European rugby, the interest just isn't there

First topic message reminder :

I know I will get a bashing off some quarters on here, but sorry it has to be said, looking at the crowds for the two semi-finals on the weekend, it would seem the interest is not there. The aggregate figure for the two games was a paltry 38,968 people, there was more people than that for the Cardiff Blues V Leicester semi final a few years ago 44,212 turned up that day.

This proves that the greedy club owners have ruined a once prestigious competition, admired by thousands and getting better year on year. Where are all these new massive sponsorship deals ? Where is all this money we are supposed to be swimming in ? 

All I saw on the weekend was empty seats, the future of the European club competition for me looks bleak, dwindling crowds, the same teams ALL the time in the knockout stages, lack of interest, the French already consider their own league a priority, for me something drastic needs to be done as it would seem the writing is on the wall for one of our favourite club competitions, it's sad, as it's been well and truly ruined by the greedy club owners.

Take a read of some of these, you might find them interesting:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2016/04/25/empty-seats-as-saracens-and-racing-92-won-through-must-be-a-wake/
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/much-better-europe-champions-cup-11238143

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And there wouldn't be any issue if, say, Leinster had been good enough to reach the final;or any pro 12 team had reached the semis. Overall there really isn't that much difference. Fewer below par teams, more fairly balanced between the leagues.

If things weren't different, BT wouldn't have paid the big money to turn it all on its head.  The differences are fundamental, and meant to be.  And the plan isn't finished.  English teams have yet to end their cap.  But they will.... and of course some of them have already started to get a head start on the posse  It's all change.... there's money to be made by the elected elite.

The cap is a bit laughable now as you insinuate. In regards to money there have been EEnglish clubs pushing to raise and remove that anyway so little to do with the new comp.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And there wouldn't be any issue if, say, Leinster had been good enough to reach the final;or any pro 12 team had reached the semis. Overall there really isn't that much difference. Fewer below par teams, more fairly balanced between the leagues.

I'm not sure if that's true, 7&1/2. It looks like the same competition, at face value, but it falls short in different ways. The most obvious is the split broadcasting, the poor marketing, ticket prices, perhaps the scheduling, the lack of promised sponsorship and no big name attached, such as Heineken. An improved performance of the Provinces will help, but will it be enough? EPCR needs to get its act together and address all the issues already mentioned, and then hope that the sense of magic returns. I'm not convinced it will, but it is my hope.

See and if it was advantageous to the irish shouldn't that have also applied to the welsh and Scottish? We're French teams as badly disadvantaged as the English?
Could the complaint that were moaning as our teams aint doing aswell be levelled at the English fans prior to change?
Just maybe the English wernt disadvantaged as the irishbaint now, maybe just maybe they just weren't / aren't good enough

English clubs had to qualify. And compete domestically to avoid relegation and also qualify for the next year, and also for the AP playoffs.

Pro12 notsomuch. They viewed HC as their main focus and didn't have to qualify, or worry about their domestic league.

And the seeding favoured teams who automatically qualifies.

Well done hat about the French? Don't dnt they have the same issues?

The welsh and Scottish had the same advantage then. Why didn't they win it?

When the irish teams won had they ever finished the league outside the top 4?

As did french clubs.

And the money was uneven.

All good now though. And great to see Connacht doing so well

Cyril wrote:That's the Irish version of a walesonline article (or the Daily Mail is the British national press).

Badly written and utterly biased and hyperbolic.

...but the Irish fans will believe everything they said

profitus, you and Lord Dowlais should go into competition for the 'worst sources' award!

It was mainly looking back at some of the quotes from the PRL at the time. I'm not one for 'I told you so' but no harm showing them up for their dishonesty.

I don't buy too much into the split broadcasting , but then I have Sky and BT so it doesn't affect me Munchkin. For me the rugby on the pitch is what matters.

I don't really buy into the clubs being disadvantaged carpet. Once you're in you have as much chance as anyone if your team is good enough. For the last 5 -6 years it's basically been the Clermont, Toulon and Leinster show. Maybe the next few Wasps and Saracens.

No one at the PRL made predictions about how the new cup would do if coverage was split between 2 broadcasters...

I agree with you 7. That was my point. I think some fans take lack of successful home nations teams as being down to unlevel playing field.
I think it's down to talent and some luck

Not true 7.5

The seeding favoured pro12 teams as they were in it every years. And with 2 Italians in and 3 runners up places, seeding made a real difference to who qualified.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't buy too much into the split broadcasting , but then I have Sky and BT so it doesn't affect me Munchkin. For me the rugby on the pitch is what matters.

I don't really buy into the clubs being disadvantaged carpet. Once you're in you have as much chance as anyone if your team is good enough. For the last 5 -6 years it's basically been the Clermont, Toulon and Leinster show. Maybe the next few Wasps and Saracens.

The split broadcasting has to be an issue. The rugby matters, but the split broadcasting means that, for many, there isn't a sense of momentum.

Do some people have trouble changing channels on their telly?

Small margins. An odd bounce. A good seeding. A questionable ref decision.

Look at Sco vs AUS at RWC...

Just because you don't think these things matter doesn't mean they don't.

I agree with you munchkin about the split broadcasting. Continuity and a building sense of excitement is lost. Neither are doing as much promotion as was done before

And if you're good enough you overcome it quins. I don't think the seeding has had much effect, think it's just the general up turn of some teams. Saracens have a brilliant team, relatively young and likely to get better. Same with Wasps, Same with Exeter. You compare that with some Irish legends retiring, along with some key changes for the French and that for me has much more impact.

Just get both then Munchkin. The way of the world that broadcasting is split at the moment until BT or Sky come out on top.

quinsforever wrote:Not true 7.5

The seeding favoured pro12 teams as they were in it every years. And with 2 Italians in and 3 runners up places, seeding made a real difference to who qualified.

But then some of the those teams, such as Cardiff and Connacht, created the David and Goliath battles, when the big teams fell to them. They certainly created a big buzz, and were all part of the magic of the Cup.

Maybe you overcome it if you're good enough. Maybe.

But is that a good reason for not evening up the playing field? Or improving the format?

quinsforever wrote:I agree with you munchkin about the split broadcasting. Continuity and a building sense of excitement is lost. Neither are doing as much promotion as was done before

The promotion has been very disappointing. You would think it would be an advantage to both to invest a little more in promotion.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't buy too much into the split broadcasting , but then I have Sky and BT so it doesn't affect me Munchkin. For me the rugby on the pitch is what matters.

I don't really buy into the clubs being disadvantaged carpet. Once you're in you have as much chance as anyone if your team is good enough. For the last 5 -6 years it's basically been the Clermont, Toulon and Leinster show. Maybe the next few Wasps and Saracens.

Thats very anti PRL of you?

So you agree pre reform there was no advantage for Pro 12 teams?

I'm not anti or pro PRL Fanster. I don't get people who would defend everything someone/thing no matter what.

No advantage really to the teams who qualified no. The one thing I disagreed with, adn still have grumbles now is that it should be the best teams who qualify through each of the 3 leagues.

No point being nostalgic fanster. The competition is much more competitive now.

So much so that you all want to ditch the 1 Italian team from an auto spot....lmao

quinsforever wrote:Maybe you overcome it if you're good enough. Maybe.

But is that a good reason for not evening up the playing field? Or improving the format?

OK then shouldn't bath and Saracen s both have been punished for the salary cap? Did those extra payments cheat two other teams out of the top European comp?
That's what annoys me the most. Those two talk all about it being fair for all then kiss all posts get there own league

quinsforever wrote:Maybe you overcome it if you're good enough. Maybe.

But is that a good reason for not evening up the playing field? Or improving the format?

It's a fair question, and I do appreciate that not all will want the same things. For me, I think the present format removes some of the romance. Most of us, if not all, like to see the little guy give the bully a bloody nose.

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:I agree with you munchkin about the split broadcasting. Continuity and a building sense of excitement is lost. Neither are doing as much promotion as was done before

The promotion has been very disappointing. You would think it would be an advantage to both to invest a little more in promotion.

Can either afford to promote? Spending so much money on the rights, etc and having no major sponsor surely in a sport like Rugby union they can only justify spending so much, especially if your considering just running out the clock on the contract, and getting out?

There is no salary cap in Europe. What does that have to do with champs cup?

If there were, the Irish teams would be in breach....

quinsforever wrote:There is no salary cap in Europe. What does that have to do with champs cup?

If there were, the Irish teams would be in breach....

That would depend on what the salary cap was set at though, wouldn't it!

7.5

This is where I feel we agree then...

I said at the time of negotiation that if the route wanted is to get the very best of the best, then there should be a qualification route open to absolutely everyone (Including romanian clubs etc).

Meaning if there are no representitives from one league then so be it, everyone had a shot at fair qualification.

carpet baboon wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Maybe you overcome it if you're good enough. Maybe.

But is that a good reason for not evening up the playing field? Or improving the format?

OK then shouldn't bath and Saracen s both have been punished for the salary cap? Did those extra payments cheat two other teams out of the top European comp?
That's what annoys me the most. Those two talk all about it being fair for all then kiss all posts get there own league

Yes, absolutely, but you'll have some on here complaining because it's been buried that's good enough as there's no public proof. Another reason why a Euro salary cap wouldn';t work though even if implemented.

I have nothing against the champions cup. Do I want my team to do better in it? Yes. Do I blame the set up for them not? No.
I have been to 8 hc cup finals and will be going to this year's cc final and I will most likely enjoy it as much as the others that didn't hold any personal connection for me.
I do however find Craig and McCaffrey underhanded Poopie bags, which colours my judgement a little. I shouldn't let it but it does

quinsforever wrote:No point being nostalgic fanster. The competition is much more competitive now.

So much so that you all want to ditch the 1 Italian team from an auto spot....lmao

Who is 'you'?

Are you refering to me? A non pro 12 club supporter?

The disgracefull talks of kicking Italy out of the Pro 12 and 6N, is a direct result of the PRL, they should apologise!

Fanster wrote:7.5

This is where I feel we agree then...

I said at the time of negotiation that if the route wanted is to get the very best of the best, then there should be a qualification route open to absolutely everyone (Including romanian clubs etc).

Meaning if there are no representitives from one league then so be it, everyone had a shot at fair qualification.

I'd keep it to the top3 leagues currently. Don't believe the rest are good enough.

It's not the PRL who wil decide if the Pro 12 don't want Italian clubs.

Irish Times wrote:The ad man said before you rebrand a league you need to know what it stands for.

Here and now, when we look at sparsely-attended games at the business end of the tournament it might be time to ask that very question: two years in, what does the Champions Cup stand for?

If this is how the Ad people look at it, the sponsorship isn't going to get any better.

Fanster wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:I agree with you munchkin about the split broadcasting. Continuity and a building sense of excitement is lost. Neither are doing as much promotion as was done before

The promotion has been very disappointing. You would think it would be an advantage to both to invest a little more in promotion.

Can either afford to promote? Spending so much money on the rights, etc and having no major sponsor surely in a sport like Rugby union they can only justify spending so much, especially if your considering just running out the clock on the contract, and getting out?

I don't know but, after having invested so much in a product, it seems ludicrous that they skimp on the promotion needed for a return on investment. If both really do have money issues, then it doesn't bode well for the next contracts. Not convinced that is the issue though.

Fanster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:No point being nostalgic fanster. The competition is much more competitive now.

So much so that you all want to ditch the 1 Italian team from an auto spot....lmao

Who is 'you'?

Are you refering to me? A non pro 12 club supporter?

The disgracefull talks of kicking Italy out of the Pro 12 and 6N, is a direct result of the PRL, they should apologise!

The Six Nations won't want to kick out Italy for Romania or Georgia.

Sin é wrote:

Fanster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:No point being nostalgic fanster. The competition is much more competitive now.

So much so that you all want to ditch the 1 Italian team from an auto spot....lmao

Who is 'you'?

Are you refering to me? A non pro 12 club supporter?

The disgracefull talks of kicking Italy out of the Pro 12 and 6N, is a direct result of the PRL, they should apologise!

The Six Nations won't want to kick out Italy for Romania or Georgia.

They could go back to 5 Nations?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:7.5

This is where I feel we agree then...

I said at the time of negotiation that if the route wanted is to get the very best of the best, then there should be a qualification route open to absolutely everyone (Including romanian clubs etc).

Meaning if there are no representitives from one league then so be it, everyone had a shot at fair qualification.

I'd keep it to the top3  leagues currently. Don't believe the rest are good enough.

My point is if there are 2 regionalised (3, using the leagues and including other european in those regions) qualifying rounds, most of the larger clubs get a simple game based on seeding ie Sarries play Steau Bucaresti in round 1.

Then at round 3 the 24 teams 8 from each region play off in a seeded system to see who the 12 teams are that compete in the comp proper.

Everyone gets a fair crack, all fans are engaged, but the elite comp is still there to inspire all

What's the point of having utterly one-sided qualifying games?

We would see 100+ point routings worse than seen in the 2nd tier cup.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:7.5

This is where I feel we agree then...

I said at the time of negotiation that if the route wanted is to get the very best of the best, then there should be a qualification route open to absolutely everyone (Including romanian clubs etc).

Meaning if there are no representitives from one league then so be it, everyone had a shot at fair qualification.

I'd keep it to the top3  leagues currently. Don't believe the rest are good enough.

My point is if there are 2 regionalised (3, using the leagues and including other european in those regions) qualifying rounds, most of the larger clubs get a simple game based on seeding ie Sarries play Steau Bucaresti in round 1.

Then at round 3 the 24 teams 8 from each region play off in a seeded system to see who the 12 teams are that compete in the comp proper.

Everyone gets a fair crack, all fans are engaged, but the elite comp is still there to inspire all

Would have far too many too many one sided games as the Romanians are knocked out etc. Wouldn't mind a straigth knock out Euro comp like FA Cup, teams drawn out, alas wouldn't generate the money.

Even the talk of kicking out the Italians is disgracefull.

They have been poopie in both competitions, but they have also been kicked in the face while climbing the mountain!

The clubs having made decent improvements, and developing good Academy structures are the direct victims of the PRLs power grab.

The Italian national team have just lost control of a majority of their national side, where their players are flogged in England and France, and they have little power to get decent access to them.

They are being forced to play club rugby with semi pro players, and due to an injury crisis and turbulence theyve been through have even had to play International rugby with semi pro level players!

Kick them out, and it will confirm everything europeans think of rugby, that it is for one type of person, the elite.

Didn't the Pro12 force the Italians to pay for the honour of joining the league?

Cyril wrote:What's the point of having utterly one-sided qualifying games?

We would see 100+ point routings worse than seen in the 2nd tier cup.

3 points...

Firstly until these teams are exposed to top level rugby they can never improve.

Inclusion of every pro club in europe means total inclusion, opening wider markets.

The one sided games would be first round qualifiers, there wouldn't regularly be 100 pointers like there are now.

Once the lower teams are knocked out they could play a 2nd tier knockout comp in a non traditional rugby nation maybe.

Lets not get into this though, it' been done to death, and has no chance of fruition

Cyril wrote:Didn't the Pro12 force the Italians to pay for the honour of joining the league?

Yes, which was poor form from the pro 12 officials. I think the idea was it to be short term until they become self sufficient and commercially viable to pay their way, don't beleive that would happen though!

Cyril wrote:Didn't the Pro12 force the Italians to pay for the honour of joining the league?

The Italians were asked to make a commitment to the PRO12 in which the SRU, IRFU & WRU had been investing in heavily for the previous 6 or 7 years - i.e., the FIR bought their share of the competition.

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Didn't the Pro12 force the Italians to pay for the honour of joining the league?

The Italians were asked to make a commitment to the PRO12 in which the SRU, IRFU & WRU had been investing in heavily for the previous 6 or 7 years - i.e., the FIR bought their share of the competition.

Hav they 'bought' their share yet?

Fanster wrote:

Cyril wrote:Didn't the Pro12 force the Italians to pay for the honour of joining the league?

Yes, which was poor form from the pro 12 officials. I think the idea was it to be short term until they become self sufficient and commercially viable to pay their way, don't believe that would happen though!

The Italians didn't have any sponsorship or media to add to the pot. There was also the extra burden of games and travel expenses involved (squads had to be increased in size because of the extra games). Neither the Scottish or Welsh teams were in a position to carry them.

Fanster wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Didn't the Pro12 force the Italians to pay for the honour of joining the league?

The Italians were asked to make a commitment to the PRO12 in which the SRU, IRFU & WRU had been investing in heavily for the previous 6 or 7 years - i.e., the FIR bought their share of the competition.

Hav they 'bought' their share yet?

I think so. They are regarded as shareholders and they sit on the PRO12 Board. They are still paying something to balance out their lack of provision of sponsorship / broadcasting money.