Should England Play Outside HQ

I've not seen this discussed here and I expect it would be a talking point. Rugby World's editor letter this month is about the lack of coverage afforded to Rugby Union in the northern part of England. It is claimed that the game in England will never grow so long as it is ignored by the RFU and left up to the clubs. The efforts of Brian Kennedy and Sale Sharks were praised for their agreement to promote games in Bolton.

In order to remedy the situation the following recommendations have been made:

• The 2012 Aviva Premiership Final take place in Old Trafford, Manchester rather than Twickenham

• At least 2 England Tests a year should take place in either Manchester, Newcastle or Liverpool.

• The RFU should help clubs in these areas to market the game, like Sale did playing in Bolton

Is there merit to any of the ideas or is this a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Absolutely needs to be done, but not with a 6 nations game, play one AI game a year up Norff but don't see a need for anymore than that. League has to much of a hold up there for it to be financially viable to take more than one a year up there.

How it is described by Rugby World Hughie was to play 1 autumn game and 1 six nations game there at a minimum per season.

For what its worth I agree with you.

I think it could only be a good thing, problem is, twiks is such a great place to watch rugby, will you lose the feeling of it in a football stadium?
Saying that the games against Argentina in 2009 were a success

Whereas I theory I agree with moving a 6 nations game up Norff I just can't see the RFU doing it, and I don't think it should be either

Look at France, they move the AIs around the country but the 6 nations stay in Paris. They have a healthy balance and it works just fine

Exactly same with Ireland. We've had friendly games in Limerick and Belfast. 6 Nations stays in Dublin.

No HQ is HQ

So every game all the time should be in London?

England is to big a country to not move the odd game, it should be done

If the All Blacks tried to play every match at Eden park there'd be civil war.

I was just about to post that Kiwi. In the 3 nations last year:

- The All Blacks played in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
- The Springboks played in Bloemfontian, Pretoria and Johannesburg
- The Wallabies played in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney

No city hosted more than 1 match. 9 different games in 9 different cities.

They should keep the big games at Twickenham, but AIs against Samoa, Fiji, Argentina etc. should go on the road.

Certainly Twickenham should keep all the 6 Nations games.

One game in the AIs certainly should be done. Another game that should be brought to another area is the Barbarians game. What a waste to keep that in Twickenham.

Places like the City Of Manchester Stadium and the Stadium of Light in Sunderland would be good places to go to. Maybe even Stoke.

How about the midlands though and not just up north?

Also, Premier League Ltd. helped Sale when they went to Bolton.

"•The 2012 Aviva Premiership Final take place in Old Trafford, Manchester rather than Twickenham


•At least 2 England Tests a year should take place in either Manchester, Newcastle or Liverpool."


Disagree for Premiership final, Old Traffords capacity isnt big enough, and its going to cost the majority of fans more to get there regardless of whos in the final ( lets face it its between Tigers, Bath, Saracens, Gloucester, Saints certainly not Sale anyway) Doesnt it clash with the soccer seaosn anyway?

Theres a reasonable argument for playing the "lesser" AI away from Twickenham and/or the Baabaa's, to stimulate interest outside the core Union areas .
But playing any game away from Twickers will cost the RFU. Go to OT and not only will their be less tickets that can be sold but costs will go up too. Its not like Fergie is going to invite them in for free to rip his precious pitch up. Again theres an issue with it clashing with the soccer season.
However doing this would devalue these games even more. At least the RFU had the decency to not try and pass the BB fixture off as an international, unlike the WRU who are shameing their caps. but shipping it out to some provincial hellhole would make it evven cleaer to the fans that they arent taking it seriously and noones quite sure why youd pay to go see this sham but thanks for the money.

Some club games rotating between soccer grounds like regional/provincial sides sometimes do isnt such a bad idea. It would work for some clubs...but would have to fit around tehir currnet ground arrangements and again could increase costs without generating additional revenue.

"How about the midlands though and not just up north?"

Because theres already two huge clubs in the Midlands who have no trouble getting fans in their grounds, and another fairly well supported one just come up?
Its also relatively easy for Midlands fans to get down to London, whereas those who live beyond Derby get scared of the bright sunshine and refuse even if they can get enough coal together to afford the trip.
The two northern clubs left in the Premiership are a joke, as are their support. Trying to grow the game at the commercial end in th North is a sound principle, its still a game with decent participation at a lower level even in the whippet belt/league heartland

The RFU has to maxmise its income so it can distribute its profit around to all the rugby clubs in England.

The reason France, NZ and Australia play in various stadiums is because they don't own a stadium. Twickenham is owned by the RFU and so has to get as much revenue out of it as it can to pay for the expnses involved in owning the stadium and providing funds to the game at all levels.

I live near Leeds and it takes me around 3 hours to get to Twickenham, I suspect it's around the same for people coming from Manchester. To get to Old Trafford would take me around two hours. I'd much prefer all the money from my ticket going to the RFU, not going to a football club with huge debts.

I think it makes sense with games not expected to sell out like the Baa-Baas match. Rather than have 30,000 in an 80,000 stadium they could move it to a ground with a 30,000-40,000 capacity and get a better atmosphere.

I agree some matches should be played outside HQ. We need to expand our exposure, and this is a good way to go about it.

Moving a French 6N match in France outside Paris won't help them so much since it is the south of France where the Rugby heartland is located. Paris is already the anomoly, but they still pack Stade de France for the 6N. I would like to think, with some effort, the RFU could do the same by playing outside HQ.

Nottins, you need to speculate to accumulate. Its an investment than could/would work not in ticket sales but in terms of interest of the sport across the country. Thats what RFU are there for; to grow the game.

If I was English I would hate to see a home Six Nations game played anywhere other than Twickenham. Autumn internationals, fine - I don't care about them. But not for the Six Nations.

"So every game all the time should be in London?"

Yes, at HQ!!!

BATH_BTGOG wrote:"So every game all the time should be in London?"

Yes, at HQ!!!

Why?

I remember John Steele saying when he become the RFU CEO that the English coffers were in a very healthy state after Francis Baron's reign, that his main job was to help with the growth of the game.

Also, with the World Cup being 4 years away, they need to grow the interest around the whole country.

I think MBTGOG really nailed it. A World Cup is 4 years away. It is important for the success of the RWC to start building interest throughout the country now. The great part of this is that it will also build interest in Rugby outside of the RWC and, hopefully, help grow the sport. Fundamentally, it is an investment today with payback in 4 years.

I think moving some games out of Twickenham would be a clever move. If they tried to have an England game (autumn internationals, Italy in 6N) in each of the grounds selected for hosting the world cup and aimed to hold and England game there before the RWC comes around that would be a nice bit of PR, gets Union around the country. If they could decide where NZ, SA and Oz were going to be based for that RWC and have a test against NZ in Old Trafford if that was where Nz would be having their group games, and so on.. it could help the host cities buy in to their teams a bit.

Why?

Because the RFU own Twickers therfore have to make money from it

Its like saying why doesn't Man Utd play 3/4 games a year in India as they have a lot of fans there too?

I can see one game a year against the likes of the Pacific Island teams up north but nothing else.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:I can see one game a year against the likes of the Pacific Island teams up north but nothing else.

Then why not say that instead of saying every game at Twickenham. I agree that the proposals made were extreme - I think we all do. But games against this standard of opposition and Barbarians should travel.

"Then why not say that instead of saying every game at Twickenham"

Why worry what I say Stag as I'm sure the RFU have more say in the matter.

I for one go to cardiff to get my International rugby fix for the year as its nearer to home and cheaper even with the bridge toll.

Although something has to be done to stop the decline, the North generally prefers League. meaning attendances may be low anyway.

I still think the AP final should stay at Twickenham, it is a much better venue than Old Trafford. Old Trafford also doesn't have a big screen, so video ref appeals may be pathetic.

The AI should move however, for a trial period.

However, the clubs are declining, suggesting the support is still there but the clubs are not up to the standard required to be top class?