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

No 7&1/2 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And what about the people who didn't have sky but have BT? Could say splitting coverage is actually better overall.

Have you seen how many watch BT? Even the most popular sports competition in Europe can't draw the audiences to it

So you still have the core audience of sky members and the additional (pitiful) audience of BT. Extra it still is.

Who said the BT ones are extra? And when half the games are on BT where do the sky viewers watch?

Some people I'm absolutely sure have BT and don't have Sky, I'm sure you'd accept that. As for the sky watchers, they either don't or they go to a pub etc. Same as people have had to do with football for years. I mean a similar argument could be made about the Heineken Cup, why put it on Sky as it stops people without sky watching.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's about biulding the brand rather than about maintaining interest though.

Without a brand you will not get interest. Marty is right, it is going clean over your head. 

Look, it does not matter to people like us, we love rugby, we will go looking for it. But people who are here nor there with rugby will not, they need it thrust upon them, they need to be made to think, what is all this European rugby I am seeing all the time when these companies are advertising. 

We need people to be made aware. A good sponsor will do all that for you, as they will be peddling their own wares at the same time.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's about biulding the brand rather than about maintaining interest though.

Without a brand you will not get interest. Marty is right, it is going clean over your head. 

Look, it does not matter to people like us, we love rugby, we will go looking for it. But people who are here nor there with rugby will not, they need it thrust upon them, they need to be made to think, what is all this European rugby I am seeing all the time when these companies are advertising. 

We need people to be made aware. A good sponsor will do all that for you, as they will be peddling their own wares at the same time.

No need for these assertions, Lord. We're all friends here - just on the different sides of an argument.

Something doesn't necessarily go over my head just because I don't agree with you! I don't think there's dwindling crowds in this years semis due to the sponsor.

Cheers fly, I may be a stubborn git but I understand the arguments!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some people I'm absolutely sure have BT and don't have Sky, I'm sure you'd accept that. As for the sky watchers, they either don't or they go to a pub etc. Same as people have had to do with football for years. I mean a similar argument could be made about the Heineken Cup, why put it on Sky as it stops people without sky watching.

Given the low numbers for BT they are few and far between, Sky has a bigger reach and even more so next year when they start showing some sport for free. Watching sport in a pub isn't for everyone, especially on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.

You think the lower numbers don't matter and screw those who aren't interested but the problem is it makes the competition less valuable to sponsors and broadcasters, meaning they will want to spend less money on it. Less money spent by them is less money for those taking part, if it gets to the point were it is no longer a financial draw for teams why should they want to take part? What will draw the big names from the SH to play?

I'm sure exactly the same comments were made about the move to Sky way back when.

I've already said my preference would be to scrap it anyway. Perhaps it would be better for world rugby if the SH weren't drawn to play in it (of course they really move for the money for it wouldn't make a difference)

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm sure exactly the same comments were made about the move to Sky way back when.

I've already said my preference would be to scrap it anyway.  Perhaps it would be better for world rugby if the SH weren't drawn to play in it (of course they really move for the money for it wouldn't make a difference)

There was the issue with Sky and there is a debate over the Pro 12 and Sky but theres an ever bigger issue with two subscriptions services over one.

There are plenty drawn to play in Europe by a different culture and the chance to compete in a strong competition

i agree that 2 broadcasters is bad. neither wants to pour in more advertising money if the benefit will be diluted. thats why promotion is far lower than when sky had control. its also far lower than BT's promotion of the AP which they control. and AP seems quite popular and thriving currently.

however, the name of the sponsor has no bearing on the success of the tournament. has everyone forgotten that in France they are not allowed to use the work heineken as alcohol companies cant advertise? they called it the H-Cup there and seemed to have no problem loving the competition.

once they pull in a sponsor who can use UK, Ire AND French markets i suspect there will be a big bump in money.

SKY made the HC what it was, just like they made the Ryder Cup into one of the biggest sporting events in the world. Nobody promotes a sporting event like SKY. I'm saying this as someone who doesn't have Sky sports anymore.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some people I'm absolutely sure have BT and don't have Sky, I'm sure you'd accept that. As for the sky watchers, they either don't or they go to a pub etc. Same as people have had to do with football for years. I mean a similar argument could be made about the Heineken Cup, why put it on Sky as it stops people without sky watching.

Given the low numbers for BT they are few and far between, Sky has a bigger reach and even more so next year when they start showing some sport for free. Watching sport in a pub isn't for everyone, especially on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.

You think the lower numbers don't matter and screw those who aren't interested but the problem is it makes the competition less valuable to sponsors and broadcasters, meaning they will want to spend less money on it. Less money spent by them is less money for those taking part, if it gets to the point were it is no longer a financial draw for teams why should they want to take part? What will draw the big names from the SH to play?

Since a lot of popular sport is on BT now, including ALL the AP rugby, their audience is huge. In fact, its growing and will soon eclipse Sky in terms of viewing numbers for Premiership football alone. I have both Sky & BT Sports and I probably watch more BT than Sky. Sky does have a bigger reach, that is true, but in terms of UK interest, its behind BT for sure.

lets see whether they bring in a big name sponsor for the 16-17 euro cup. i bet they are working hard on it.

it wont be an alcohol company i suspect.

or maybe EU exit is stopping anyone from making this investment for now...

EU exit

thats hilarious. when i type in Br exit as one world. the site changes it to EU exit

EU exit?

Yes please!

you too can have a referendum fly...lol

I wish, quins.

But of course I feel the majority of my fellow countrymen have a much nicer opinion of the folks in Brussels than I.

Jimpy wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some people I'm absolutely sure have BT and don't have Sky, I'm sure you'd accept that. As for the sky watchers, they either don't or they go to a pub etc. Same as people have had to do with football for years. I mean a similar argument could be made about the Heineken Cup, why put it on Sky as it stops people without sky watching.

Given the low numbers for BT they are few and far between, Sky has a bigger reach and even more so next year when they start showing some sport for free. Watching sport in a pub isn't for everyone, especially on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.

You think the lower numbers don't matter and screw those who aren't interested but the problem is it makes the competition less valuable to sponsors and broadcasters, meaning they will want to spend less money on it. Less money spent by them is less money for those taking part, if it gets to the point were it is no longer a financial draw for teams why should they want to take part? What will draw the big names from the SH to play?

Since a lot of popular sport is on BT now, including ALL the AP rugby, their audience is huge. In fact, its growing and will soon eclipse Sky in terms of viewing numbers for Premiership football alone. I have both Sky & BT Sports and I probably watch more BT than Sky. Sky does have a bigger reach, that is true, but in terms of UK interest, its behind BT for sure.

So you are basing that on nothing more than the fact that you watch more BT than Sky?

I much prefer BT to sky....

BT are clearly viewed as co-pantomime villains alongside PRL, responsible for bringing about the death of the good old Heineken Cup.

objectively though, the match coverage at BT is a big improvement.

quinsforever wrote:BT are clearly viewed as co-pantomime villains alongside PRL, responsible for bringing about the death of the good old Heineken Cup.

objectively though, the match coverage at BT is a big improvement.

Or maybe Sky bring in twice the viewers BT do

And BBC would bring more still.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And BBC would bring more still.

And?

quinsforever wrote:BT are clearly viewed as co-pantomime villains alongside PRL, responsible for bringing about the death of the good old Heineken Cup.

objectively though, the match coverage at BT is a big improvement.

To say Craig Doyle is an improvement on anything is... well it's closing on being criminal....
Do not repeat such a claim or you have a visit from the police.

BBC coverage is awful. Inverdale makes my skin crawl.

This is like watching a horse race.  BT ahead by a bridle at the moment but SKY hanging in there with a heavy jokey (jockey even!) holding him back.

Just saying if the point is getting the most viewers, give the games to the BBC.

if barnes and inverdale work together we could probably kill rugby as a sport altogether...lol

Still prefer Doyle to Barnes

Throw in Austin Healey.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just saying if the point is getting the most viewers, give the games to the BBC.

Sure why not just let people into the games for free too

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just saying if the point is getting the most viewers, give the games to the BBC.

They'd have to be given them because they certainly couldn't afford them in todays up-up-and-away inflated prices for sports delivery

munkian wrote:Still prefer Doyle to Barnes

Should be allowed to do bets on whose name Barnes will get wrong, its every game

Along with which story from his playing days he will tell

munkian wrote:Still prefer Doyle to Barnes

Barnes at least knows what he's talking about...Doyle is just a curtain dressing fan off the street, speaking what his autocue wants him to say.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just saying if the point is getting the most viewers, give the games to the BBC.

Sure why not just let people into the games for free too

So sell it to BT for more money and less viewers.

SecretFly wrote:

munkian wrote:Still prefer Doyle to Barnes

Barnes at least knows what he's talking about...Doyle is just a curtain dressing fan off the street, speaking what his autocue wants him to say.

How many times a game do you hear Barnes declare a decision wrong then turn around and say it was right?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just saying if the point is getting the most viewers, give the games to the BBC.

Sure why not just let people into the games for free too

So sell it to BT for more money and less viewers.

Yeah because its that easy

Why do you think UEFA want to end their contract with BT?

So Sky is the baby bears bed for you then. Not too few viewers, just enough money.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Sky is the baby bears bed for you then. Not too few viewers, just enough money.

Its a balancing act, the number of viewers affects the sponsorship as the les eyes there are on the product the less value it has

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

munkian wrote:Still prefer Doyle to Barnes

Barnes at least knows what he's talking about...Doyle is just a curtain dressing fan off the street, speaking what his autocue wants him to say.

How many times a game do you hear Barnes declare a decision wrong then turn around and say it was right?

As many times as any of the rest of them?  

Maybe he's just being honest in not keeping to an opinion just because he uttered it a few moments ago.  If he sees it again and reads it differently???.... he can change his mind.  

It's the stamp-of-authority guys you gotta watch out for - the tut tutters - "oh I think the ref got that wrong" - proof that he didn't appears - "Yeah, well that's only five angles.... didn't we see that first angle that hasn't been put up there that distinctly shows???.... like, I know I saw an angle that would call that judgement wrong."

Anyway, we all make mistakes.  Barnes - a degree of passion.  Doyle - "where's me foundation? I think me nose was too shiny in that last take."

I don't mind Doyle, I think he asks decent questions and challenges the pundits at times when they offer their opinion which is better than some who just nod their head in agreement regardless of what was said

marty2086 wrote:I don't mind Doyle, I think he asks decent questions and challenges the pundits at times when they offer their opinion which is better than some who just nod their head in agreement regardless of what was said

Well it's just individual tastes. I'm of course over-doing the descriptions of him for effect But I've never warmed to Doyle in any of his guises. There is just something..... he just doesn't have it for me.

What extra money has BT put into the comp?

If Pro12 is only getting what it did previously, where has the extra money gone, and how much?

english clubs and french clubs are getting more money

but still less than pro12. but the gaps a lot narrower than it was

Pot Hale wrote:What extra money has BT put into the comp?

If Pro12 is only getting what it did previously, where has the extra money gone, and how much?

*touching our noses*
Now, now! Let's not be poking into the private affairs of others.....
....after all, we didn't pry into your little show over there in the Pro12 land now............... did we?.................................

quinsforever wrote:but still less than pro12. but the gaps a lot narrower than it was

Well the amount of money is decreasing for the Irish teams, according to their annual accounts.

How do you know that English & French clubs got more? How much is more since you say it is less than PRO12?

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I don't mind Doyle, I think he asks decent questions and challenges the pundits at times when they offer their opinion which is better than some who just nod their head in agreement regardless of what was said

Well it's just individual tastes.  I'm of course over-doing the descriptions of him for effect  But I've never warmed to Doyle in any of his guises.  There is just something..... he just doesn't have it for me.

Maybe just trying hard to suppress something there

quinsforever wrote:english clubs and french clubs are getting more money

I'd love to know what the breakdown between the games for the Aviva Premiership and HCup that BT splashed the cash on.

I'd say it was significant because they were very willing to spend considerable sums of money on the sponsorship in Scotland and Wales - i.e., 6 new sponsorships of PRO12 teams and that was just after they declined to tender for the PRO12 media rights