with results outside the tournament

emack2 wrote:Clubs as the employers insist on Club before Country

If that was true, then the Premiership clubs would have no agreement with the RFU to allow player release outside the international window.

I'd argue England and France haven't performed better at world cups if anything. I'd say best comparison is with the November tours. Most the worlds cups end up with the knock out stages during October, with the final in November.

Frances record against SANZAR countries in November tours (1987-) = 37% (13 wins from 35 games)
Their record at world cups against SANZAR countries = 33% (3 wins from 9 games)

England's wins against SANZAR countries in November tours (1987-) = 46% (17 wins from 37 games)
Their record at world cups = 33% (4 wins from 12 games)

It's obviously hard to make a direct comparison. Obviously many of the world cup games are away from home, the SANZAR countries often have stronger squads at world cups and the 1987 and 1995 world cups were mid year. Having said that it's probably the fairest comparison we can make.

blackcanelion wrote:...I'd argue England and France haven't performed better at world cups if anything. I'd say best comparison is with the November tours. Most the worlds cups end up with the knock out stages during October, with the final in November...

I don't think the November tour results really make for a better comparison. You've already identified some of the difficulties, but I'd also suggest the timing in the year is a bit of a red herring since the sides are all prepared very differently for a World Cup compared with those friendlies. The host sides also have no limit on their squad sizes, so you aren't comparing like with like. There's another difficulty in singling out November results as if they are a mini tournament because all fixtures take place regardless of results. A loss in the knockout rounds of the Cup means you don't get another bite at the cherry with different personnel or different tactics.

emack2 wrote:
As long as the Club first attitude mentality continues the Nh will never consistently
succeed vesus the SH sides.

I will always be a club first person, and I make no apologies for that.

From and England perspective we have never been consistent against the SANZAR sides. Assumimg that we take the advent of professionalism as the point that club v country became an issue in English rugby overall results against SANZAR teams are

South Africa 1906-1995 - played 11. Won 4 Lost 6 Draw 1
NZ 1905-1995 - played 18. Won 4 Lost 14
Australia 1909-1995 - played 19. Won 7 Lost 12

South Africa 1995-present played 23 won 8 lost 14 draw1
NZ 1995-present played 21 won 3 lost 17 draw 1
Australia 1995-present played 23 won 10 lost 12 draw 1

LondonTiger wrote:

emack2 wrote:
As long as the Club first attitude mentality continues the Nh will never consistently
succeed vesus the SH sides.

I will always be a club first person, and I make no apologies for that.

And you shouldn't have to.  There are a lot of people who agree!  Also, from my highly unscientific sampling, just about as many who prefer the International game over club.  

I tend to look at a lot of things this way, but it is clear the structures in each country are different and, in fact, serve different purposes.  It appears that in NZ and Ireland, for example, the governing boduies are in control of most of the Rugby and serve as a funnel to channel the best players to the top level.  This is where most of the money is made, which in turn funds the governing body and also funds the funnel.  The Polar opposites, amongst the big Rugby nations, would appear to be France and England.  The clubs at all levels are businesses in their own right and have a proper P&L they have to satisfy, the same as any business.  They have their own funnel to fund to being players through to club level.  The FFR and RFU function differently in that they run the top level and have governance responsibilities for the sport within their domains.  They have business relationships with the pro clubs to help identify and groom players for the top level and also work with the lower level clubs.  I suppose in many ways this goes back to the different business model discussion.  The question is how do each impact the good of the game.  

Clearly, each are different.  The club game in England and France have a played a very important role in growing Rubgy in their countries.  No one, or certainly no one rational, is going to try and come in and change the basic mission of the clubs to now be the funnel.   So with different business models, different structures, how can we possibly rationalise the Rugby calendar and make things more equtable?

Right now the players play too much Rugby.  Too many club matches and too many Internationals.  I have heard from some players that the Internationals feel like a full season unto themselves.  In the countries comprising the 6 Nations, our players are jerked around from club to country to a point it could make people dizzy.  Playing 10 -14 Internationals a year IS a season.  And that on top of the club matches.  Players cannot possibly summon the mental and physical energy to stay on this treadmill forever.   No matter how much they are paid.  Pride in jersey cannot override mental and physical fatigue year after year.  The June and November Internationals are mostly sub-standard because of the treadmill.  This is sad, but true:  The June/November International exist to make money for the National Unions as well as adverts for our sport.  

To me like everything else the club v. country debate and the impact of Professionalism discussion actually has a business discussion as one of its cornerstones.  I cannot foresee a resolution to our never-ending season and the drain on players bodies and sub-standard Rugby until we resolve the basic business issues in the sport.  Once that is done, methinks, all else is possible.  If not, then we must awknowledge the realities and get on with making adjustments around the edges which will hopefully be enough to make a difference.  Which I doubt.

I for one sturggle to support any club/province these days purely because the professional era has brought about mercenaries, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy wathching it, but in SA as an example the bulls, Stormers and Sharks simply buy what they want, so I cannot identify with their teams.

The poorer teams buy the rest.

It is only the Boks that I can still identify with.

Great discussion. Good points doctor. I'd add:

1: the English and French leagues are too congested to make a solution possible. The number of games in these leagues is too great for a collision based sport. Along with the international game they need to look at their format. Money correlates to tv rather than volume.

2: the 6 nations needs to move. It's a handicap going forward.

3: the French league needs to, and is, ensure local talent plays. This will ensure the French team is competitive.

4: the irb should ensure that player releases are uniform. No releases based on negotiating with individual national bodies.

5: eligibility needs to be tightened.

Biltong wrote:I for one sturggle to support any club/province these days purely because the professional era has brought about mercenaries, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy wathching it, but in SA as an example the bulls, Stormers and Sharks simply buy what they want, so I cannot identify with their teams.

The poorer teams buy the rest.

It is only the Boks that I can still identify with.

I'm with you. Crusaders and highlanders are the same down here.

Agree to the point where whether it be club or country both are trying to make a buck Doc. And as long as those goals remain self serving, and to the detriment of player welfare and properly structured management of the players ability to perform at maximum rather than excessive levels, the problem will continue.

The gripe I have is when some establishment decides they want to become a global leech riding off the back of those internationals sides that have invested in and nurtured the player to the level they are at, only to suck the life out of them as they become 'commodities'

I'm suggesting is it just shouldnt be that easy. In a business sense its almost comparable to a brand. Hey look, theres this company over theres selling burgers really well, so they open up their own McDonalds and sell them as well, except nothing goes back to the original as they do under the franchising concept. The Boks are certainly suffering from that more than we or Oz are.

There are enough corrupt countries with tenuous links to rugby that are crying out for money laundering schemes. We must embrace this. Russia is on the doorstep of the European clubs and China is close enough to NZ and Australia. SA can tap into the African despots and Argentina have South American and Mexican drug money on their doorstep. These can replace the June and November internationals under the guise of growing the international game by inviting tier-two countries to regional tournaments so everyone can fill their coffers and play some rugby at the same time.

Then we must systematically undermine the club game in France by imposing salary caps where a minimum of 5 million euros for every player must be set. France is excluded from the new June / November internationals thus making their club structure unsustainable and within two years they will bankrupt themselves. That's where the rest of the rugby world throws them a lifeline to the Russia internationals on the condition that their club rugby is reduced to a mixed gender U15 all day-event in Biarritz on February 15.

With these realistic measures put into practice, the natural order will return to rugby and within 5 years the IRS can vow to abolish these mafia matches and we can go back to how things used to be. Call me mad. Call me a visionary. But just rucking do what I say...

Rugby Fan wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:...I'd argue England and France haven't performed better at world cups if anything. I'd say best comparison is with the November tours. Most the worlds cups end up with the knock out stages during October, with the final in November...

I don't think the November tour results really make for a better comparison. You've already identified some of the difficulties, but I'd also suggest the timing in the year is a bit of a red herring since the sides are all prepared very differently for a World Cup compared with those friendlies. The host sides also have no limit on their squad sizes, so you aren't comparing like with like. There's another difficulty in singling out November results as if they are a mini tournament because all fixtures take place regardless of results. A loss in the knockout rounds of the Cup means you don't get another bite at the cherry with different personnel or different tactics.

My point was I don't think france or England have necessarily done better at world cups. Your original point was they perform better at world cups. There are three periods when the top sides meet: world cups, June and November. Given all the variables I'd expect England and France to perform better at world cups. My expectation would also be that November results would be better than June. That's because the World Cup is when they have their maximum advantage over their SH rivals. This doesn't appear to be the case. It looks like: 1: November, 2 World Cup, 3 June.

"SA can tap into Africa"

No mate, there is no money in Africa and hence little talent compared to the rest of the world

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:There are enough corrupt countries with tenuous links to rugby that are crying out for money laundering schemes. We must embrace this. Russia is on the doorstep of the European clubs and China is close enough to NZ and Australia. SA can tap into the African despots and Argentina have South American and Mexican drug money on their doorstep. These can replace the June and November internationals under the guise of growing the international game by inviting tier-two countries to regional tournaments so everyone can fill their coffers and play some rugby at the same time.

Then we must systematically undermine the club game in France by imposing salary caps where a minimum of 5 million euros for every player must be set. France is excluded from the new June / November internationals thus making their club structure unsustainable and within two years they will bankrupt themselves. That's where the rest of the rugby world throws them a lifeline to the Russia internationals on the condition that their club rugby is reduced to a mixed gender U15 all day-event in Biarritz on February 15.

With these realistic measures put into practice, the natural order will return to rugby and within 5 years the IRS can vow to abolish these mafia matches and we can go back to how things used to be. Call me mad. Call me a visionary. But just rucking do what I say...

I like it.

Sadly there is money in Africa but just not in the hands of the African people or at least those wanting to work in the interests of the people.

In a way, it's a problem of the gam today. Those with money want to make more money for themselves to the detriment of everybody else and those without money are marginalized even more. That is the so-called free market but what it really is the rich get richer and look for even more profit market and you can't reason with these people and implore them to do the right thing because the right thing for them is making more and more money.

When you talk of RWCs it isn`t applicable because it is the only time full strength
squads are available[bar injuries].
When talking of SH sides it was specifically Aus and NZ,Sa pick NH based players
so the Club/Country thing applies.
We agree that things differ from Country to Country and Tier 2 sides seldom
have there strongest sides except at RWC time.
Also that player workload is to high and the richer clubs either have bigger squads
or more mercenaries to cover Test calls.
Why need there be a window or whatever.why not simply postpone the Club matches
for a month as the SH do or start tournaments earlier.
Since when has the June tests or AI`s been friendlies,its only in the NH the y don`t
matter.UNTIL they win then its all you hear for the next 10years then the SH take the
flak.
France used to have the best club academies in Europe now they buy the ready made
product.BUT look at there International results since 2011.

I don't recall anyone here calling the June/November Internationals as 'Friendlies'. They are certainly not that. But they do frequently feature second tier or simply knackered players. The matches are what they are: matches between teams. I do agree the RWC matches are somewhat different and probably a better indicator of the quality of teams simply because players are handled differently going into the RWC matches than all other Internationals.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:There are enough corrupt countries with tenuous links to rugby that are crying out for money laundering schemes. We must embrace this. Russia is on the doorstep of the European clubs and China is close enough to NZ and Australia. SA can tap into the African despots and Argentina have South American and Mexican drug money on their doorstep. These can replace the June and November internationals under the guise of growing the international game by inviting tier-two countries to regional tournaments so everyone can fill their coffers and play some rugby at the same time.

Then we must systematically undermine the club game in France by imposing salary caps where a minimum of 5 million euros for every player must be set. France is excluded from the new June / November internationals thus making their club structure unsustainable and within two years they will bankrupt themselves. That's where the rest of the rugby world throws them a lifeline to the Russia internationals on the condition that their club rugby is reduced to a mixed gender U15 all day-event in Biarritz on February 15.

With these realistic measures put into practice, the natural order will return to rugby and within 5 years the IRS can vow to abolish these mafia matches and we can go back to how things used to be. Call me mad. Call me a visionary. But just rucking do what I say...

We already have Murdoch's companies involved.   Not the same thing?????????

  He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake,
He knows if you've been bad or good,
He's jacked your phone for goodness sake. 

 

I wrote this article mainly because of an article on the BBC website when it was stated that
never again should England be put in the position they were.
Since the IRB was aware of the problem last year BUT many people including Eddie Butler
consider the june/nov tests as friendlies.
Why could`nt either the tests by postponed till july as was offered at least by Nz or
club window be suspended for a month like the Super series is every year?

I've recently commented on other threads that for England to now be able to compete on a level international playing field, they will need to completely renegotiate the club/country agreement when it comes up for renewal in 2016. My suggestion is for an Elite playing squad of 23 players to play no more than say 15 club games a season. Obviously this will require the rfu paying the clubs handsomely for the privilege.

However I doubt anything of the sort will happen and we'll be stuck pretty much with the status quo. Therefore ultimately I think nothing will really change until the players themselves take the lead and demand on mass better terms. This would of course require a strike, but is something I can readily foresee here in the north, in next decade.

Does the RFU or FFR clip the ticket of their respective club competitions? Do they have any say in how the competitions are structured and run? If they do on both counts it's hard to feel any sympathy. If the unions don't have any control, then I do have some sympathy.

Also, whoever claims there is such a thing as 'friendlies' in rugby is making excuses for their team losing.

doctor_grey wrote:I don't recall anyone here calling the June/November Internationals as 'Friendlies'.

Actually, I did, but it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

I often end up watching the November Tests in a bar with Americans. They are more up to speed with football than rugby, so when I explain that the matches don't form part of a tournament, they'll often say "So, these are just friendlies, then", causing me to splutter in my beer.

Rugby does have a bit of a chip on its shoulder about the status of non-tournament matches, conjuring up a host of new bilateral trophies for sponsors to hand over to the winning captain. I never think about who holds the Cook Cup, I just think about whether England managed to beat Australia.

There is, of course, always something else at stake other than bragging rights. These matches earn and lose IRB ranking points which determine World Cup seedings. We can see from next year's group of death how important that can be.

Taylorman wrote:Agree to the point where whether it be club or country both are trying to make a buck Doc. And as long as those goals remain self serving, and to the detriment of player welfare and properly structured management of the players ability to perform at maximum rather than excessive levels, the problem will continue.

The gripe I have is when some establishment decides they want to become a global leech riding off the back of those internationals sides that have invested in and nurtured the player to the level they are at, only to suck the life out of them as they become 'commodities'

I'm suggesting is it just shouldnt be that easy. In a business sense its almost comparable to a brand. Hey look, theres this company over theres selling burgers really well, so they open up their own McDonalds and sell them as well, except nothing goes back to the original as they do under the franchising concept. The Boks are certainly suffering from that more than we or Oz are.

Taylor, taking your first thought, which I changed to bold, clearly there are some in Rugby trying to squeeze blood from the proverbial stone.  But most clubs, in England at any rate, struggle to break even.  Most national Unions also struggle, just look at the ARU.  The NZRU takes on AIG to pump up the coffers, and has had a partnership with Adidas for a long time.  The RFU has had a partnership with O2 for many, many years, and has changed their kit manufacturer/partner recently.  My point is this is the lousy part of the problem:  The sport needs the money the additional matches bring in, but this is reducing the quality of the matches and kills our boys.    Chooe the cliche we should use:  Catch-22 or Hobson's Choice.  

To me this is why we need a truly global solution.  I believe, naively perhaps, there is sufficient interest in our sport to enable it to grow without resorting to the expedient of more matches.  To make my fantasy come to fruition, we need a global season, salary structure (not global salary cap), transfer rules, realistic eligibility requirements, iron clad limits on matches played, and much more.  And, of course, the right person to lead this initiative.  In the end, Rugby would be the winner.

vote Doc for positive global change!

doctor_grey wrote:

To me this is why we need a truly global solution.  I believe, naively perhaps, there is sufficient interest in our sport to enable it to grow without resorting to the expedient of more matches.  To make my fantasy come to fruition, we need a global season, salary structure (not global salary cap), transfer rules, realistic eligibility requirements, iron clad limits on matches played, and much more.  And, of course, the right person to lead this initiative.  In the end, Rugby would be the winner.

My preferences would be for either David Moffett, Bernie Ecclestone or Sepp Blatter. Three lovely organisational gents and geniuses. So what if they make a few billion for themselves along the way - genius don't come cheap.

The number of international games has pretty much doubled since the 90s. Countries are playing more matches than there are months in the year. That's too many and they're losing their special quality.

Club rugby is the sport's lifeblood, it is what gave birth to the game, internationals came later and infrequently. For those truly invested in the game, playing for, coaching or supporting your different levels of local clubs is the day-to-day sustenance that drives the sport. For the majority of those seriously involved in the sport, club rugby is also their livelihood.

There seems to be a sweet spot in the number of club games to allow them to be sustainable and fully benefit their local community. To cut the number of club games would be to reduce their revenue (few make any hint of a profit) and therefore more importantly the income of the players and/or their number. Personally I think the vast majority of players deserve every penny they get for what can be a brutally short career with long-term medical consequences. I'd hate for the sport to once again only be viable as a dedicated path for a reduced number and those that can find other suitable work or financial assistance.

I'm very much in favour of the introduction of a universal season and reduced number of matches, but the bulk of that should come from the international scene with a max of two international windows. Reorganisation of the professional game has to be for the benefit of the majority of professionals.

It appears that a consensus on a universal season is on the cards if the players agree but
not until 2019.
Toulon boss has rubbished Saint Andre`s claim that to many mercanaries is ruining French
Rugby at test level.
Then goes on to say that for him to bring a player through the Clubs academy costs twice
as much as buying the complete article.
Equating a human being to a tin of beans and has effectively to my mind proved Saiant
Andres point.
It has also been suggested that windows disappear and ALL players must be released for
international duty.
The obvious solution is to reduce the number of games played and at some point it will
happen.
I presume I`m being naïve in assuming that all squad members in teams are on the same
money.

Boudjellal is a colossal c0ck and the number of foreigners in the French game may well end up being a big problem for the French national team if the new rules they're bringing in don't correct it, but at present it's Saint-Andre that is ruining the French test side and searching round for others to blame for his incompetence.

It's a mystery how anyone with even a vague grasp of rugby could do so badly with the following players available to them:

Szarzewski
Guirado
Domingo
Ducalcon
Forestier
Barcella
Mas
Maestri
Pape
Dusautoir
Nyanga
Ouedraogo
Lapandry
Chouly
Picamoles
Galan
Parra
Machenaud
Dupuy
Trinh-Duc
Plisson
Fofana
Fickou
Bastareaud
Fall
Malzieu
Thomas
Huget
Medard
Dulin