And so it begins.. (if it hadn't already begun)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37208971

AP bosses (Mark McCall and Dai Young) call Lions schedule 'ludicrous'

They're a bit late.

Everyone has been saying it for years.

Pot Hale wrote:They're a bit late.   

The schedule has been out for months - why start whinging now?

It's a case of the same old PRL rent a gobs talking the same old PRL rubbish.
If the PRL really give a monkeys about player welfare they should stop the end of season play-offs now and reduce the league by two clubs. But everyone knows (but won't admit it) that the PRL (particularly the 'management' of it) is only interested in cash.

The sooner the RFU grow a pair and remove the PRL parasites from having any influence in the game the better.

David-Douglas wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:They're a bit late.   

The schedule has been out for months - why start whinging now?

The season is about to start, so everyone is out in front of the press. The Premiership has recently expressed an interest in being part of any discussion about changing the season. It's not so surprising they would point to how poorly co-ordinated the Lions tour schedule is with the domestic calendar.

Also, the last two Lions tours have been especially hard on players. With widespread expectations that England will make up a bigger contingent than 2009 & 2013, it's understandable that the likes of McCall and Young would be concerned about the condition of their players.

David-Douglas wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:They're a bit late.   

The schedule has been out for months - why start whinging now?

It's a case of the same old PRL rent a gobs talking the same old PRL rubbish.
If the PRL really give a monkeys about player welfare they should stop the end of season play-offs now and reduce the league by two clubs. But everyone knows (but won't admit it) that the PRL (particularly the 'management' of it) is only interested in cash.

The sooner the RFU grow a pair and remove the PRL parasites from having any influence in the game the better.

How are the PRL parasites? They identify, develop and pay player's salaries. If anything the international game is parasitic as they rely on the PRL for players.

There is too much rugby. The Lions is the obvious thing to go. Scrap it and have an international free season.

The main point at the moment is that there is a discussion going on about reorganising the season but bizarrely only the unions are involved. Player representatives and clubs should be involved.

Yes the Lions is the obvious thing to go, however the reality is the SH will struggle to cope with financial short full that would entail.

A new 'global' season is required and it must incorporate the development of new funding streams, namely Japan and the USA.

The Lions has been old hat for some time. The game has to move on, it has to grow and the Lions is not the vehicle to do this.

If it must be then I firmly believe that the rfu and prl should withdraw from the Lions leaving a 'Celtic Lions' to carry on.

We should focus on developing the game not endlessly returning to the same cul de sac however good the craic is.

A ten match tour one week after the end of the season is stupid. As someone who has supported past tours, I never thought I agree with retiring this dead rubber. The world moves on and unfortunately the Lions has failed to evolve and stay relevant. Lions RIP.

The Lions schedule was announced in July 2015, that means the AP saw it and didn't adjust their schedule accordingly. So for them to come out attacking the Lions when the Lions was in place before the AP is a bit barmy.

Exiledinborders wrote:
How are the PRL parasites? They identify, develop and pay player's salaries. If anything the international game is parasitic as they rely on the PRL for players.

There is too much rugby. The Lions is the obvious thing to go. Scrap it and have an international free season.

The main point at the moment is that there is a discussion going on about reorganising the season but bizarrely only the unions are involved. Player representatives and clubs should be involved.

You mean the union that pays and rewards clubs for developing players? That's hardly parasitic as the RFU plays a big part in developing players too

It wouldn't be an international free season as the international teams would just pick the players instead

The reorganisation is of the Test season, why would clubs be included? Its nothing more than a chance to gain more power by the AP

marty2086 wrote:
It wouldn't be an international free season as the international teams would just pick the players instead

You are right the idiots that run the unions probably would. I was suggesting however that they do not play internationals but have a rest period for one year in four.

marty2086 wrote:
The reorganisation is of the Test season, why would clubs be included? Its nothing more than a chance to gain more power by the AP

For the blindingly obvious reason that if they move the test windows it clearly affects the clubs. The discussions seems to be about setting certain times aside for international games, domestic games and rest periods. All of that is fine but to not include either the players or the clubs is bonkers. However I would not really expect anything else from the blazerati who seem to be from a bygone age.

Why not have a rest year for the clubs once every 4 years.The Unions support and grow the game from the grassroots up,if they fail then the game fails whereas clubs are dispensible,if one fails another another one can take it's place pretty easily.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Why not have a rest year for the clubs once every 4 years.The Unions support and grow the game from the grassroots up,if they fail then the game fails whereas clubs are dispensible,if one fails another another one can take it's place pretty easily.

Because most players are not international players. The professional game would work really well and the international teams would have a good supply of players if players were all made redundant every four years.

International rugby is and has always been the icing on the cake not the cake itself. I love international rugby but when it comes to internationals less is more.

So th break you suggest every four years wouldn't do anything for the majority of players. It's the club game that needs to contract. I would agree with fewer internationals too but I don't trust the clubs to leave this free space alone.

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
It wouldn't be an international free season as the international teams would just pick the players instead

You are right the idiots that run the unions probably would. I was suggesting however that they do not play internationals but have a rest period for one year in four.

Idiots? You mean those running a business would cut off one of their main revenue streams? That sounds like a clever idea

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
The reorganisation is of the Test season, why would clubs be included? Its nothing more than a chance to gain more power by the AP

For the blindingly obvious reason that if they move the test windows it clearly affects the clubs. The discussions seems to be about setting certain times aside for international games, domestic games and rest periods. All of that is fine but to not include either the players or the clubs is bonkers. However I would not really expect anything else from the blazerati who seem to be from a bygone age.

Its funny how those who like to bash the unions like to use the word blazers or some offshoot yet its some blazers who are looking for change

Remember its the non blazers who set up the Top 14 to go into the international windows, that was very modern of them

A Welshman, an Irishman and a - hang on where is the Scot, have a "whinge". Who gets the blame?

LondonTiger wrote:A Welshman, an Irishman and a - hang on where is the Scot, have a "whinge". Who gets the blame?  

The IRFU

If the PRL really give a monkeys about player welfare they should stop the end of season play-offs now and reduce the league by two clubs. But everyone knows (but won't admit it) that the PRL (particularly the 'management' of it) is only interested in cash

Given that the people that were interviewed were not English, given that most of the AP teams operate at a loss, given that the Guinness Pro 12 has the same amount of teams as the AP, given that the Pro 12 also has play offs, given that the Pro 12 final will also clash with the early Lions preparation - is it a given that the PRO 12 'management' are not interested in player welfare and only interested in cash?

just wondering?

LondonTiger wrote:A Welshman, an Irishman and a - hang on where is the Scot, have a "whinge". Who gets the blame?  

Them ain't whinges, son. Them's important contributions to the on-going necessary discussions about wot's good for the gyme and wot's gonna make small poor countries like them Russias and them USA kinda places being more int'rested into expanding the gyme for the betterment of the poor classes around the world that don't be yet knowing what rugby is all about!
Ain't that wot them English PRL 'whingers' have been on about now for the last five or six years? No?

SecretFly - please can you peddle your common-sense elsewhere, it aint welcome on this 'ere thread.

This thread is about the greed of the AP bosses.

Everyone has their own interests at heart and yet some people claim they don't.

English clubs are selfish but so are the Irish,Welsh,Scottish,French,Australian,South African,NZers etc.

Ultimately it's about protecting YOUR interests.

The Unions are generally selfish too.

10 games is excessive.

Sadly I think the Lions has to go. The rugby calendar is becoming more demanding as it is and with pressure to cut games somewhere, The Lions tours seem the obvious place to start.

Especially from a player welfare point of view - after a Lions tour many players are knackered/injured.

Agree with kingelderfield.

Don't think the Lions need to go as such, as the national tours when the big names are on Lions duty are good for player development, but I think the days of Lions tours with a full midweek schedule as well and games against club/province sides do need to stop.

A three test tour with a game against a "Presidents Select" or similar as a warm-up would be more than enough - the days of six to eight week tours with two full sides in the squad are almost over.

Alternatively to keep the brand alive, how about an end of season "Lions" V "Barbarians" at one of the home stadiums - Lions made up from GB&I players and the Barbarians from non qualified players from the Avivia and PRO12 ?

marty2086 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
It wouldn't be an international free season as the international teams would just pick the players instead

You are right the idiots that run the unions probably would. I was suggesting however that they do not play internationals but have a rest period for one year in four.

Idiots? You mean those running a business would cut off one of their main revenue streams? That sounds like a clever idea

They are not meant to be running a business they are meant to be running a sports union that looks after the interests of their member clubs and the players therein. Too often they see themselves as being in competition with their own members.

marty2086 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
The reorganisation is of the Test season, why would clubs be included? Its nothing more than a chance to gain more power by the AP

For the blindingly obvious reason that if they move the test windows it clearly affects the clubs. The discussions seems to be about setting certain times aside for international games, domestic games and rest periods. All of that is fine but to not include either the players or the clubs is bonkers. However I would not really expect anything else from the blazerati who seem to be from a bygone age.

Its funny how those who like to bash the unions like to use the word blazers or some offshoot yet its some blazers who are looking for change

Remember its the non blazers who set up the Top 14 to go into the international windows, that was very modern of them

The want change but they do not talk to the parties involved. I think you will find the word consult on page one of any change handbook.

As for the Top14 going into the test window I agree with you. It is just like Wales playing outside the test window, not making any arrangements re player access with AP or Top14 and then bitching because their players are not available.

Here is a plan.

1) Discussions take place involving unions, major leagues and player's representatives.
2) Once the windows are agreed everybody sticks to them or negotiates exceptions with affected parties.

The Lions are clearly an outdated hangover from the amateur days when the 4Ns were about the only internationals played by the home nations.. Now with the AP (home and away), 6Ns, summer tours, Autumn internationals and the Lions the fixture list is at full capacity. Any player really interested in their own health and welfare should think seriously about going on a Lions tour unless of course, they need the money.

englandglory4ever wrote:The Lions are clearly an outdated hangover from the amateur days when the 4Ns were about the only internationals played by the home nations.. Now with the AP (home and away), 6Ns, summer tours, Autumn internationals and the Lions the fixture list is at full capacity. Any player really interested in their own health and welfare should think seriously about going on a Lions tour unless of course, they need the money.

I keep hearing the same argument regurgitated about the Lions that theres no room in the fixtures. If the players on the Lions tour weren't there they'd be with their countries playing as many who don't make the tour will be doing.

Cutting down the number of games players play still leaves room for the Lions.

Axing the Lions would do little when you consider the majority of players don't even play for their countries.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Axing the Lions would do little when you consider the majority of players don't even play for their countries.

There is no problem with the amount of rugby played by non-internationals. It is the top players who are playing to much so axing the Lions would help so long as they do not replace it with ordinary internationals.

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Axing the Lions would do little when you consider the majority of players don't even play for their countries.

There is no problem with the amount of rugby played by non-internationals. It is the top players who are playing to much so axing the Lions would help so long as they do not replace it with ordinary internationals.

How many games are non internationals playing compared to internationals?

The IRFU limit the number of games their internationals play, as do the WRU and from arguments on here before English internationals were playing on average the same number of games as their Irish counterparts

Yeah, I'd have to say there are plenty of club players who are playing too much rugby. So you're talking about axing the Lions and the summer tours for that year. Enables a proper summer break 1 year in 4 I suppose but doesn't touch the extra internationals being crammed in and expansionof the club game.

No Lions tours would hurt the SH financially big time.

Allty wrote:No Lions tours would hurt the SH financially big time.

The Lions tour in 2013 wiped out the ARUs debts

It also generated £6m each for all the home nations

Yep.

The folk that dont want Lions tours need to ask the players their views.

marty2086 wrote:

Allty wrote:No Lions tours would hurt the SH financially big time.

The Lions tour in 2013 wiped out the ARUs debts

It also generated £6m each for all the home nations

But the fans get absolutely fleeced for a Lions tour.

In 2013 they only sold tickets to people with an Australian address or tour companies, and the tour companies charge the earth. A 3 test tour of NZ costs from £8,979 with one operator, and there's no other way to get tickets.

Fair enough if people are willing to pay it, but I think it stinks a bit that you either cough up 9 grand or find a way of cheating the system (e.g. get a friend in the host country to put in for the ballot - which is no guarantee).

I'd much rather see the Lions tour developing rugby countries and be picked from players not chosen for their International squads, although I suppose no-ones going to pay nearly as much money to see that, so it will never happen.

A lot is being taken for granted, selection will be after 6Ns presumeably
and the table may look very different then.
The Clubs complaining is the tail wagging the horse,if you employ international
players.Then is illogical not to expect them to b e selected.
In 2011 the RWC kicked off just 14 days after finish of the 3 Ns,in 2015
only shortly after Super series finished.
The schedule is very hard especially as unlike 2009 and 2013 most
Super sides will be at full strength.
Having seen recent mitre 10 matches and the talent there[their,they`re] even the provinces are no pushovers.
It`s a two edged sword AB`s risking attrition as well as the Lions good
on them.
Hopefully the Lions will visit schools,the community visit homes as they
did of yore

They did in Aus. And SA.

The RFU should withdraw its players from touring with the Lions, we have the resources to take on these guys ourselves and we are starting to see the grassroots provide the 1st team with top quality players.

If the Celts want to keep doing it them let them tour and run their players into the ground all in the name of money.

TightHEAD wrote:The RFU should withdraw its players from touring with the Lions, we have the resources to take on these guys ourselves and we are starting to see the grassroots provide the 1st team with top quality players.

If the Celts want to keep doing it them let them tour and run their players into the ground all in the name of money.

So withdraw from the Lions tour to save the players by having them play games anyway?

Common sense at work there

Yupp, they should withdraw from the 6 Nations and replace Australia in the Rugby Championship too.

marty2086 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:The RFU should withdraw its players from touring with the Lions, we have the resources to take on these guys ourselves and we are starting to see the grassroots provide the 1st team with top quality players.

If the Celts want to keep doing it them let them tour and run their players into the ground all in the name of money.

So withdraw from the Lions tour to save the players by having them play games anyway?

Common sense at work there

Gatland doesn't have the know how on how to defeat the All Blacks, his game plan/tactics will fail, so yes withdraw our players and go on tour with a truly world class coach at the helm like Eddie Jones which will benefit our players in the long run as we build towards the RWC.

The Lions concept is from a bygone era where by we could never compete with the likes of SA and NZ in their own backyard, things have changed and I believe England have the players to take on these guys without the help of a token Scot or the Coaches mates.

1 season and Eddie Jones is 'world class' ? He was the only person to take the job not long ago.

Eddie had a career before England old boy. Fantastic coach top draw, unlike Turnip head who has failed to develop after finding a winning formula a few years ago and is imho holding Wales back.

TightHEAD wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:The RFU should withdraw its players from touring with the Lions, we have the resources to take on these guys ourselves and we are starting to see the grassroots provide the 1st team with top quality players.

If the Celts want to keep doing it them let them tour and run their players into the ground all in the name of money.

So withdraw from the Lions tour to save the players by having them play games anyway?

Common sense at work there

Gatland doesn't have the know how on how to defeat the All Blacks, his game plan/tactics will fail, so yes withdraw our players and go on tour with a truly world class coach at the helm like Eddie Jones which will benefit our players in the long run as we build towards the RWC.

The Lions concept is from a bygone era where by we could never compete with the likes of SA and NZ in their own backyard, things have changed and I believe England have the players to take on these guys without the help of a token Scot or the Coaches mates.

You don't know what his game plan will be or who the coaches will be yet you have decided you do?

How did the last Lions series go? Didn't they do more than compete? Funny that

It's interesting. It seems that the main concerns are that the tour is too long and that the opposition are too hard. I think it's probably out of context and largely reflects press negativity and club interests. Here's my reasoning.

1. It's a 10 match tour, the same length as the tour in 2013 and 2009. Less than the 11 games in 2005 (12 if you include Argentina) which was the shortest until that point.
2. It involves games against super rugby sides and NZ Maori. AB's will be involved. Pretty much in line with 2013 tour of Australia. There were a number of issues relating to provincial sides and the exclusion of test players. One issue was that the Lions felt disadvantaged playing scratch provincial sides as a build up. The provincial season doesn't start until August. Players are involved in various super teams or club rugby. I also remember complaints that internationals weren't included.

My surmise is that advanced planning was based on feedback from Lions management from previous tours and in keeping with recent tours. This is pretty much a carbon copy of the Australian tour, except with kiwi teams. The difference being the teams may (a year is a long time in sport) be stronger.

marty2086 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:The RFU should withdraw its players from touring with the Lions, we have the resources to take on these guys ourselves and we are starting to see the grassroots provide the 1st team with top quality players.

If the Celts want to keep doing it them let them tour and run their players into the ground all in the name of money.

So withdraw from the Lions tour to save the players by having them play games anyway?

Common sense at work there

Gatland doesn't have the know how on how to defeat the All Blacks, his game plan/tactics will fail, so yes withdraw our players and go on tour with a truly world class coach at the helm like Eddie Jones which will benefit our players in the long run as we build towards the RWC.

The Lions concept is from a bygone era where by we could never compete with the likes of SA and NZ in their own backyard, things have changed and I believe England have the players to take on these guys without the help of a token Scot or the Coaches mates.

You don't know what his game plan will be or who the coaches will be yet you have decided you do?

How did the last Lions series go? Didn't they do more than compete? Funny that

The game plan is always the same, as is the result.

So you fancy the Lions to win? Good man that's the kind of optimism we need

Gatland has an awful record vs SH teams, and that is only going to get worse over the next 12 months.

We should have picked someone else.

You said the results always the same?

One Lions series=One Lions Series win

TightHEAD wrote:Gatland has an awful record vs SH teams, and that is only going to get worse over the next 12 months.

We should have picked someone else.

He was the only guy who put his hand up. Another needed break from the intensity of being Welsh coach.

He is a Mercenary lining his own pockets, nothing more. Totally the wrong choice for this tour.

If he does well it might to help remind a few people back home of his existence.

His Profile is probably not what it was and this might help a great deal if he wants to get a job back in NZ

beshocked wrote:Sadly I think the Lions has to go. The rugby calendar is becoming more demanding as it is and with pressure to cut games somewhere, The Lions tours seem the obvious place to start.

The Lions never used to be an imposition

What a shame club rugby has made it that way

Never mind, I'm sure those club games are great spectacles