PRL seeks more money or will threaten RWC

Here we go again. Fresh from their victory over the unions, regions and celtic nations the PRL are at it again, this time threatening to play throughout the World Cup in 2015 if their compensation demands aren't met.

It won't stop here. Just look to the football model and previous club vs country debates to see where the emboldened PRL want to see the balance of power.

http://www.espn.co.uk/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/238737.html

Let them play.

NZ will graciously offer to play at Eden Park for their quarter and semi finals so there are no scheduling problems with the clubs.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Let them play.

NZ will graciously offer to play at Eden Park for their quarter and semi finals so there are no scheduling problems with the clubs.

A bit presumptuous that NZ will make the quarters there kia

As the only team ever to be unbeaten at the pool stages, just call it a hunch.

Go on, then. You've not got a bad record in that regard.

Careful though, you don't want our mutual friend Neutralee accusing you of major disrespect to Namibia...

Cyril wrote: Go on, then. You've not got a bad record in that regard.

Careful though, you don't want our mutual friend Neutralee accusing you of major disrespect to Namibia...

Ask the women and U20's how they faired in recent tournaments...

madmaccas wrote:Here we go again. Fresh from their victory over the unions, regions and celtic nations the PRL are at it again, this time threatening to play throughout the World Cup in 2015 if their compensation demands aren't met.

It won't stop here. Just look to the football model and previous club vs country debates to see where the emboldened PRL want to see the balance of power.

http://www.espn.co.uk/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/238737.html

It seems that this has all been exaggerated somewhat.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/aug/27/premiership-clubs-compensation-rugby-world-cup-2015-shutdown

Latest from the Beeb suggests they are close to a resolution. The most important bit is that both sides are talking about constructive discussions and strong relationships.

lostinwales wrote:Latest from the Beeb suggests they are close to a resolution. The most important bit is that both sides are talking about constructive discussions and strong relationships.

Both the sides in the welsh in fighting had been saying that for the majority of their two year fight......

Would anyone expect anything else from PRL?
They exist to protect the (mostly financial) interests of their members and as they did with the European competitions they are very good at reacting to a gap in the market to get their members the best deal possible.
Effectively they want to position themselves with the RFU in the same way that the Premiership football clubs are with the FA.
Not saying it's right, not saying it's fair, just saying it's how it is....

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Latest from the Beeb suggests they are close to a resolution. The most important bit is that both sides are talking about constructive discussions and strong relationships.

Both the sides in the welsh in fighting had been saying that for the majority of their two year fight......

Really, i never read any of those comments.

Irish Londoner wrote:Would anyone expect anything else from PRL?
They exist to protect the (mostly financial) interests of their members and as they did with the European competitions they are very good at reacting to a gap in the market to get their members the best deal possible.
Effectively they want to position themselves with the RFU in the same way that the Premiership football clubs are with the FA.
Not saying it's right, not saying it's fair, just saying it's how it is....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29046574

"Bath owner Bruce Craig says rugby union in England must not follow the football model, regardless of how much money comes into the game."

Vice-chairman of PRL seems to be saying it's not how it is....


...but PRL are a cartel who financially penalise their junior members and actively discourage newbies

Irish Londoner wrote:Would anyone expect anything else from PRL?
They exist to protect the (mostly financial) interests of their members and as they did with the European competitions they are very good at reacting to a gap in the market to get their members the best deal possible.
Effectively they want to position themselves with the RFU in the same way that the Premiership football clubs are with the FA.
Not saying it's right, not saying it's fair, just saying it's how it is....

To suggest that the PRL are just about money is just plain daft. If they are just about making money they are not doing a great job. Most clubs lose money. A few break even.

The position in football is nothing like the position in rugby. Seventy per cent of the players in the PRL are English qualified. The clubs are producing more and better young English qualified players each year as evidenced by England winning the last two Junior World Cups.

Yes, the clubs are annoyed that the RFU agreed to a suspension without consulting them. Who can blame them? The word is that it will be sorted out fairly amicably.

Whats good to know is that the Welsh clubs in the Pro12 will not be suspending any activities even though the Millennium Stadium is one of the venues.

I think Cardiff might have to have a good few away games in that period though.

From the independent -

'Ritchie believes a resolution will be reached within weeks and confirmed the IRB have been approached over securing dispensation to play Premiership matches in the knock-out stages of the World Cup.'

The one question that begs to be asked is why was this not all sorted at the time England won the RWC bid, did the RFU take the bid on and now four years later go to the PRL, "oh and by the way, you won't be able to play during the RWC, IRB rules and all that" or alternatively no-one within the PRL structure was aware that there would be no club games during this period - seems a bit odd given the moaning when the venues were announced that not enough club grounds were chosen.

It's a good question and one we don't know the answer too, but the fact is that the RWC2015 bid was made, and won, under a different RFU regime, one which lacked a certain amount of competency. Since then we had John Steele getting his feet under the table as CEO and then being discarded, then the fallout amongst the RFU Board and Council. Ritchie came in after an interim period and almost immediately his priority (and that of PRL) became the Euromess, the brinkmanship of which dragged it on for at least a year beyond when it should have been resolved in order not to affect the smooth administration of domestic, European and RWC rugby.

PRL would have known of the requirement to suspend elite rugby during previous RWC's, and we don't know if they approached RFU to resolve it during the bid, or not. I can quite believe that RFU at the time didn't involve PRL as much as perhaps they should have.

It's also fairly certain that the resolution of this matter is closely linked to the renewal of the EPS Agreement which ends in June 2016. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the terms of the renewal are pretty much inked in during these negotiations, and that requires financial and policy forecasting by both parties 10 years hence (when the likes of Doncaster and Pirates may well be PRL members and hence should be consulted, but won't be).

One other point, which may or may not be a sticking point, is that the LV Cup is an RFU competition, not a PRL one, so any alterations to its timing and format would require the RFU to negotiate with sponsors and TV, which may be time consuming. (One possible solution is for IRB to agree that LV is non-elite, perhaps by making it an U23 competition, and running it during RWC pool matches). It should be noted that the LV, whilst being mickey mouse on the pitch, has been, on average, more lucrative than the Euro competitions, so, financially, is too valuable to be discarded entirely without significant compensation.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:It's also fairly certain that the resolution of this matter is closely linked to the renewal of the EPS Agreement which ends in June 2016. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the terms of the renewal are pretty much inked in during these negotiations, and that requires financial and policy forecasting by both parties 10 years hence (when the likes of Doncaster and Pirates may well be PRL members and hence should be consulted, but won't be).

The Chairman (I think) of Bedford has said the Championship clubs will be involved in the new EPS agreement discussions. I'm hoping that's because it's moving towards a Pro domestic rugby group rather than just top tier. But it might just be meaningless addition where they're told to sit in the corner and shut up. But I can hope.

We also know that the IRB only decided late in the day to move the tournament start date from the 4th September to the 18th September. Even if there had been an agreement in place, it would have needed renegotiation.

He's the bloke who represents GKIPAC (catchy) on PGB, I think. I can't see he'll have any influence unless RFU throw their weight behind him with a proper second tier strategy - if they have one, they've hidden it well.

Teaboy for him, I expect, unless PRL take over the second tier, as is being mildly touted.

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/17271/mike-friday-top-tier-link-up-is-a-must-for-championship/

Rugby Fan wrote:We also know that the IRB only decided late in the day to move the tournament start date from the 4th September to the 18th September. Even if there had been an agreement in place, it would have needed renegotiation.

Good point, had slipped my mind. So we can blame all this on SH Unions then, as usual.

Let's hope that all future English requests to host the cup are voted down. The empire days are gone. There's no need for them to even apply for the cup again for 20 odd years ++ anyway.

What Empire will that be then?

The Sunderland Empire?

There's gibberish then there RW Speke.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:PRL would have known of the requirement to suspend elite rugby during previous RWC's, and we don't know if they approached RFU to resolve it during the bid, or not. I can quite believe that RFU at the time didn't involve PRL as much as perhaps they should have.

It was mentioned during the Euromess negotiations that the PRL and RFU knew that the issue of the RWC had to be resolved, but agreed to defer it until the Euro situation was settled. Hence why it's only coming up now.

rainbow-warrior wrote:Let's hope that all future English requests to host the cup are voted down.  The empire days are gone.  There's no need for them to even apply for the cup again for 20 odd years ++ anyway.

Actually there is a need for them to bid. The last RWC lost money. Probably only England, France and South Africa can hold a profitable cup. The money made is required by IRB to develop rugby and to subsidise the years when played in other countries.

Exiledinborders wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:Let's hope that all future English requests to host the cup are voted down.  The empire days are gone.  There's no need for them to even apply for the cup again for 20 odd years ++ anyway.

Actually there is a need for them to bid. The last RWC lost money. Probably only England, France and South Africa can hold a profitable cup. The money made is required by IRB to develop rugby and to subsidise the years when played in other countries.

That is nonsense that only England, France & SA can hold a profitable cup. Any NH country will be profitable - we've all got the same market, timezone for tv etc.

I bet the Japanese one will be profitable though, despite everything.

And by the way, extortionate ticket prices seems to be how the RWC England is making a profit. Not just English people are paying for those.

A suitable amount of good sized stadia is one of the most critical aspects in the level of profitability of a World Cup.  A fair number of very big ones and then plenty of decently mid-sized options.  For the IRB to maximise profits to last it 4 years that usually translates into larger countries and a reliance on football infrastructure.  It's also why the 2015 organisers were so disappointed to lose out on Old Trafford for three matches and only get Manchester City instead for just one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9970460/2015-Rugby-World-Cup-can-only-persuade-Manchester-City-to-host-one-game.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Rugby_World_Cup#Venues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_stadiums_by_capacity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Rugby_World_Cup#Venues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Rugby_World_Cup#Venues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Rugby_World_Cup#Hosting

Sin é wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:Let's hope that all future English requests to host the cup are voted down.  The empire days are gone.  There's no need for them to even apply for the cup again for 20 odd years ++ anyway.

Actually there is a need for them to bid. The last RWC lost money. Probably only England, France and South Africa can hold a profitable cup. The money made is required by IRB to develop rugby and to subsidise the years when played in other countries.

That is nonsense that only England, France & SA can hold a profitable cup. Any NH country will be profitable - we've all got the same market, timezone for tv etc.

I bet the Japanese one will be profitable though, despite everything.

And by the way, extortionate ticket prices seems to be how the RWC England is making a profit. Not just English people are paying for those.

The other countries do not have either the stadiums or populations to support it. Yes some people would travel but you need substantial home support as well. In Scotland for instance, assuming all the football grounds were available (big assumption) there might be enough stadia but I just cannot see there being enough support from locals for the smaller matches.

markb wrote:A suitable amount of good sized stadia is one of the most critical aspects in the level of profitability of a World Cup.  A fair number of very big ones and then plenty of decently mid-sized options.  For the IRB to maximise profits to last it 4 years that usually translates into larger countries and a reliance on football infrastructure.  It's also why the 2015 organisers were so disappointed to lose out on Old Trafford for three matches and only get Manchester City instead for just one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9970460/2015-Rugby-World-Cup-can-only-persuade-Manchester-City-to-host-one-game.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Rugby_World_Cup#Venues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_stadiums_by_capacity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Rugby_World_Cup#Venues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Rugby_World_Cup#Venues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Rugby_World_Cup#Hosting

Looking at that European stadiums list, from a RWC point of view it's a shame that Germany isn't a more serious rugby nation.  Huge stadium capacity, guaranteed efficiency and it would dovetail very nicely with Oktoberfest.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:Let's hope that all future English requests to host the cup are voted down.  The empire days are gone.  There's no need for them to even apply for the cup again for 20 odd years ++ anyway.

Actually there is a need for them to bid. The last RWC lost money. Probably only England, France and South Africa can hold a profitable cup. The money made is required by IRB to develop rugby and to subsidise the years when played in other countries.

That is nonsense that only England, France & SA can hold a profitable cup. Any NH country will be profitable - we've all got the same market, timezone for tv etc.

I bet the Japanese one will be profitable though, despite everything.

And by the way, extortionate ticket prices seems to be how the RWC England is making a profit. Not just English people are paying for those.

The other countries do not have either the stadiums or populations to support it.  Yes some people would travel but you need substantial home support as well.  In Scotland for instance, assuming all the football grounds were available (big assumption) there might be enough stadia but I just cannot see there being enough support from locals for the smaller matches.

Scotland would have to co-host or significantly redevelop (a large contributor to NZ's losses) if they wanted the World Cup, they've only got 4 stadiums above 25,000.


Italy and Argentina are probably who the IRB are most keen on as future hosts in terms of bringing the game on with recognised but not fully developed markets.  They've got plenty of good stadiums from their football culture and should be capable of passable financial returns.  Not too far down the line it'll be USA/Canada once Olympic 7s helps to shine a bit more light on the general sport there and help with attendances.  More profitable hosts will almost certainly be interspersed with them to give IRB coffers the odd boost though.

Sin é wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:Let's hope that all future English requests to host the cup are voted down.  The empire days are gone.  There's no need for them to even apply for the cup again for 20 odd years ++ anyway.

Actually there is a need for them to bid. The last RWC lost money. Probably only England, France and South Africa can hold a profitable cup. The money made is required by IRB to develop rugby and to subsidise the years when played in other countries.

That is nonsense that only England, France & SA can hold a profitable cup. Any NH country will be profitable - we've all got the same market, timezone for tv etc.

I bet the Japanese one will be profitable though, despite everything.

And by the way, extortionate ticket prices seems to be how the RWC England is making a profit. Not just English people are paying for those.

I'm buying a ticket for £25, not extortionate if you ask me

Exiledinborders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:Let's hope that all future English requests to host the cup are voted down.  The empire days are gone.  There's no need for them to even apply for the cup again for 20 odd years ++ anyway.

Actually there is a need for them to bid. The last RWC lost money. Probably only England, France and South Africa can hold a profitable cup. The money made is required by IRB to develop rugby and to subsidise the years when played in other countries.

That is nonsense that only England, France & SA can hold a profitable cup. Any NH country will be profitable - we've all got the same market, timezone for tv etc.

I bet the Japanese one will be profitable though, despite everything.

And by the way, extortionate ticket prices seems to be how the RWC England is making a profit. Not just English people are paying for those.

The other countries do not have either the stadiums or populations to support it.  Yes some people would travel but you need substantial home support as well.  In Scotland for instance, assuming all the football grounds were available (big assumption) there might be enough stadia but I just cannot see there being enough support from locals for the smaller matches.

I would beg to differ here. I think you may be underestimating the "event culture" that has developed significantly in recent years through Olympics etc. Obviously we had the Commonwealth Games - over 1 million tickets - 2 weeks - (almost) entirely in Glasgow. Most of the events there are much less well supported than Rugby Union. People will make an event of things these days, even with minimal interest in the sport generally.
I was down for the Rugby League World Cup last year in England and games which attracted one man and his dog the last time they hosted had pretty decent crowds this time around. The key is marketing, building excitement towards the event, and getting the local community involved around each game venue. If done correctly I see no reason why we couldn't tap into the big event culture.

It's probably a moot point anyway as I feel the lack of decent sized venues would stop it from happening anyway. (We could just about have the venues, including football stadiums, but the concentration of them across the central belt would be an issue)...

Sin é wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:Let's hope that all future English requests to host the cup are voted down.  The empire days are gone.  There's no need for them to even apply for the cup again for 20 odd years ++ anyway.

Actually there is a need for them to bid. The last RWC lost money. Probably only England, France and South Africa can hold a profitable cup. The money made is required by IRB to develop rugby and to subsidise the years when played in other countries.

That is nonsense that only England, France & SA can hold a profitable cup. Any NH country will be profitable - we've all got the same market, timezone for tv etc.

I bet the Japanese one will be profitable though, despite everything.

And by the way, extortionate ticket prices seems to be how the RWC England is making a profit. Not just English people are paying for those.

You do understand that the ticket prices are a direct result of 1) the IRB's financial requirements and 2) the relatively low level of income from RWC 2011?

IRB - Funding the Global Game wrote:It must be remembered that the tournament is responsible for around 95% of the IRB's total income and this income is only generated once every four years

Financing the Global Game. For the best financial detail, see p62 of this: IRB Annual Report

The IRB surplus after RWC 2011 was £91.6m. That sounds a lot, but it has to fund the IRB for 4 years - and in 2010 and 2011 it spent around £20m just on admin and £30-50m grants to develop on the global game.

That £91.6m is £30m LESS than after RWC 2007, despite a £20m rise in tv revenue, a £26m rise in commercial revenues - and a global depression in which inflation ran at over 5% for several years. It's pretty clear that for the IRB to remain viable at its current size it had to give RWC 2015  to the country that promised the biggest surplus, and so it proved. England promised £300m, including an £80m tournament fee (vs £55m for NZ).

You're right that tv revenue will be relatively insensitive to geography; RWC is the 4th largest sporting event in the world, so of course it's a big draw. But that was only about 45% of the total revenue in 2011, and it's been a relatively steady increase of about £20m a time since 1995, until 2011, where it jumped less. But anyway, all that revenue accrues directly to the IRB - the RFU and the UK won't see any of it.

The host nation only (directly) makes money through ticket sales, through which it has to cover its own costs plus the tournament fee. You can see from p62 that NZ made a loss on 2011 (possibly a result of losing Christchurch as a venue). To estimate the costs of 2015, let's assume that cost per ticket is the average of France and NZ, which would give us:

Costs (total costs less tournament fees): (£133 + £146 - 2 x £55.6)
Tickets: 2,200,000 + 1,350,000
Avg cost of tournament per ticket (excluding tournament fee) = £47.27
So estimated cost of RWC 2015 = £47.27*2.3m + £80m = £188.7m

2.3m tickets across 48 games is also an average of 48k per game. That implies a lot of big stadia, too. NZ only managed 28k per game.- and of the smaller countries they are probably the one who could most rely on everyone turning out. The IRB is not going to be able to make the game work without going to an established rugby country with the right infrastructure every couple of cycles - which in effect means England, France or possibly South Africa these days.

So the average cost of a ticket just to break even would have to be £82. The highest estimate I have seen for the average cost of tickets is £75. I've no idea how accurate that is, but it suggests that the RFU and/or UK government are subsidising the IRB on ticket prices. Of course, the UK economy benefits from the tourism, beer, pies etc that get sold (not merch - that all goes to the IRB), so there is something in it for them. But if you don't like the ticket prices, blame the IRB, not the RFU.

The reason average ticket prices are high this time is because they can be. The guarantee the RFU gives IRB is based on demand in England, and particularly around London. Having seen the stadia and ticket prices i bet 50% of total pool stage revenue is coming from London (Twickers, Wembley, Olympic Park). I bet the prices for corporate packages are eye-watering, but i guarantee they will all sell.

If the IRB wants to continue its efforts to spread the game and control a big budget, then as has been said above, France England or SA every other time are pretty much a must. If the IRB is willing to live with a smaller budget, then it can be more creative in choosing RWC hosts.

quinsforever wrote:The reason average ticket prices are high this time is because they can be. The guarantee the RFU gives IRB is based on demand in England, and particularly around London. Having seen the stadia and ticket prices i bet 50% of total pool stage revenue is coming from London (Twickers, Wembley, Olympic Park). I bet the prices for corporate packages are eye-watering, but i guarantee they will all sell.

If the IRB wants to continue its efforts to spread the game and control a big budget, then as has been said above, France England or SA every other time are pretty much a must. If the IRB is willing to live with a smaller budget, then it can be more creative in choosing RWC hosts.

USA, Japan, Russia, Germany. Anywhere there is infrastructure, population density, a strong migrant population from Rugby centric nations and a willingness to be entertained, that's where the IRB could realistically host an IRB WC....that would make as much profit as England, France or SA.  Indeed, why not have it in such places that could host it and be also kinda...neutral....every other time.  Then back to the smaller 'creative' rugby locations every other WC

I'm sure the IRB would love the coverage of having the WC in Russia!

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure the IRB would love the coverage of having the WC in Russia!

Well we all know by now that Putin would certainly put on a show! - and the large, purposely built 100,000 seater stadiums would all be full...whether the audiences wanted to be there or not

SecretFly wrote:...USA, Japan, Russia, Germany. Anywhere there is infrastructure, population density, a strong migrant population from Rugby centric nations...

You can count Japan out on that score. The country has a low foreign population and it is comprised primarily of Chinese, Koreans, Brazilians, Filipinos and Vietnamese.

quinsforever wrote:The reason average ticket prices are high this time is because they can be. The guarantee the RFU gives IRB is based on demand in England, and particularly around London. Having seen the stadia and ticket prices i bet 50% of total pool stage revenue is coming from London (Twickers, Wembley, Olympic Park). I bet the prices for corporate packages are eye-watering, but i guarantee they will all sell.

If the IRB wants to continue its efforts to spread the game and control a big budget, then as has been said above, France England or SA every other time are pretty much a must. If the IRB is willing to live with a smaller budget, then it can be more creative in choosing RWC hosts.

The corporate packages are eye watering. To see Scotland at Kingsholm £365 per person. Essentially £300 for a pretty ordinary meal.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm sure the IRB would love the coverage of having the WC in Russia!

And just think of the bribes they could expect!

Next stop Quatar!

It would definitely make money. Guaranteed crowds. The more I think of it the more it seems win win.

I honestly think that 2019 Japan will the most awesome World Cup ever, amazing stadia and facilities to be bettered by none. I have started saving up my dollars already.

rainbow-warrior wrote:I honestly think that 2019 Japan will the most awesome World Cup ever, amazing stadia and facilities to be bettered by none.  I have started saving up my dollars already.

I think everyone will have a ball because Japan is a great place to visit. Having said that, we really don't know very much about the stadia. If it hadn't been for Tokyo winning the 2020 Olympics, the National Stadium would have been left as it was when the Bledisloe Cup game was played in 2009. No-one attending that match would have been struck by the amazing facilities.

We will probably get a new one in time but there's a lot of controversy over the suitability of the winning design. It has already been scaled back once, and may well be revised again.

The Chichibunomiya Rugby Stadium in Tokyo, built in 1964, hosts the Tokyo Sevens but it has a capacity of just over 25,000 and very basic facilities - only one stand is covered. It will probably host some pool matches but ought to be a non-starter for any major match-up.

Most of the matches will be outside Tokyo, just as they were for the football World Cup in 2002. The final of that tournament was actually held in Yokohama. Some of the 2002 stadiums will probably be used but a lot will make no sense. Hamamatsu where England played Brazil, is the home of football in Japan, and has a large Brazilian population. Not much use for rugby.

What it will end up as is a two or three cup cycle - e.g. one year at a money making country (England, France, SA), one year at a developing country (Japan, Italy Argentina) and one year at an established country that just about breaks even (NZ, Australia , one or more of the Celtic nations).

Polticially taking it to Russia at present would be pretty difficult, and as yet the other emerging nations either lack the infrstructure (grounds/acccomodation) or the domestic audience to host.

I have no doubt that the Japan tournament will be a well run one, but it's an expensive country to get to and stay in so to get large crowds they are going to have to activate the domestic market.

Give us More Money...or we'll walk away from the RCC!!!!

Here we go again.................

According to what I have read the threat is the premier league will resume playing at the
end of the RWC group stage.
Since the teams will already be at the RWC and teams in situ that as I see it means they
will have to play games without there Test players.

So who will it hurt most them or the RWC it is a fair assumption England will be involved
at least to QF so no players released etc.
Will crowds go to RWC or there local clubs?it seems they`ve just shot themselves in the foot.

emack2 wrote:...Since the teams will already be at the RWC and teams in situ that as I see it means they
will have to play games without there Test players...

They already do. Leicester could hardly put a team out four years ago during the cup in New Zealand but the league went on. The issue is not access to international players.

emack,
I don't think that's quite right.

The clubs want to play their season as usual (or at least get the revenue from it) starting early September and throughout RWC. That threatens the contract between IRB and RFU, which requires no elite domestic rugby during RWC, presumably so that IRB can maximise their RWC sponsorship and TV deals without competition. It's not so much about bums on seats or player release as plain old lucre.

My understanding is that RFU are negotiating with IRB to allow the elite clubs to start playing at the conclusion of the group stages and not have to wait until the final. I believe that has happened at some RWC's previously. If so, the clubs will be without their international players for those games but they (and sponsors, TV and fans) are used to that during AI's and 6N.

However, it's a fair bet that IRB have already sold, or are in advanced negotiations with sponsors and TV (ITV is host broadcaster) on the basis of a "clean" environment throughout RWC. Would they want to go back and renogotiate for a "cluttered" environment during knockout stages?

There's also the added disruption to the clubs of having to re-integrate returning players that they won't have seen for a couple of months (several months in the case of English players) and who require mental and physical rest. That's common to Pro12 and Top14, though.

If the PRL restarted games after the group stage it would be fine - the England players will all be available

On a more serious note, I don't see that the Jeff restarting after the group stages would impact hugely on the RWC in any way - the tickets go on sale this weekend and I should imagine that the QF's onwards will all be sold out so it's not likely to affect attendance and since the Jeff is on a minority channel any televised Jeff games are unlikely to meaningfully reduce viewing figures for ITV.
I would have thought that if the Jeff clubs want to play games at this time the B & I or Anglo Welsh competitions would be the way forward though.