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:Claim? Just something you said and never explaihed when asked. If you don't remember why I should be afraid that the Welsh will join the English league fair enough, they were your thoughts.

They were the thoughts without context. It's a shame that you continue with this silliness without supplying the context.

Never mind. It's not worth it.

They were your thoughts. I didn't understand the context.

got to love internet forum arguments, reminds me of Primary School.....well except primary school arguments were on much better topics.

englishborn wrote:got to love internet forum arguments, reminds me of Primary School.....well except primary school arguments were on much better topics.

And better debated...

lostinwales wrote:

englishborn wrote:got to love internet forum arguments, reminds me of Primary School.....well except primary school arguments were on much better topics.

And better debated...

Oh no they weren't

LondonTiger wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

englishborn wrote:got to love internet forum arguments, reminds me of Primary School.....well except primary school arguments were on much better topics.

And better debated...

Oh no they weren't

Yes they were, 'cos your argument smells of poo!!

Haters are going to hate but I had a good time at the final in Lyon. Nice to meet some neutrals too. I generally get on well with neutral and opposition fans when I am at the games. Plenty of representation and Lyon wasn't empty. I enjoyed the atmosphere, the conditions weren't good for running rugby though.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Well lets look past your insult and ask why would it be clear when the difference between the two is important or aren't you aware of it? A franchise would be privately owned operating under a name whereas a licensed team is still Union owned just privately operated but you fire the insults out to mask your ignorance on the subject.

Maybe you would like to read Philip Brownes interview on Irish Rugby a while back and answer that question then come back and tell me how awkward it is for you

You seem unaware that the NZRU calls its Super Rugby teams 'franchises'. That's awkward.

I read Browne's whine about he can't sell anything off. It's complete bluster. Selling off the Branches would take a week's preparation for any of the top four accountancy firms. It's easy to do.

marty2086 wrote:No actually Phil the Unions still retain control of all the Kiwi teams, while the name Franchise is used they are more licensed organisations though each have different setups with mixes of unions and private operators running the day to day operations

What were you saying about awkward? You could call it what you like it doesn't make it a franchise under the law as I have already stated and the article you posted clearly backs me up

Oh and

Phillip Browne wrote:. If only the Union would open the door to private investment, to a benefactor. It’s really that easy?

“There would be no problem. We have an open mind in relation to any proposition. There is no issue there.”

Your blinkered assessment of the legal structures of Irish Rugby ignores its complexities it also ignores the core argument that Irish Rugby would be open to private investment but the big question is 'Now compare that to Munster: Thomond Park is owned by the clubs and by the branch. You can’t sell that. The players are owned and controlled by the IRFU, the revenue streams aren’t sufficient to cover the costs of running the professional game — so whoever is going to invest in professional rugby in Ireland is essentially writing cheques for €1m and continue doing that until they get bored'.

Doesn't that statement counter your argument as well about the way Irish rugby is setup?

Now we all know you are wrong but the chances of you admitting it are nil.

Question for English fans. Was just thinking about what's been different this season that led to poor performance of Pro12 teams and improvement of performance for English teams.  

Leaving aside the RWC hangover issue, did the later season start for Premiership help in anyway, I wonder?    I think some if not all the premiership clubs have been playing non-stop each week since they started in October.  Rather than fatiguing players, did this continuity actually help them?  Pro12 clubs started six rounds earlier I think, but had off-weeks.

Okay, I'm not English but I'd put it down to the natural jump in enthusiasm over the last few years with the coming of the World Cup.  

English players were pumped emotionally, were itching to try and get themselves into contention, no matter how long fingered that 'contention' actually was.  

I also think the systems must have improved during the build up on a Nationwide level to up fitness and stamina, given that this was a Home World Cup and they knew what teams were coming to party... New Zealand, Australia and an always super fit Welsh International side.

So I'd put much of the improvement in AP down to that combined Nationwide preparation period for the World Cup....and of course that kind of preparation hangs around for a while afterwards.

But already some sounds have been coming from players that they feel they need more rests, that they might be over-worked a tad.  So we'll see will the levels of performances be sustained.

over 800 comments in this thread about how there is no interest in the cup

Only 96 in the thread about the final

Says it all really

Riskysports wrote:over 800 comments in this thread about how there is no interest in the cup

Only 96 in the thread about the final

Says it all really

I suspect the same number would apply to whoever was playing in the final.

That says it all really.

Pot Hale wrote:Question for English fans. Was just thinking about what's been different this season that led to poor performance of Pro12 teams and improvement of performance for English teams.  

Leaving aside the RWC hangover issue, did the later season start for Premiership help in anyway, I wonder? I think some if not all the premiership clubs have been playing non-stop each week since they started in October.  Rather than fatiguing players, did this continuity actually help them?  Pro12 clubs started six rounds earlier I think, but had off-weeks.

There isn't really a one-size-fits-all description. There was a lot of early commentary that England's failure at the World Cup left a lot of players wanting to prove themselves, so they put that frustration to work for their clubs.

That sounded good, but it doesn't seem to ring true now. A lot of Harlequins players were in the England squad, and they started off extremely well, but the Six Nations break derailed their campaign, and they never got it back on track.

If you look at the 4 teams competing in the play-offs, Saracens fit that narrative a bit better but it's much easier to see their performance as an extension of the club's form over the last few seasons, with players like Itoje, Kruis, and the Vunipolas making greater impacts.

Exeter have English players but not a lot featured in the Cup and one of their stars - Henry Slade - was out injured most of the season.

Leicester had Cole and the Youngs brothers with England. Cole and Ben have had decent seasons, but Tom has been out, so it's hard to see much England impact there. Mauger has been more of a factor.

Wasps had Launchbury and Haskell at the Cup. A lot of their good form this season is down to players who won't be with them next season (George Smith & the Piutau brothers). Dai Young must get a lot of credit for bringing them in and shaping the squad. That's really the one common denominator for the top 4 teams: good coaching. It's perhaps not entirely coincidental that Quins season started to derail amid speculation about O'Shea's future.

That takes us on to two teams who have underperformed.  Bath had the second largest England representation at the World Cup and suffered a disastrous season, costing Mike Ford his job. Northampton had three squad members - the same as Leicester and Exeter - but not a great deal of involvement at the Six Nations aside from Hartley. They should have been as cohesive as Leicester and Exeter this year, but looked off the pace. Injuries hit them hard, but there's also a sense that Mallinder has gone of the boil a bit as a coach.

Saracens, then are a bit of an outlier. Lots of England players a the World Cup, lots active in the Six Nations, and all of them delivering for their club across the season.

marty2086 wrote:
What were you saying about awkward? You could call it what you like it doesn't make it a franchise under the law as I have already stated and the article you posted clearly backs me up

I've no idea on NZ law so I'm happy for you to post up your qualifications on it.

My point was solely that the NZRU calls its Super Rugby team 'franchises'. I'm sure that you'll agree that they do.

marty2086 wrote:
Your blinkered assessment of the legal structures of Irish Rugby ignores its complexities it also ignores the core argument that Irish Rugby would be open to private investment but the big question is 'Now compare that to Munster: Thomond Park is owned by the clubs and by the branch. You can’t sell that. The players are owned and controlled by the IRFU, the revenue streams aren’t sufficient to cover the costs of running the professional game — so whoever is going to invest in professional rugby in Ireland is essentially writing cheques for €1m and continue doing that until they get bored'.

Doesn't that statement counter your argument as well about the way Irish rugby is setup?

Now we all know you are wrong but the chances of you admitting it are nil.

Erm, that statement backs up what I wrote about Browne.

When he writes 'you can't sell that', he's making it up. Badly. You can sell anything. Thomond Park could be sold, the pro teams could be spun off and sold. This kind of thing happens each and every day in the real world.

And the bit in bold is just an admittance that the Irish can't get pro rugby to pay for itself, probably because of their archaic structure, top down approach and inability to generate a decent TV contract. As the crowd levels show this season, when the team starts losing then the income starts dropping and the top down structure has no ability to cover for that.

Looked a decent crowd there in the end. Shame the weather was rotten really and the 2 key creative and controlling players for Racing went off relatively early (and didn't look fit) from a spectacle point of view.

Pot Hale wrote:Question for English fans. Was just thinking about what's been different this season that led to poor performance of Pro12 teams and improvement of performance for English teams.  

Leaving aside the RWC hangover issue, did the later season start for Premiership help in anyway, I wonder?    I think some if not all the premiership clubs have been playing non-stop each week since they started in October.  Rather than fatiguing players, did this continuity actually help them?  Pro12 clubs started six rounds earlier I think, but had off-weeks.

The English clubs (Bath & Saints aside) and thus England have suffered remarkably few injuries this season which makes a huge difference to continuity and game plans. Whereas I can't remember the last time Ireland had so many players missing and a key one in O'Brien the Leinster (aka Ireland) totem. Apparently Leinster have used 56 players this season !
Whether that catches up with England next season, given the games played remains to be seen.

Scarlets and Ospreys will really step up - some cracking signings for both of them. Plus the players will hopefully have recovered from their world cup efforts.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
What were you saying about awkward? You could call it what you like it doesn't make it a franchise under the law as I have already stated and the article you posted clearly backs me up

I've no idea on NZ law so I'm happy for you to post up your qualifications on it.

My point was solely that the NZRU calls its Super Rugby team 'franchises'. I'm sure that you'll agree that they do.

Its not NZ law its an understanding of a business model and its application

As I already posted a few times, naming it a franchise doesn't make it a franchise but again you can't admit you were wrong

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Your blinkered assessment of the legal structures of Irish Rugby ignores its complexities it also ignores the core argument that Irish Rugby would be open to private investment but the big question is 'Now compare that to Munster: Thomond Park is owned by the clubs and by the branch. You can’t sell that. The players are owned and controlled by the IRFU, the revenue streams aren’t sufficient to cover the costs of running the professional game — so whoever is going to invest in professional rugby in Ireland is essentially writing cheques for €1m and continue doing that until they get bored'.

Doesn't that statement counter your argument as well about the way Irish rugby is setup?

Now we all know you are wrong but the chances of you admitting it are nil.

Erm, that statement backs up what I wrote about Browne.

When he writes 'you can't sell that', he's making it up. Badly. You can sell anything. Thomond Park could be sold, the pro teams could be spun off and sold. This kind of thing happens each and every day in the real world.

And the bit in bold is just an admittance that the Irish can't get pro rugby to pay for itself, probably because of their archaic structure, top down approach and inability to generate a decent TV contract. As the crowd levels show this season, when the team starts losing then the income starts dropping and the top down structure has no ability to cover for that.

You can't sell what doesn't belong to you as Browne says the provinces belong to the branches not the IRFU

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
What were you saying about awkward? You could call it what you like it doesn't make it a franchise under the law as I have already stated and the article you posted clearly backs me up

I've no idea on NZ law so I'm happy for you to post up your qualifications on it.

My point was solely that the NZRU calls its Super Rugby team 'franchises'. I'm sure that you'll agree that they do.

Its not NZ law its an understanding of a business model and its application

As I already posted a few times, naming it a franchise doesn't make it a franchise but again you can't admit you were wrong

If its 'not NZ law' whey did you write "it doesn't make it a franchise under the law"?

The NZRU call them franchises. I used their terminology. All of that makes your final sentence rather pitiful.

marty2086 wrote:
You can't sell what doesn't belong to you as Browne says the provinces belong to the branches not the IRFU

This is very simple, Marty.

Browne says: "sell off the pro teams or we will stop sending you any money". The 'branches' then are forced to do so.

Or

Browne says: "the IRFU, has holders of all pro player contracts, are going to take control of the pro game away from the branches."

There are so many other ways to slice it and dice it, too. It is easy to do.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
What were you saying about awkward? You could call it what you like it doesn't make it a franchise under the law as I have already stated and the article you posted clearly backs me up

I've no idea on NZ law so I'm happy for you to post up your qualifications on it.

My point was solely that the NZRU calls its Super Rugby team 'franchises'. I'm sure that you'll agree that they do.

Its not NZ law its an understanding of a business model and its application

As I already posted a few times, naming it a franchise doesn't make it a franchise but again you can't admit you were wrong

If its 'not NZ law' whey did you write "it doesn't make it a franchise under the law"?

The NZRU call them franchises. I used their terminology. All of that makes your final sentence rather pitiful.

Why is it pitiful? You said the teams were privately owned and instead of saying you were wrong you preferred to focus on the business model

Whats pitiful is you and your inability to just say you got it wrong

So are the clubs/whatever name you want to use in NZ owned by the union or privately?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
You can't sell what doesn't belong to you as Browne says the provinces belong to the branches not the IRFU

This is very simple, Marty.

Browne says: "sell off the pro teams or we will stop sending you any money". The 'branches' then are forced to do so.

Or

Browne says: "the IRFU, has holders of all pro player contracts, are going to take control of the pro game away from the branches."

There are so many other ways to slice it and dice it, too. It is easy to do.

That a direct quote or just a made up one to suit your argument?

The Irish model is a falied one yet the Welsh one is a success going cap in hand to the WRU to pay some of the wages because their private owners refuse to invest in them to succeed?

Its a great advert for private ownership

No 7&1/2 wrote:So are the clubs/whatever name you want to use in NZ owned by the union or privately?

They are union owned and privately run, the NZRU own the assets and companies essentially run it for them

marty2086 wrote:
Why is it pitiful? You said the teams were privately owned and instead of saying you were wrong you preferred to focus on the business model

Whats pitiful is you and your inability to just say you got it wrong

They are privately owned. That's the point of them.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Why is it pitiful? You said the teams were privately owned and instead of saying you were wrong you preferred to focus on the business model

Whats pitiful is you and your inability to just say you got it wrong

They are privately owned. That's the point of them.

No they aren't, go read up on it all and how a licence business model works

marty2086 wrote:
That a direct quote or just a made up one to suit your argument?

The Irish model is a falied one yet the Welsh one is a success going cap in hand to the WRU to pay some of the wages because their private owners refuse to invest in them to succeed?

Its a great advert for private ownership

A direct quote? Jesus wept, basic English really does confuse you.

My post was an example of what could easily be done by the IRFU.

NDCs are in place because Barclays won't allow a guaranteed sum of payment per year beyond the basic (i.e. lowest in Europe) the WRU play for services provided. It's a pathetic fudge. It's not 'cap in hand'.

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Why is it pitiful? You said the teams were privately owned and instead of saying you were wrong you preferred to focus on the business model

Whats pitiful is you and your inability to just say you got it wrong

They are privately owned. That's the point of them.

No they aren't, go read up on it all and how a licence business model works

Here we go again. Look at the shareholding in each franchise. Educate yourself.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Why is it pitiful? You said the teams were privately owned and instead of saying you were wrong you preferred to focus on the business model

Whats pitiful is you and your inability to just say you got it wrong

They are privately owned. That's the point of them.

No they aren't, go read up on it all and how a licence business model works

Here we go again. Look at the shareholding in each franchise. Educate yourself.

Maybe you'd like to show me then

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
That a direct quote or just a made up one to suit your argument?

The Irish model is a falied one yet the Welsh one is a success going cap in hand to the WRU to pay some of the wages because their private owners refuse to invest in them to succeed?

Its a great advert for private ownership

A direct quote? Jesus wept, basic English really does confuse you.

My post was an example of what could easily be done by the IRFU.

NDCs are in place because Barclays won't allow a guaranteed sum of payment per year beyond the basic (i.e. lowest in Europe) the WRU play for services provided. It's a pathetic fudge. It's not 'cap in hand'.

No it doesn't you seem to think that the provinces are as they are because that's imposed on the provinces(which you previously claimed were IRFU owned), rather than being the best model for them to work under

The WRU top up wages allowing Welsh clubs to afford said players. If they didn't they'd all be in England and France.

marty2086 wrote:
Maybe you'd like to show me then

http://www.newshub.co.nz/sport/blues-new-owners-announced-2013051715#axzz48uNu5eIS

Here's a start. Look at the terminology that the Kiwis employ.

'A seven year license'

'The NZRU will continue to retain ownership of the team's brand, fund player and coach contracts and pay travel and accommodation costs for regular season games.'

Again I'd advise learning how it operates

PhilBB wrote:WRU play for services provided.

You've changed your tune, as always, making things up to suit your argument. When I said this a few weeks ago you told me I was clueless.

marty2086 wrote:

No it doesn't you seem to think that the provinces are as they are because that's imposed on the provinces(which you previously claimed were IRFU owned), rather than being the best model for them to work under

Here we go again... 'you seem to think' is Martyn code for 'I have completely misinterpreted'.

The branches are the IRFU, the IRFU is the branches. Work it out, sunshine. It's all one and the same.

The 'best model' is the one that allows the game to keep up with the rest of Europe. If the 'branches' (and there's a clue in the bloody title) are truly independent then they can sell of their pro team.

I look forward to you showing me how they can do that when even their own Chief Execs are IRFU employees.

LordDowlais wrote:

PhilBB wrote:WRU play for services provided.

You've changed your tune, as always, making things up to suit your argument. When I said this a few weeks ago you told me I was clueless.

It's probably best that you provide the link to support that claim as it looks like another blatant lie to me.

marty2086 wrote:'A seven year license'

'The NZRU will continue to retain ownership of the team's brand, fund player and coach contracts and pay travel and accommodation costs for regular season games.'

Again I'd advise learning how it operates

You're awfully confused by the terminology, aren't you? I'd advise learning the terminology.

The NZRU call them franchises. So did I. The NZRU notes they are sold off. So did I. The Licence period is known and agreed.

So, franchises sold. For a period of time.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The WRU top up wages allowing Welsh clubs to afford said players. If they didn't they'd all be in England and France.

If the WRU paid the market rate for player access and services, as set by France and England, the players wouldn't need to go for larger wages elsewhere.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No it doesn't you seem to think that the provinces are as they are because that's imposed on the provinces(which you previously claimed were IRFU owned), rather than being the best model for them to work under

Here we go again... 'you seem to think' is Martyn code for 'I have completely misinterpreted'.

The branches are the IRFU, the IRFU is the branches. Work it out, sunshine. It's all one and the same.

The 'best model' is the one that allows the game to keep up with the rest of Europe. If the 'branches' (and there's a clue in the bloody title) are truly independent then they can sell of their pro team.

I look forward to you showing me how they can do that when even their own Chief Execs are IRFU employees.

The Irish model allowed Irish rugby to dominate European rugby so not sure why it should be changed then?

Maybe you'd like to prove how they are IRFU employees

The man is obsessed with Irish Rugby's governance.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The WRU top up wages allowing Welsh clubs to afford said players. If they didn't they'd all be in England and France.

If the WRU paid the market rate for player access and services, as set by France and England, the players wouldn't need to go for larger wages elsewhere.

You'll have to forgive me are the Welsh clubs completely owned by the Union?

marty2086 wrote:
The Irish model allowed Irish rugby to dominate European rugby so not sure why it should be changed then?

Maybe you'd like to prove how they are IRFU employees

Because 'allowed' is past tense.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/i-consider-my-position-every-day-saysmunster-chief-garrett-fitzgerald-375931.html

"I am employed by the IRFU to be the CEO in Munster."

Don't you even read your own country's rugby press?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

You'll have to forgive me are the Welsh clubs completely owned by the Union?

No.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
The Irish model allowed Irish rugby to dominate European rugby so not sure why it should be changed then?

Maybe you'd like to prove how they are IRFU employees

Because 'allowed' is past tense.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/i-consider-my-position-every-day-saysmunster-chief-garrett-fitzgerald-375931.html

"I am employed by the IRFU to be the CEO in Munster."

Don't you even read your own country's rugby press?

You mean do I read every single article about Irish rugby? Why do I need to you do it all for us and tell us how it is?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
The Irish model allowed Irish rugby to dominate European rugby so not sure why it should be changed then?

Maybe you'd like to prove how they are IRFU employees

Because 'allowed' is past tense.

Were you calling for the AP to change its model since they didn't win the HC/ERCC for 9 years?

The Welsh have never won under private ownership so should they go back to union control?

marty2086 wrote:
You mean do I read every single article about Irish rugby? Why do I need to you do it all for us and tell us how it is?

That's true. Good to see you've learned something else today, too.

marty2086 wrote:
Were you calling for the AP to change its model since they didn't win the HC/ERCC for 9 years?

The Welsh have never won under private ownership so should they go back to union control?

The Welsh have never had union control, so how could they go back to it? It seems that you've made yet another error, there.

The AP changed its income structure in order to being able to compete with the gerrymandered branches. They are now miles ahead. Most of the stuff coming out of Ireland now is about how the IRFU will have to give in, somehow, to private ownership in order to make up the gap. I'm looking forward to seeing how that manifests itself beyond pumping up a Heaslip restaurant.

So it's the Welsh clubs not paying the market value and relying on the WRU to top up the wages,