Pro12 Finals

First topic message reminder :

This year signalled a shift towards a neutral, predetermined venue for the "Grand Final". Belfast was a fantastic choice for this and was a wonderful venue however there are some calls to move the final to a larger stadium to create an atmosphere similar to that at Twickenham yesterday and therefore making it a bigger occasion. There are a number of issues with this, namely that it would mean the final would have to be held in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin or Cardiff every year but for argument's sake how do we look to fill out these larger venues?

Firstly it's worth remembering that (if we discount the Italians) we have a combined population of 10 million which is a sixth of the English, and this population is spread far less densely and with far more expensive and difficult transport links so it is logistically difficult. Also Twickenham is the home of rugby for english fans and therefore represents something close to a pilgrimage for English fans regardless of club allegiances, this is something you wouldn't get for a fan of the Dragons if the final was in Scotland or Ireland between clubs from Scotland or Ireland especially when you factor cost of transport and the fact that diehard rugby fans would have probably travelled long distances just a couple of months before for the Six Nations. Nevertheless giving the final to the top team is also difficult as it's hard to create a big occasion befitting of the league in just one week, so what it the solution?

The first step in my opinion would be to appeal to and, in many ways, reward the diehard fans. By that I mean give heavily subsidised tickets to the season ticket holders regardless of club and maybe organise travel from major population bases so Dublin, Belfast, Edinbugh, Glasgow and Dublin. That way you get a crowd with large numbers of real rugby fans who enjoy each others company. Of course you want to make sure the finalists have large numbers of fans there so it's a bit more partisan so maybe holding back 20,000 tickets until the play-offs and then give 2,500 tickets each to the semi-finalists and then after the semis give 5,000 each to the finalists to be sold at their own price and also divide up any remaining tickets. Anything they lose from cheap tickets they'll gain in the long run through a bigger spectacle and more sponsorship as a result.

Second step would be to make it more relevant to fans of every club so either a sevens tournament of sorts in the morning between the teams or perhaps more effectively some form of exhibition or charity game. Either between two "best of the rest" Pro12 XVs, or Pro12 XV against the Barbarians or two teams chosen by outgoing Pro12 legends in a kind of testimonial match.

Finally I'd try to make more of a spectacle of the event, you can say what you like about the SRU but they do put on a good show before matches. Say it was in Glasgow then there are a lot of local comedians and musicians who make a big deal about their allegiance to the city guys like Kevin Bridges and Amy Macdonald so get them involved have fireworks and really build up an atmosphere for the final.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Why would the Ospreys supporters club make up such a spurious, outlandish fact about two 5 star hotles needed for the 2 teams? That's bare faced lying if it's not true.

Bare faced lying happens. Just ask FIFA.

I'm not saying anyone is lying. I am questioning the rep's interpretation of a conversation. If the representative is simply giving his take on a conversation, rather than providing direct quotes, then that information isn't primary source information. Before I conclude that two 5* hotels are a criterion I would want to see primary source evidence that confirms it.

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Why would the Ospreys supporters club make up such a spurious, outlandish fact about two 5 star hotles needed for the 2 teams? That's bare faced lying if it's not true.

Bare faced lying happens. Just ask FIFA.

I'm not saying anyone is lying. I am questioning the rep's interpretation of a conversation. If the representative is simply giving his take on a conversation, rather than providing direct quotes, then that information isn't primary source information. Before I conclude that two 5* hotels are a criterion I would want to see primary source evidence that confirms it.

It's strange though that you would want to see this proof in this insatnce. We're not dealing with the Tory government here, we're dealing with the Ospreys supporters club.

I don't doubt their honesty, what I do doubt is that a) these 'criteria' being discussed were all 'must haves' rather than 'would be good haves' and b) any criteria established for this year are now set in stone for forthcoming years. Like everyone here, I don't have any access to the inner workings of the process but logic would suggest that the feedback they get from bidders (and non-bidders) and the success of the event would lead to an ongoing review of what's necessary and what isn't in future years. If you can give me a logical reason to change my mind, do.

Why should I trust the Ospreys Supporters Club any more than I would any Government?

I don't trust them. Not that I think they are liars. Just that I believe they may be biased in their view, and that bias may effect how they interpret any conversation.

I'm not saying McCormack didn't in fact state that two 5* hotels are required. I am questioning it as I don't believe anything less than either a PRO12 (McCormack) or an Ospreys statement, is valid proof.

Notch wrote: logic would suggest that the feedback they get from bidders (and non-bidders) and the success of the event would lead to an ongoing review of what's necessary and what isn't in future years. If you can give me a logical reason to change my mind, do.

Well I definitely agree with that bit. Hope they take this lad's view on board too!!

https://twitter.com/kearneyrob/status/559778650149883904

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Why would the Ospreys supporters club make up such a spurious, outlandish fact about two 5 star hotles needed for the 2 teams? That's bare faced lying if it's not true.

Bare faced lying happens. Just ask FIFA.

I'm not saying anyone is lying. I am questioning the rep's interpretation of a conversation. If the representative is simply giving his take on a conversation, rather than providing direct quotes, then that information isn't primary source information. Before I conclude that two 5* hotels are a criterion I would want to see primary source evidence that confirms it.

It's strange though that you would want to see this proof in this insatnce. We're not dealing with the Tory government here, we're dealing with the Ospreys supporters club.

Chunky like he says elsewhere, there are direct quotes provided in other parts of the article but not there

Also with any tender, different criteria have different weights and scores so two 5* hotels probably wouldn't score as highly as the capacity of the stadium this may not have been put across in the conversation or the article

Munchkin wrote:Why should I trust the Ospreys Supporters Club any more than I would any Government?

I don't trust them. Not that I think they are liars. Just that I believe they may be biased in their view, and that bias may effect how they interpret any conversation.

I'm not saying McCormack didn't in fact state that two 5* hotels are required. I am questioning it as I don't believe anything less than either a PRO12 (McCormack) or an Ospreys statement, is valid proof.

Very strange mindset.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Why should I trust the Ospreys Supporters Club any more than I would any Government?

I don't trust them. Not that I think they are liars. Just that I believe they may be biased in their view, and that bias may effect how they interpret any conversation.

I'm not saying McCormack didn't in fact state that two 5* hotels are required. I am questioning it as I don't believe anything less than either a PRO12 (McCormack) or an Ospreys statement, is valid proof.

Very strange mindset.

Do you really think so? Requiring real evidence is strange? I simply don't accept, 'someone said that someone said'. Well I do, just not if I want to state the what someone said as fact.

But Belfast doesn't have two five star hotels and still got the final.

From the statement above it reads to me that firstly Ospreys were unhappy with the system that allowed the league winners to pick the final venue, so then when it looked as though they had the chance to be the league winners, felt it was then hypocritical to bid for the final given that it might advantage them if they won the league. In which case fair play to them for such integrity.

The other issue appears to be that Ospreys were not comfortable about the financial guarantees involved - a reasonable business decision for them to make, given that it would be a substantial "hit" for them if having secured the final they were unable to generate enough money to cover the guarantee. Again fair play to them for taking a business decision that they could live with.

If they'd have disreagarded these two points and said, "stuff it we'll have a go and we'll put up the financial guarantee", I don't think the lack of five star hotels would have been the deal breaker on their bid - there are as other people have pointed out lots of very good hotels within a comparatively short drive, complete with all the facilities the players and blazers might want (gyms, pools, golf courses, etc)  - the fact is that unltimately they didn't actually place a formal bid so we'll never know.

Of course the WRU could actually come forward and say we'd like the PRO12 final in Wales and would encourage any of our clubs to bid for it and we will work with them and provide the nessecary financial backup if needed to make it happen.

LordDowlais wrote:

123456789 wrote:Can it not be held at a National Stadium? If not that is absurdly shortsighted.

No, they were not to be considered this year as they were too big, unless they change it next year then only one country will get the final, and it will not be Wales or Scotland.

Yet Leinster considered bidding using the Aviva

Irish Londoner wrote:But Belfast doesn't have two five star hotels and still got the final.

Erm, yes it does, there are three on this web site:-

http://www.booking.com/fivestars/city/gb/belfast.en-gb.html?aid=318615;label=New_English_EN_GBIE_5496343105-o3H*rANRilZd5LRixj8tfwS46932889705:pl:ta:p1:p2:ac:ap1t3:neg;ws=&gclid=CMKNipu788UCFafItAodzC4AzQ

marty2086 wrote:Yet Leinster considered bidding using the Aviva

As Munchkin keeps saying, show us the proof.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Yet Leinster considered bidding using the Aviva

As Munchkin keeps saying, show us the proof.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Yet Leinster considered bidding using the Aviva

As Munchkin keeps saying, show us the proof.

I was mistaken on the Aviva it was Munster and Thomond but WalesOnline seem to be under the impression that the Millennium was a viable alternative

Only the Ospreys would have been able to meet the 18,000 capacity criteria with their home ground. The other Welsh regions would have had to hire out either the Liberty, the Millennium Stadium or the Cardiff City Stadium.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/guinness-pro12-final-held-kingspan-8524573

Not wheres yours that it wasn't?

marty2086 wrote:Not wheres yours that it wasn't?

Come again.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Not wheres yours that it wasn't?

Come again.

I think it's Gaelic.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Not wheres yours that it wasn't?

Come again.

Wheres your proof that national stadiums are excluded?

marty2086 wrote:Wheres your proof that national stadiums are excluded?

I never said they were excluded, I said the were not being considered, it has come from that Ospreys Q&A.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Wheres your proof that national stadiums are excluded?

I never said they were excluded, I said the were not being considered, it has come from that Ospreys Q&A.

Maybe you'd like to highlight where

And round and round we go.

the posted summary by OSC of the conversation with Tom McCormack and with Ospreys themselves is useful.

Ospreys make it quite clear what their reasons were for not bidding.

1. They were against the idea in principle in the first place. Fair enough - they got outvoted on this.

2. They had a stadium so capacity was not an issue.

3. they thought the £100k guarantee was too risky and decided not to.

They do not mention the issue of hotels - 5-star or otherwise - as a reason for deciding not to tender.

There is no mention that national stadia were excluded.

These are the reported facts according to OSC.

Other clubs did bid - we don't know all of them. Ulster and Glasgow were shortlisted - therefore they must have met the criteria for hosting.

Ulster won the bid.

Pot Hale wrote:And round and round we go.

the posted summary by OSC of the conversation with Tom McCormack and with Ospreys themselves is useful.  

Ospreys make it quite clear what their reasons were for not bidding.

1.  They were against the idea in principle in the first place.  Fair enough - they got outvoted on this.

2. They had a stadium so capacity was not an issue.

3. they thought the £100k guarantee was too risky and decided not to.

They do not mention the issue of hotels - 5-star or otherwise - as a reason for deciding not to tender.

There is no mention that national stadia were excluded.

These are the reported facts according to OSC.

Other clubs did bid - we don't know all of them.  Ulster and Glasgow were shortlisted - therefore they must have met the criteria for hosting.

Ulster won the bid.

Pretty much spot on, Im sure others were put of by the upfront £100k. Ulster are riding the crest of a wave with increased interest in rugby in the province, the redevelopment of Kingspan Ravenhill and regular sell outs

marty2086 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:And round and round we go.

the posted summary by OSC of the conversation with Tom McCormack and with Ospreys themselves is useful.  

Ospreys make it quite clear what their reasons were for not bidding.

1.  They were against the idea in principle in the first place.  Fair enough - they got outvoted on this.

2. They had a stadium so capacity was not an issue.

3. they thought the £100k guarantee was too risky and decided not to.

They do not mention the issue of hotels - 5-star or otherwise - as a reason for deciding not to tender.

There is no mention that national stadia were excluded.

These are the reported facts according to OSC.

Other clubs did bid - we don't know all of them.  Ulster and Glasgow were shortlisted - therefore they must have met the criteria for hosting.

Ulster won the bid.

Pretty much spot on, Im sure others were put of by the upfront £100k. Ulster are riding the crest of a wave with increased interest in rugby in the province, the redevelopment of Kingspan Ravenhill and regular sell outs

I think the key bit for bidding is get the city/admin council behind you. If you're a club bringing in 18k fans to the city for one game for the weekend - a good portion of whom are planning to spend conservatively £50-£75 a head outside of ticket sales, I reckon you could negotiate that they pay half the guarantee for the benefit to the local economy.

Right now across the UK and Ireland local authorities budgets are under more pressure than ever and thats only going to increase, but certainly having the local tourist board in your corner to help promote the event is going to be a big plus.

Pot Hale wrote:

Other clubs did bid

Where was this reported?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Other clubs did bid

Where was this reported?

On the Internet.

Pot Hale wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Other clubs did bid

Where was this reported?

On the Internet.

Got a link?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Other clubs did bid

Where was this reported?

On the Internet.

Got a link?

It's on this topic in a previous post about the report on the Pro12 conversation.  Several clubs didn't bid including Ospreys. Ulster and Glasgow were shortlisted.

Pot Hale wrote:

It's on this topic in a previous post about the report on the Pro12 conversation.  Several clubs didn't bid including Ospreys.  Ulster and Glasgow were shortlisted.

I can't find anything that confirms there were more than 2 bids.

I know it has been said that Ulster and Glasgow were short-listed, but I've always assumed it was only the two clubs entered a bid.

Munchkin wrote:I know it has been said that Ulster and Glasgow were short-listed, but I've always assumed it was only the two clubs entered a bid.

Leinster probably decided not to because of hosting it so recently. Munster couldn't put a bid in because they were hosting Ireland v Babas just 2 days before the Final.

Just as an aside - Limerick City had to put up money to host the Club 7s last year in Thomond Park. Clubs will need their local council etc behind them if they want to host such events.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

It's on this topic in a previous post about the report on the Pro12 conversation.  Several clubs didn't bid including Ospreys.  Ulster and Glasgow were shortlisted.

I can't find anything that confirms there were more than 2 bids.

I can't find anything that confirms that there weren't. The words 'several' and 'shortlisted' would indicate that there were.

But I guess we'll never know. I find it odd that the OSC people left a few questions unasked, such as:

If Ulster & Glasgow were shortlisted, who else, or at least how many submitted bids on the longlist?

What were the key criteria that needed to be met for the bid - the ones that would be scored the most?

Was having 5 star hotels a critical part of the tender process?

Were national stadia or any type of stadia excluded from being tendered in a bid since you asked clubs to submit innovative bid proposals?

What kind of support was desired/required from city/area councils?

When was the tender issued/how long did clubs have to respond?

How many clubs, other than Ospreys, object to the final venue selection being changed?

Sin é wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I know it has been said that Ulster and Glasgow were short-listed, but I've always assumed it was only the two clubs entered a bid.

Leinster probably decided not to because of hosting it so recently. Munster couldn't put a bid in because they were hosting Ireland v Babas just 2 days before the Final.

Just as an aside - Limerick City had to put up money to host the Club 7s last year in Thomond Park. Clubs will need their local council etc behind them if they want to host such events.

I thought the same as to why Munster didn't enter a bid. True about local councils needing to be on board. Belfast had the support of various organisations including the tourist board. A lot of planning, and I can understand why some clubs might have been a bit wary with it being the first season. I agree with Ospreys wait and see policy for the same reasons.

Pot Hale wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

It's on this topic in a previous post about the report on the Pro12 conversation.  Several clubs didn't bid including Ospreys.  Ulster and Glasgow were shortlisted.

I can't find anything that confirms there were more than 2 bids.

I can't find anything that confirms that there weren't.  The words 'several' and 'shortlisted' would indicate that there were.

But I guess we'll never know.    I find it odd that the OSC people left a few questions unasked, such as:

If Ulster & Glasgow were shortlisted, who else, or at least how many submitted bids on the longlist?

What were the key criteria that needed to be met for the bid - the ones that would be scored the most?

Was having 5 star hotels a critical part of the tender process?

Were national stadia or any type of stadia excluded from being tendered in a bid since you asked clubs to submit innovative bid proposals?

What kind of support was desired/required from city/area councils?

When was the tender issued/how long did clubs have to respond?

How many clubs, other than Ospreys, object to the final venue selection being changed?

I thought that a bit odd, myself. Especially with McCormack inviting those with any further queries to email him.

Pot Hale wrote:

I can't find anything that confirms that there weren't.  The words 'several' and 'shortlisted' would indicate that there were.

But I guess we'll never know.    

So you've gone from :

Other clubs did bid

to

I guess we'll never know.

????

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

I can't find anything that confirms that there weren't.  The words 'several' and 'shortlisted' would indicate that there were.

But I guess we'll never know.    

So you've gone from :

Other clubs did bid

to

I guess we'll never know.

????

No. I still say other clubs did bid.

Until the OSC tells us simply that only two clubs bid, or else tell us that 10 clubs (rather than 'several') didn't bid, including the Ospreys - which is what I would have expected them to write if only two clubs did bid, I'm sticking with my first statement.

Oh well, even more controversy, it looks as though the Irish FA took a bribe not to take FIFA to court over the Thierry Henry hand ball, and they used the money towards building their beloved AVIVA stadium, oh well we can always hold the final in the bribery stadium in Dublin.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33011692

Key phrase here being the "Irish FA" and not the IRFU.
Football is corrupt, whodathunk it?
And speaking of bribery what about WRU getting guaranteed games in the Millenium whenever there's a RWC held in Britain?

Away from the minor bickerings, the whole of football is very dodgy, a lot of what goes on at FIFA is replicated right through the confederation and national FA structures, I bet there's a few people not sleeping well at all the home nation FA's at the moment.

Irish Londoner wrote:And speaking of bribery what about WRU getting guaranteed games in the Millenium whenever there's a RWC held in Britain?

I would class that as open and honest blackmail. We'll vote for you if you have games here. No bribery. Definitely not corrupt. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Also happened in France in 2007 (with Scotland), and if you think it won't apply to Ireland for 2023 if they get it you're being very naive. Unless these FIFA allegations completely change the way all major events are awarded.

RDW_Scotland wrote:I've removed some poo flinging from this thread - if people have issues with something a poster has said then report it. If you retaliate you're just as likely to get a warning/ban yourself.

RDW, as somebody who regularly posts here I think there's some unnecessary poo often flung at Chunky by a group of Irish posters. I don't always see eye-to-eye with Chunky but don't believe I've proceeded to fling poo at him, especially when he can usually back up his opinion so it's not like Chunky's comments are often unsubstantiated. Just my view on the matter, but I'd hate to see an individual have action taken against their account because a group of posters disagreed with him (as unfortunately that's usually how it works around here). I won't say any more, but if I need to I'll follow it up via PM .

Let the thread continue!

Pot Hale wrote:

No.  I still say other clubs did bid.  

Until the OSC tells us simply that only two clubs bid, or else tell us that 10 clubs (rather than 'several') didn't bid, including the Ospreys - which is what I would have expected them to write if only two clubs did bid, I'm sticking with my first statement.  

You said that it was reported on the internet that more than 2 clubs bid. Can you show me where. I'm sure it's just that I can't find it, I have no reason to tink you'd make this up.

The Saint wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:I've removed some poo flinging from this thread - if people have issues with something a poster has said then report it. If you retaliate you're just as likely to get a warning/ban yourself.

RDW, as somebody who regularly posts here I think there's some unnecessary poo often flung at Chunky by a group of Irish posters. I don't always see eye-to-eye with Chunky but don't believe I've proceeded to fling poo at him, especially when he can usually back up his opinion so it's not like Chunky's comments are often unsubstantiated. Just my view on the matter, but I'd hate to see an individual have action taken against their account because a group of posters disagreed with him (as unfortunately that's usually how it works around here). I won't say any more, but if I need to I'll follow it up via PM .

Let the thread continue!

Well said Saint, I agree with this as well.

The Saint wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:I've removed some poo flinging from this thread - if people have issues with something a poster has said then report it. If you retaliate you're just as likely to get a warning/ban yourself.

RDW, as somebody who regularly posts here I think there's some unnecessary poo often flung at Chunky by a group of Irish posters. I don't always see eye-to-eye with Chunky but don't believe I've proceeded to fling poo at him, especially when he can usually back up his opinion so it's not like Chunky's comments are often unsubstantiated. Just my view on the matter, but I'd hate to see an individual have action taken against their account because a group of posters disagreed with him (as unfortunately that's usually how it works around here). I won't say any more, but if I need to I'll follow it up via PM .

Let the thread continue!

In addition to that. When the crowd poo flinging at Chunky was raised on another thread (right off the bat with no attempt at trying to post about the thread) was raised, the reply from above was

Notch on https://www.606v2.com/t59155-pro-12-attendances wrote:I'm never going to come down on well written, humorous posts that add value to the site SS. That will always do more harm than good.

I have seen chunky get the red pen here and even get bans on here, and then others get nothing for doing the same thing, even when I have made certain MODS aware of it.

Lord the red pen will fall upon us now, and we will all get told that we are trouble makers via a well worded PM, for mentioning it.

LordDowlais wrote:Oh well, even more controversy, it looks as though the Irish FA took a bribe not to take FIFA to court over the Thierry Henry hand ball, and they used the money towards building their beloved AVIVA stadium, oh well we can always hold the final in the bribery stadium in Dublin.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33011692

So you think out of court settlements are bribes? I suppose you can spin it that way if you had an agenda against the Irish.

I suppose the fact that the deal was a loan that was written off, was legal, and was recorded in the books, is something that you like to ignore because it doesn't fit the narrative of 'evil Irish'. It is simply compensation that FAI would likely have received if they had have taken it all the way to court.

Another fact is that the FIA has long been opposed to Blatter. They voted against his election. It's no secret that they didn't like each other.

Not that I care a jot about football, and not that many didn't strongly suspect FIFA was rife with corruption anyway.

Scarlet, I don't know if other posts have been pulled, but Dowlais had one for an unnecessary personal attack. So a few people might be jumping the gun for criticising RDW and the mods.

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Oh well, even more controversy, it looks as though the Irish FA took a bribe not to take FIFA to court over the Thierry Henry hand ball, and they used the money towards building their beloved AVIVA stadium, oh well we can always hold the final in the bribery stadium in Dublin.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33011692

So you think out of court settlements are bribes? I suppose you can spin it that way if you had an agenda against the Irish.

I suppose the fact that the deal was a loan that was written off, was legal, and was recorded in the books, is something that you like to ignore because it doesn't fit the narrative of 'evil Irish'. It is simply compensation that FAI would likely have received if they had have taken it all the way to court.

Another fact is that the FIA has long been opposed to Blatter. They voted against his election. It's no secret that they didn't like each other.

Not that I care a jot about football, and not that many didn't strongly suspect FIFA was rife with corruption anyway.

Chill out Munch, I was only teasing, that is why I used a wink emoticon.

Risca Rev wrote:Scarlet, I don't know if other posts have been pulled, but Dowlais had one for an unnecessary personal attack. So a few people might be jumping the gun for criticising RDW and the mods.

Risca, you are trying my patience now, please stop trolling me, NONE OF MY POSTS HAVE BEEN PULLED DOWN, they are still on here.

A dig in the guise of teasing. If the little wink was indeed meant to covey teasing about FIFA/FIA and not 'hosting the final'.