Pro 12 sponsor

First topic message reminder :

Does anyone have the latest with what's going on with the Pro 12?

Quite concerning it is July and still no word on it - who is doing the negotiating?

If this is being discussed somewhere else let me know!

Be nice to get this wrapped up and also maybe get some fixtures out. Might have the luxury of planning a trip in the near future then.

Agreed Rev, my only issue is that over the past few years the fixtures have always been almost identical. We always open with Edinburgh/Connacht/Leinster and play the Scarlets twice at the end of the season.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Nematode wrote:Re knickname, I just call it Rabo rugby. Guess that'll have to change...

Would some of the mid-east airlines (Etihad, Emirates, Qatar) be interested saying it's 5 countries?

Aye, that's where Jeff came from. The change to Aviva and people were used to GP, so it was renamed from a poster's kid's hamster.

Good news though.

Wasn't it a guinea pig?   

Risca Rev wrote:Be nice to get this wrapped up and also maybe get some fixtures out. Might have the luxury of planning a trip in the near future then.

I wouldn't hold your breath. You'll need to book the whole weekend off, as we'll no doubt have absolutely no idea if it will take place on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

Unless you're an Ulster fan, in which case, it will be a Friday for home games.

We might even get some nice Thursday 6.30pm games too. We are so lucky to have this amazing league we really are.

Imagine being in the horrible Poopie Aviva where every single game up until May 2015 has a date, a precise day, a precise time of kick off and a tv broadcast channel sorted out and publicly announced already.

Yuck!

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:Be nice to get this wrapped up and also maybe get some fixtures out. Might have the luxury of planning a trip in the near future then.

I wouldn't hold your breath. You'll need to book the whole weekend off, as we'll no doubt have absolutely idea if it will take place on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

Unless you're an Ulster fan, in which case, it will be a Friday for home games.

We might even get some nice Thursday 6.30pm games too. We are so lucky to have this amazing league we really are.

Imagine being in the horrible Poopie Aviva where every single game up until May 2015 has a date, a precise day, a precise time of kick off and a tv broadcast channel sorted out and publicly announced already.

Yuck!

did you not lose this argument two months ago?

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

did you not lose this argument two months ago?

Which argument is that champ?

Any rational human being will clearly be able to see which is the better league.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

did you not lose this argument two months ago?

Which argument is that champ?

Any rational human being will clearly be able to see which is the better league.

the one in relation to a match being played on thursday at 6.30. it was made clear to you that it was public holiday and the home side had their biggest crowd of the year. some would say having a match at a time that would accommodate supports is a good thing. wouldnt they pal

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Imagine being in the horrible Poopie Aviva where every single game up until May 2015 has a date, a precise day, a precise time of kick off and a tv broadcast channel sorted out and publicly announced already.

Yuck!

Thanks for the update on the Premium Best Biggest European Rugby League Timetable, Chunky.  I'm afraid I still won't be watching though.  But enjoy it.

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

the one in relation to a match being played on thursday at 6.30. it was made clear to you that it was public holiday and the home side had their biggest crowd of the year. some would say having a match at a time that would accommodate supports is a good thing. wouldnt they pal

1. It wasn't their biggest crowd of the year.
2. There were 2 other Thursday kick offs - what's the excuse there?

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Imagine being in the horrible Poopie Aviva where every single game up until May 2015 has a date, a precise day, a precise time of kick off and a tv broadcast channel sorted out and publicly announced already.

Yuck!

Thanks for the update on the Premium Best Biggest European Rugby League Timetable, Chunky.  I'm afraid I still won't be watching though.  But enjoy it.  

I will enjoy it. It's by far the best league in Europe now. It surpassed the Top14 last season. Pro12 is mickey mouse nothing league in comparison.

The proof, I expect will be when the Guinness sponsorship financials are released.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Imagine being in the horrible Poopie Aviva where every single game up until May 2015 has a date, a precise day, a precise time of kick off and a tv broadcast channel sorted out and publicly announced already.

Yuck!

Thanks for the update on the Premium Best Biggest European Rugby League Timetable, Chunky.  I'm afraid I still won't be watching though.  But enjoy it.  

I will enjoy it. It's by far the best league in Europe now. It surpassed the Top14 last season. Pro12 is mickey mouse nothing league in comparison.

The proof, I expect will be when the Guinness sponsorship financials are released.

It always is, isn't it.  Biggest, longest, tallest, widest, oldest, fastest, deepest, richest, greatest, bestest.  It's the 'Est' capital of the world, Chunky, is old Blighty.

Meanwhile, you, like others, continue to be incabable of factoring in size of market when you push out lines like "The proof, I expect will be when the Guinness sponsorship financials are released."  I think I'll share your view and maybe even put a bet on that Guinnesst won't be coughing up anything like the money that BTVisionest did for APest.

Do you mean Avivaest? They're the competition sponsors. Also it would just be Guinness as they're sponsoring the pro12 not the bestest league.

SecretFly wrote:

Meanwhile, you, like others, continue to be incabable of factoring in size of market when you push out lines like "The proof, I expect will be when the Guinness sponsorship financials are released."  I think I'll share your view and maybe even put a bet on that Guinnesst won't be coughing up anything like the money that BTVisionest did for APest.

I'm talking about the money that Guinness paid to sponsor the English rugby Premiership.

It was £5m a year.

That was 9 years ago.

Allowing for inflation, the change in rugby landscape since then, and the fact the Pro12 is such a poor product, they should be getting at least a similar amount. So lets see tomorrow.

One interesting point is that Guinness sponsored the league for "more than £20M" over 4 years. Aviva then took over 4 years later with £20M over 4 years (effectively a reduction?). From memory no money was mentioned when Aviva renewed the deal, which is usually assumed to mean a drop.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

the one in relation to a match being played on thursday at 6.30. it was made clear to you that it was public holiday and the home side had their biggest crowd of the year. some would say having a match at a time that would accommodate supports is a good thing. wouldnt they pal

1. It wasn't their biggest crowd of the year.
2. There were 2 other Thursday kick offs - what's the excuse there?

what other two matches were those. let me know and i'll get a good ole excuse for you.
cheers buddy

HammerofThunor wrote:Do you mean Avivaest? They're the competition sponsors. Also it would just be Guinness as they're sponsoring the pro12 not the bestest league.

You are being very pedantic with your 'ests' Hammer. That will have to stop this intant or I'll mark you down at the end of year exams!!!

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

the one in relation to a match being played on thursday at 6.30. it was made clear to you that it was public holiday and the home side had their biggest crowd of the year. some would say having a match at a time that would accommodate supports is a good thing. wouldnt they pal

1. It wasn't their biggest crowd of the year.
2. There were 2 other Thursday kick offs - what's the excuse there?

what other two matches were those. let me know and i'll get a good ole excuse for you.
cheers buddy

  

Dragons v Edin April 3
Cardiff v Leinster Feb 20

I expect the excuse for at least 1 will be "It was a re-arranged game". Because games can't be arranged for Saturdays.

As I'm English it should be pedanticest.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Meanwhile, you, like others, continue to be incabable of factoring in size of market when you push out lines like "The proof, I expect will be when the Guinness sponsorship financials are released."  I think I'll share your view and maybe even put a bet on that Guinnesst won't be coughing up anything like the money that BTVisionest did for APest.

I'm talking about the money that Guinness paid to sponsor the English rugby Premiership.

It was £5m a year.

That was 9 years ago.

Allowing for inflation, the change in rugby landscape since then, and the fact the Pro12 is such a poor product, they should be getting at least a similar amount. So lets see tomorrow.

You still don't get it though.  
The sponsorship of an event, any event, is not down to how Bestest the Sponsor company feels the product is but on that old adage at this point - chimney pot numbers.  Bums on seats watching ad breaks and hoardings around fields.  Eye Numbers , if we can give it that name, is how sponsors work out what they will pay for any event.  Ireland's national network has televised every single game of the football world cup.  For that privilege they've paid way less than the BCC or ITV have paid for only some of the games each.  That's why?  That's bums on seats with chimney pots why.

SecretFly wrote:

You still don't get it though.  
The sponsorship of an event, any event, is not down to how Bestest the Sponsor company feels the product is but on that old adage at this point - chimney pot numbers.  Bums on seats watching ad breaks and hoardings around fields.  Eye Numbers , if we can give it that name, is how sponsors work out what they will pay for any event.  Ireland's national network has televised every single game of the football world cup.  For that privilege they've paid way less than the BCC or ITV have paid for only some of the games each.  That's why?  That's bums on seats with chimney pots why.

So was £500,000 a year from Rabobank a good deal?

HammerofThunor wrote:As I'm English it should be pedanticest.

Correct. Your marks are going up with that observation, which of course is only natural considering.....

SecretFly wrote:

You still don't get it though.  
The sponsorship of an event, any event, is not down to how Bestest the Sponsor company feels the product is but on that old adage at this point - chimney pot numbers.  Bums on seats watching ad breaks and hoardings around fields.  Eye Numbers , if we can give it that name, is how sponsors work out what they will pay for any event.  Ireland's national network has televised every single game of the football world cup.  For that privilege they've paid way less than the BCC or ITV have paid for only some of the games each.  That's why?  That's bums on seats with chimney pots why.

Also, do you see why the Welsh regions would jump to the Aviva like flies to Poopie, given a merest whiff of a chance?

Some people on this forum think the Pro12 is the best league in the world.

  

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

You still don't get it though.  
The sponsorship of an event, any event, is not down to how Bestest the Sponsor company feels the product is but on that old adage at this point - chimney pot numbers.  Bums on seats watching ad breaks and hoardings around fields.  Eye Numbers , if we can give it that name, is how sponsors work out what they will pay for any event.  Ireland's national network has televised every single game of the football world cup.  For that privilege they've paid way less than the BCC or ITV have paid for only some of the games each.  That's why?  That's bums on seats with chimney pots why.

So was £500,000 a year from Rabobank a good deal?

I watch rugby not the Stock Market Channels. Ask some of my more monetary conscious colleagues. Like I always say, I just want my side/sides winning. That's all I ask. The rest will take care of itself.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Some people on this forum think the Pro12 is the best league in the world.

  

They share their happy delusions with you then

Chunky Norwich wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

the one in relation to a match being played on thursday at 6.30. it was made clear to you that it was public holiday and the home side had their biggest crowd of the year. some would say having a match at a time that would accommodate supports is a good thing. wouldnt they pal

1. It wasn't their biggest crowd of the year.
2. There were 2 other Thursday kick offs - what's the excuse there?

what other two matches were those. let me know and i'll get a good ole excuse for you.
cheers buddy

  

Dragons v Edin  April 3
Cardiff v Leinster  Feb 20

I expect the excuse for at least 1 will be "It was a re-arranged game". Because games can't be arranged for Saturdays.

saves me coming up with one so.

profitius wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/pro12/guinness-to-be-announced-as-new-pro12-sponsor-1.1859378

Guinness set to be announced thursday.

Jumping the gun then lol

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

So was £500,000 a year from Rabobank a good deal?

I watch rugby not the Stock Market Channels.  Ask some of my more monetary conscious colleagues.  Like I always say, I just want my side/sides winning.  That's all I ask.  The rest will take care of itself.

I'll take that as a no.

Chunky Norwich wrote:
Also, do you see why the Welsh regions would jump to the Aviva like flies to Poopie, given a merest whiff of a chance?

But they didn't jump!  Had they jumped, none of us would be here still enjoying the embers of the Great 2014 Debate!  

They didn't jump.  They himmmmed and they haaaaaed.  
And some of them wanted to jump and some of them hoped maybe that they could only skip.  And some of them wanted to tip toe, and some of them didn't want to jump at all, and they didn't want to tell anyone what they wanted, and they only told lies or half truths or maybe truths or maybe they didn't say that at all and it's only a rumour; and don't blame us and the meeting will be tomorrow...or today...or maybe you're only accusing me of saying there would be a meeting at all.  Maybe I said nothing, maybe we should join the AP, maybe we always wanted to stay with the Pro12 and you're just accusing us of never wanting the Pro12????????  *draw breath Fly before you die!!!!*

The Welsh Regions JUMPED at the chance???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

The Ulster chairman said the other week that league sponsorship is only for a small amount. So if rabo were paying between half and 1 million I'd say Guinness will not be paying over 2 million.


The pro 12 has a big problem with people talking it down constantly. And so its begun again in this thread!

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

So was £500,000 a year from Rabobank a good deal?

I watch rugby not the Stock Market Channels.  Ask some of my more monetary conscious colleagues.  Like I always say, I just want my side/sides winning.  That's all I ask.  The rest will take care of itself.

I'll take that as a no.

Take it as I don't care. That's for the IRFU and Provinces to worry about. Funding is not my interest in rugby. Control and administration are my thing. But my very main thing is rugby being played on the field that wins. Premium concern.

SecretFly wrote:

Take it as I don't care.  That's for the IRFU and Provinces to worry about.  Funding is not my interest in rugby.  Control and administration are my thing.  But my very main thing is rugby being played on the field that wins.  Premium concern.

Wow. Stunning ignorance.

Sponsor and fixtures to be released tomorrow according to the Indo. Probably will have times up to Christmas..... then fixtures will be set out by weekend as they can't be locked down until there is clarity on the likes of Swansea have any kind of a run in the FA Cup, etc.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Sponsor and fixtures to be released tomorrow according to the Indo. Probably will have times up to Christmas..... then fixtures will be set out by weekend as they can't be locked down until there is clarity on the likes of Swansea have any kind of a run in the FA Cup, etc.

So because the Ospreys share a ground with a football team, the entire leagues fixtures of the 11 other teams have to be on hold ?

The excuses get funnier.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Meanwhile, you, like others, continue to be incabable of factoring in size of market when you push out lines like "The proof, I expect will be when the Guinness sponsorship financials are released."  I think I'll share your view and maybe even put a bet on that Guinnesst won't be coughing up anything like the money that BTVisionest did for APest.

I'm talking about the money that Guinness paid to sponsor the English rugby Premiership.

It was £5m a year.

That was 9 years ago.

Allowing for inflation, the change in rugby landscape since then, and the fact the Pro12 is such a poor product, they should be getting at least a similar amount. So lets see tomorrow.

Didn't Aviva sponsor the English premiership for the same amount in 2010, as Guinness did in 2005? Guinness pulling out, and the Aviva only offering the same sponsorship deal 5 years later has to mean the marketing value of the English premiership actually decreased in that time, doesn't it?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Take it as I don't care.  That's for the IRFU and Provinces to worry about.  Funding is not my interest in rugby.  Control and administration are my thing.  But my very main thing is rugby being played on the field that wins.  Premium concern.

Wow. Stunning ignorance.

Where's the ignorance? You like money chat?...away with you. Decide on Bestest based on Money Sponsor Deals...afterall, that's how many of you debated the Big PRL v ERC one. It's all money, see!!!! - It's about whose got most of it and the power it brings!!!

Well, yes, it is. But that works under it's own force...it operates without opinions. So here's the brief, if Leinster have enough money to get by on that would still be enough to get them to another European Final and maybe win it...then I'd be happy..... even though they didn't have as much ready cash as their opponent.

Results over funding unless funding proves it's impacting on results.

Munchkin wrote:

Didn't Aviva sponsor the English premiership for the same amount in 2010, as Guinness did in 2005?

No.

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Take it as I don't care.  That's for the IRFU and Provinces to worry about.  Funding is not my interest in rugby.  Control and administration are my thing.  But my very main thing is rugby being played on the field that wins.  Premium concern.

Wow. Stunning ignorance.

Where's the ignorance?  You like money chat?...away with you.  Decide on Bestest based on Money Sponsor Deals...afterall, that's how many of you debated the Big PRL v ERC one.  It's all money, see!!!! - It's about whose got most of it and the power it brings!!!

Well, yes, it is.  But that works under it's own force...it operates without opinions.  So here's the brief, if Leinster have enough money to get by on that would still be enough to get them to another European Final and maybe win it...then I'd be happy..... even though they didn't have as much ready cash as their opponent.

Results over funding unless funding proves it's impacting on results.

You want all the bells and whistles of professional sport delivered to your doorstep.

Yet you don't care a monkeys how it's funded, who pays for it, how hard people have to work for it and how much it costs. Ignorant beyond belief.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Didn't Aviva sponsor the English premiership for the same amount in 2010, as Guinness did in 2005?

No.

No, the Aviva didn't sponsor the English premiership the same amount as Guinness back in 2005? No, the the market value of the English premiership didn't decrease in that time? Both?

Munchkin wrote: Both?

Yep. Because the sponsorship rose by £1m a year.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Take it as I don't care.  That's for the IRFU and Provinces to worry about.  Funding is not my interest in rugby.  Control and administration are my thing.  But my very main thing is rugby being played on the field that wins.  Premium concern.

Wow. Stunning ignorance.

Where's the ignorance?  You like money chat?...away with you.  Decide on Bestest based on Money Sponsor Deals...afterall, that's how many of you debated the Big PRL v ERC one.  It's all money, see!!!! - It's about whose got most of it and the power it brings!!!

Well, yes, it is.  But that works under it's own force...it operates without opinions.  So here's the brief, if Leinster have enough money to get by on that would still be enough to get them to another European Final and maybe win it...then I'd be happy..... even though they didn't have as much ready cash as their opponent.

Results over funding unless funding proves it's impacting on results.

You want all the bells and whistles of professional sport delivered to your doorstep.

Yet you don't care a monkeys how it's funded, who pays for it, how hard people have to work for it and how much it costs. Ignorant beyond belief.

You just can't compute logic, Chunky.  For you, more money from bigger sponsorship means subsequently better players and more trophies.  It don't.  

It can!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But no guarantee that it do - just ask Clermont.  Activity on the field, playing ability, tactics, coaching, fitness...etc, etc... brings about the results that in themselves generate income. Winning means income.  So I say that I approach the same issue from a different prespective.  You worry about generating money before winning, I concentrate on the money generating capacity of winning in the first place.

Now true ignorance is the willful ignorance of the truth of those two mutually exclusive pathways and theories.  Enjoy the Moneybags AP.  We'll see if it generates the results you would obviously wish for.

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Take it as I don't care.  That's for the IRFU and Provinces to worry about.  Funding is not my interest in rugby.  Control and administration are my thing.  But my very main thing is rugby being played on the field that wins.  Premium concern.

Wow. Stunning ignorance.

Where's the ignorance?  You like money chat?...away with you.  Decide on Bestest based on Money Sponsor Deals...afterall, that's how many of you debated the Big PRL v ERC one.  It's all money, see!!!! - It's about whose got most of it and the power it brings!!!

Well, yes, it is.  But that works under it's own force...it operates without opinions.  So here's the brief, if Leinster have enough money to get by on that would still be enough to get them to another European Final and maybe win it...then I'd be happy..... even though they didn't have as much ready cash as their opponent.

Results over funding unless funding proves it's impacting on results.

You want all the bells and whistles of professional sport delivered to your doorstep.

Yet you don't care a monkeys how it's funded, who pays for it, how hard people have to work for it and how much it costs. Ignorant beyond belief.

You just can't compute logic, Chunky.  For you, more money from bigger sponsorship means subsequently better players and more trophies.  It don't.  

It can!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But no guarantee that it do - just ask Clermont.  Activity on the field, playing ability, tactics, coaching, fitness...etc, etc... brings about the results that in themselves generate income. Winning means income.  So I say that I approach the same issue from a different prespective.  You worry about generating money before winning, I concentrate on the money generating capacity of winning in the first place.

Now true ignorance is the willful ignorance of the truth of those two mutually exclusive pathways and theories.  Enjoy the Moneybags AP.  We'll see if it generates the results you would obviously wish for.

Lovely prose but where's the relevance?

"That's for the IRFU and Provinces to worry about. Funding is not my interest in rugby"

Having no interest in how the team you are watching is funded, in my opinion retracts you're right to moan.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote: Both?

Yep. Because the sponsorship rose by £1m a year.

Ah, ok. Still not clear on your answer though. £1m a year on top of the £5m? which would mean the AP getting £9m a year. Have you a link? It's just that I have read £20m over 4 years, and no mention of increases. 

Thanks  

P.s Aviva offering the same amount as Guinness did in 2005 still means the marketing value of the English premiership had decreased in that time.

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote: Both?

Yep. Because the sponsorship rose by £1m a year.

Ah, ok. Still not clear on your answer though. £1m a year on top of the £5m? which would mean the AP getting £9m a year. Have you a link? It's just that I have read £20m over 4 years, and no mention of increases. 

Thanks  

Apologies, I've cocked up. It's exactly the same deal as Guinness. I was under the impression it was £25m over 4 years So I was wrong on that.

I suppose you could say that the market value of the English premiership sponsor wise has not increased then. However, tv money isn't factored in.

When you compare the English and Celtic leagues. There is no question of what the better product is and how successful it is.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote: Both?

Yep. Because the sponsorship rose by £1m a year.

Ah, ok. Still not clear on your answer though. £1m a year on top of the £5m? which would mean the AP getting £9m a year. Have you a link? It's just that I have read £20m over 4 years, and no mention of increases. 

Thanks  

Apologies, I've cocked up. It's exactly the same deal as Guinness. I was under the impression it was £25m over 4 years So I was wrong on that.

I suppose you could say that the market value of the English premiership sponsor wise has not increased then. However, tv money isn't factored in.

When you compare the English and Celtic leagues. There is no question of what the better product is and how successful it is.

number of HC winners over the last 10 years?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Take it as I don't care.  That's for the IRFU and Provinces to worry about.  Funding is not my interest in rugby.  Control and administration are my thing.  But my very main thing is rugby being played on the field that wins.  Premium concern.

Wow. Stunning ignorance.

Where's the ignorance?  You like money chat?...away with you.  Decide on Bestest based on Money Sponsor Deals...afterall, that's how many of you debated the Big PRL v ERC one.  It's all money, see!!!! - It's about whose got most of it and the power it brings!!!

Well, yes, it is.  But that works under it's own force...it operates without opinions.  So here's the brief, if Leinster have enough money to get by on that would still be enough to get them to another European Final and maybe win it...then I'd be happy..... even though they didn't have as much ready cash as their opponent.

Results over funding unless funding proves it's impacting on results.

You want all the bells and whistles of professional sport delivered to your doorstep.

Yet you don't care a monkeys how it's funded, who pays for it, how hard people have to work for it and how much it costs. Ignorant beyond belief.

You just can't compute logic, Chunky.  For you, more money from bigger sponsorship means subsequently better players and more trophies.  It don't.  

It can!!!!!!!!!!!!!  But no guarantee that it do - just ask Clermont.  Activity on the field, playing ability, tactics, coaching, fitness...etc, etc... brings about the results that in themselves generate income. Winning means income.  So I say that I approach the same issue from a different prespective.  You worry about generating money before winning, I concentrate on the money generating capacity of winning in the first place.

Now true ignorance is the willful ignorance of the truth of those two mutually exclusive pathways and theories.  Enjoy the Moneybags AP.  We'll see if it generates the results you would obviously wish for.

Lovely prose but where's the relevance?

The relevance is in the simple truth that it is ...true.

Winning games is success - it isn't failure - it's success. Success generates funds. I can't claim to want my team to always win without being alive to the benefits of winning.

So - winning games obviously takes a degree of fine detail economic planning. That must be present to win. It doesn't instruct how often the side wins but it is an ingredient in having the necessary infrastructure in place to win. I am confident that to date, my team, - and indeed the Provinces in general - Have the necessary infrastructure in place to win. How they fund that is the TV deals and the sponsorships etc. But the boardroom I leave to them mostly because I trust them with it. I watch what is on the field and get my evidence of money well spent on the field.
Results dictate how successful a team is and how much money they can generate. One assists the other. If you worry about one, you appreciate the other. But appreciating the financial requirements doesn't necessitate you sitting in on the boardroom meetings. I follow rugby to watch what's on the field - it's not my cult - I have other things in life to worry about.

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

number of HC winners over the last 10 years?

What about them? It's the same 2 teams that are successful. The rest of them are crap.

Unlike the Aviva where the quality of teams is far, far higher.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

number of HC winners over the last 10 years?

What about them? It's the same 2 teams that are successful. The rest of them are crap.

Unlike the Aviva where the quality of teams is far, far higher.

Unlike any other winner of the HC it generally is the same two teams from any league.

So, since we're in the business of flogging dead horses in our debates, anyone want to discuss the following:

- Neil Back's hand of God against Munster
- Brian O'Driscoll being taken out of the 2005 Lions tour
- The lack of Scots in the 2009 Lions tour
- Mike Phillips using of the wrong ball in the 2011 6N
- The lack of Scots in the 2013 Lions tour
- Brian O'Driscoll being dropped for the final Aus test
- Delon Armitage waving as he crosses the line
- Stuart Hogg's red card

Anyone?

  

GoodinTightSpaces wrote:

Unlike any other winner of the HC it generally is the same two teams from any league.

If you think the top 10 teams in the aviva are weaker than the top 10 teams in the pro12, then I don't want to visit the rest of your brain.