As if our players were not playing too much rugby, NOW THIS !!!!

First topic message reminder :

Well, how much can they squeeze out of the game ? There are now plans for a 12 a-side tournament where all the best players are drafted, a bit like the cricket 100, please read below:-

World's best rugby players to be auctioned off as shock new 12-aside tournament announced
The new tournament, billed as rugby's answer to cricket's Hundred, is set to take place next year

A new 12-a-side rugby union tournament, which will see the world’s best male and female players compete annually around the world, has been launched.

And it already has the backing of some high-profile names, including former WRU chairman Gareth Davies.

World 12s, a newly formed international company backed by a UK-based financial consortium, claims it can bring £250 million into the global game over the next five years, while attracting a new global fanbase in a vein similar to the IPL and the Hundred in cricket.

They have assembled a board consisting of former RFU CEO Ian Ritchie (Chairman), former NZRU CEO Steve Tew (Non-Executive Director), and former WRU Chairman Davies (Non-Executive Director).

The inaugural World 12s tournament, which could take place in August 2022, is set to see 192 of the world’s best male players from Tier One and Tier Two nations selected via auction to represent eight franchised teams.

The plan is for the maiden tournament to be hosted in England across three concurrent weekends provisionally set for August/September 2022, with each franchise of 24 players, coached by some of the world’s leading coaches, playing in a round-robin format before the knockout stages crown the champions.

With Rugby World Cup 2021 now taking place in New Zealand in 2022, the women’s format of World 12s will launch a year later and will be played in tandem with the men’s tournament.

To help boost the development of the global game, each franchise will be required to select at least two players from Tier Two nations as well as one international Under-20s player.

Speaking at the launch, Ian Ritchie Chairman, World 12s, said: “World 12s is a natural evolution for rugby union. We feel that this is a game for our changing, fast-paced world that can excite a global fan base in the way that we have seen with the IPL or most recently The Hundred in cricket.

" In bringing together the most exciting players under the stewardship of some of the brightest rugby minds with commercial backing, we are looking to propel rugby forward and lay a positive roadmap for how the game is perceived for future generations.

"Early and informal discussions with World Rugby, unions, clubs and player associations have been constructive, and in announcing today we can continue our consultative conversations and collaborations with the relevant stakeholders.”

Former Rugby World Cup-winning All Black coach Steve Hansen, an ambassador for World 12s, said, “The idea of an international 12s tournament involving the world’s best players alongside some of the most exciting developing talent in a short form, fast paced version of the sport is extremely exciting for coaches, players and fans. I believe 12s will complement the existing calendar, attracting a new breed of fans from around the world.”


https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/new-12-side-rugby-tournament-21502548


What in the bloody hell is this all about ? We need our best players playing in our leagues, not in some money making hotch potch of a tournament.

What do you all think ?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean this is never going to replace the normal rugby leagues so really needs the buy in from unions leagues and players. And it won't have it for the top guys.

I'm sure the prl and others have thought about going toe to toe with their union but they'll likely come limpng out of it. The money is in the international game.

No, it's not. The money is with the top players. Who controls the players, controls the game.

Both the RFU and WRU have put in their annual reports that their income is 80% generated from the international game, but neither can generate that income without the use of employees of the clubs. It's only WR's Regulation 9 keeping those unions 'alive'.

Private Equity know that only too well. It's why both Unions signposted it so obviously.

The money comes from the international game on the whole. That's where interest is.

Irish Londoner wrote:
How are you ever going to have a player owned model?

Very simple. Much like a Union owning a share in the competition. Whilst playing in the competition, the player is part of the Union that has a share in the competition.

Irish Londoner wrote:
Or of course it could be equally said that the income given to the clubs from the unions is what keeps them going - without it they'd all (possibly Exeter excepted) be on the verge of insolvency. The short answer is that the international game is where the money and crowds are. That's why Amazon outbid Sky for the AI rights rather than outbidding BT Sport for the Premiership rights.

No income is 'given' to clubs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The money comes from the international game on the whole. That's where interest is.

That's where the interest is today but that model is saturated and eating its supply chain, so it's not sustainable.

The irony is that private equity gets labelled as 'only in it for a quick buck' whereas the reality of modern day pro rugby is that it is the Blazers chasing the quick buck by saturating international rugby.

Well its a pro game so of course its about making money. Personally can't see a swing from interest from internationals to clubs in my lifetime (I'm hoping for another 40-50s btw).

Can't see this idea of 12s being the thing that turns that either.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well its a pro game so of course its about making money. Personally can't see a swing from interest from internationals to clubs in my lifetime (I'm hoping for another 40-50s btw).

Add up the turnover of all of the PRL clubs and compare it to the turnover of the RFU.

How close is the difference?

Not sure, you got the answer to hand?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure, you got the answer to hand?

The RFU turned over £213m in 18/19

There are 13 members of PRL. If they each turnover £16m, PRL is 'bigger' than the RFU.

In this piece of horrific financial analysis (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/28/premiership-finances-the-full-club-by-club-breakdown-and-verdict) the combined turnover was £190m excluding Bristol.

The last Bristol set of accounts shows a turnover of £11m.

So we're already at the point where PRL is the same size as the RFU, that's with the RFU pretty much saturated and PRL with huge growth potential.

Maybe you won't see a "swing of interest" as you put it, but the swing of money is already happening.

p.s. Obviously I chose 18/19 for the RFU so as to be pre-Covid.

So the clubs on the whole aren't getting a profit despite their turnover being boosted by the international game. Will this 12 team league see the clubs boosted then seeing as we're talking about the clubs shortening contracts to not cover the proposed period? Not sure how this benefits the clubs tbh.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the clubs on the whole aren't getting a profit despite their turnover being boosted by the international game. Will this 12 team league see the clubs boosted then seeing as we're talking about the clubs shortening contracts to not cover the proposed period? Not sure how this benefits the clubs tbh.

I can't make head nor tail of that, sorry

No worries. A solution to allow the 12s to go ahead was for the clubs to not contract the players during the time when the new tournament goes ahead. If it does prove popular then how will clubs benefit from it, as they'll have nothing to do with it?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure, you got the answer to hand?

The RFU turned over £213m in 18/19

There are 13 members of PRL. If they each turnover £16m, PRL is 'bigger' than the RFU.

In this piece of horrific financial analysis (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/28/premiership-finances-the-full-club-by-club-breakdown-and-verdict) the combined turnover was £190m excluding Bristol.

The last Bristol set of accounts shows a turnover of £11m.

So we're already at the point where PRL is the same size as the RFU, that's with the RFU pretty much saturated and PRL with huge growth potential.

Maybe you won't see a "swing of interest" as you put it, but the swing of money is already happening.

So where's this "huge growth potential" coming from exactly?

Every Premiership club has been there since the start of professional rugby and attendances haven't substantially changed in that period, certainly they've levelled out in recent seasons - Quins, Bath,and Tigers still fill The Stoop/Rec/Welford Road while Sale, London Irish, Wasps and Newcastle rattle about in half full stadiums, Ealing - the millionaires of the Championship get less spectators than AFC Wimbledon.
TV viewers haven't changed, with only the 6Ns and RWC attracting any sort of audience, even when the Premiership is on FTA the viewing figures are not great.

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not sure, you got the answer to hand?

The RFU turned over £213m in 18/19

There are 13 members of PRL. If they each turnover £16m, PRL is 'bigger' than the RFU.

In this piece of horrific financial analysis (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/aug/28/premiership-finances-the-full-club-by-club-breakdown-and-verdict) the combined turnover was £190m excluding Bristol.

The last Bristol set of accounts shows a turnover of £11m.

So we're already at the point where PRL is the same size as the RFU, that's with the RFU pretty much saturated and PRL with huge growth potential.

Maybe you won't see a "swing of interest" as you put it, but the swing of money is already happening.

So where's this "huge growth potential" coming from exactly?

Every Premiership club has been there since the start of professional rugby and attendances haven't substantially changed in that period - Quins, Bath,and Tigers still fill The Stoop/Rec/Welford Road while Sale, London Irish, Wasps and Newcastle rattle about in half full stadiums, Ealing - the millionaires of the Championship get less spectators than AFC Wimbledon. TV viewers haven't changed, with only the 6Ns and RWC attracting any sort of audience, even when the Premiership is on FTA the viewing figures are not great.

Yeah, I don't get it. If this 12s takes off and proves mighty successful it'll likely draw spectators and revenue away and the players follow?

No 7&1/2 wrote:No worries. A solution to allow the 12s to go ahead was for the clubs to not contract the players during the time when the new tournament goes ahead. If it does prove popular then how will clubs benefit from it, as they'll have nothing to do with it?

The theory I showed was that they'd save money. I answered that question earlier in the thread.

Irish Londoner wrote:

So where's this "huge growth potential" coming from exactly?

Every Premiership club has been there since the start of professional rugby and attendances haven't substantially changed in that period, certainly they've levelled out in recent seasons - Quins, Bath,and Tigers still fill The Stoop/Rec/Welford Road while Sale, London Irish, Wasps and Newcastle rattle about in half full stadiums, Ealing - the millionaires of the Championship get less spectators than AFC Wimbledon.
TV viewers haven't changed, with only the 6Ns and RWC attracting any sort of audience, even when the Premiership is on FTA the viewing figures are not great.

Broadcasting. And a better season structure.

That's why CVC own 91% (or whatever it is) of the company that controls the commercial rights.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No worries. A solution to allow the 12s to go ahead was for the clubs to not contract the players during the time when the new tournament goes ahead. If it does prove popular then how will clubs benefit from it, as they'll have nothing to do with it?

The theory I showed was that they'd save money. I answered that question earlier in the thread.

Why would players and their agents reduce a salary request for non playing time though.

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

So where's this "huge growth potential" coming from exactly?

Every Premiership club has been there since the start of professional rugby and attendances haven't substantially changed in that period, certainly they've levelled out in recent seasons - Quins, Bath,and Tigers still fill The Stoop/Rec/Welford Road while Sale, London Irish, Wasps and Newcastle rattle about in half full stadiums, Ealing - the millionaires of the Championship get less spectators than AFC Wimbledon.
TV viewers haven't changed, with only the 6Ns and RWC attracting any sort of audience, even when the Premiership is on FTA the viewing figures are not great.

Broadcasting. And a better season structure.

That's why CVC own 91% (or whatever it is) of the company that controls the commercial rights.

What broadcasting money? The BT deal with the Premiership has just been extended for less money that the previous deal, the URC is behind a paywall as well - no one is watching the AI's on Amazon, the only rugby that impacts on the public is the 6Ns and the RWC and if they go behind a paywall the figures will drop for them as well. As cricket has shown getting more short term TV money has long term consequences in terms of participation, getting children and young people interested in the sport, and general awareness in society.

How do you structure the season to fit in this extra competition ?
October to April covers the domestic season - so that's the leagues, the cups and the AIs/6Ns. Absolutely no space to fit anything else in there.
May to July - overseas tours for the 6N teams plus every four years a B & I Lions tour and a RWC.
August to September - rest period and preseason for the clubs.

At a time when they are talking about increased rest periods, players sitting out concussions and reducing the number of games when does this get played?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No worries. A solution to allow the 12s to go ahead was for the clubs to not contract the players during the time when the new tournament goes ahead. If it does prove popular then how will clubs benefit from it, as they'll have nothing to do with it?

The theory I showed was that they'd save money. I answered that question earlier in the thread.

Why would players and their agents reduce a salary request for non playing time though.

£100k for 10 months down from £120k

£40k for 3 weeks' work in the summer.

Irish Londoner wrote:
What broadcasting money? The BT deal with the Premiership has just been extended for less money that the previous deal, the URC is behind a paywall as well - no one is watching the AI's on Amazon, the only rugby that impacts on the public is the 6Ns and the RWC and if they go behind a paywall the figures will drop for them as well. As cricket has shown getting more short term TV money has long term consequences in terms of participation, getting children and young people interested in the sport, and general awareness in society.

How do you structure the season to fit in this extra competition ?
October to April covers the domestic season - so that's the leagues, the cups and the AIs/6Ns. Absolutely no space to fit anything else in there.
May to July - overseas tours for the 6N teams plus every four years a B & I Lions tour and a RWC.
August to September - rest period and preseason for the clubs.

At a time when they are talking about increased rest periods, players sitting out concussions and reducing the number of games when does this get played?

URC isn't behind a paywall everywhere but yours are odd questions. You conflate the viewing figures of URC and the Autumn Nations with the broadcast income they deliver. Please try to be consistent.

Plus that cricket jibe is completely wrong: https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/2224488/over-100000-kids-make-2021-a-record-breaking-summer-of-cricket

The 12s has already published when it wants to be played.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No worries. A solution to allow the 12s to go ahead was for the clubs to not contract the players during the time when the new tournament goes ahead. If it does prove popular then how will clubs benefit from it, as they'll have nothing to do with it?

The theory I showed was that they'd save money. I answered that question earlier in the thread.

Why would players and their agents reduce a salary request for non playing time though.

£100k for 10 months down from £120k

£40k for 3 weeks' work in the summer.

I still don't see why a player would agree to reduce their value and agree to this when they're currently being paid for that period.

So if I have the debate right the Unions days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before the clubs take over.  Just a few problems.

No official games can be played in a country without the Union's approval especially in France where the union has more control as given by the French Government. Doubt the players or club fans would appreciate their club going to war with their Union.  After all in England or France there are plenty clubs who will bend the knee to the Unions if the top ones won't.

There are also the small matter of every league fails without union support except for the T14.  We saw what happens when the Unions pull the plug such as the Championship in England.

We also hsve the amount of money pumped in by CVC into the 6 nations v the PRL  CVC paid big bucks for the PRL £200m for 27% stake.  They only paid a paltry £365 for about 15% for the 6 Nations.  Easy to see where CVC see as being the main game in town.  Why would CVC waste all that money on a tournament that they think is dying.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I still don't see why a player would agree to reduce their value and agree to this when they're currently being paid for that period.

Quite obviously as their existing contract would prevent them from taking up a 12s offer........

Brendan wrote:So if I have the debate right the Unions days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before the clubs take over.  Just a few problems.

No official games can be played in a country without the Union's approval especially in France where the union has more control as given by the French Government. Doubt the players or club fans would appreciate their club going to war with their Union.  After all in England or France there are plenty clubs who will bend the knee to the Unions if the top ones won't.

There are also the small matter of every league fails without union support except for the T14.  We saw what happens when the Unions pull the plug such as the Championship in England.

We also hsve the amount of money pumped in by CVC into the 6 nations v the PRL  CVC paid big bucks for the PRL £200m for 27% stake.  They only paid a paltry £365 for about 15% for the 6 Nations.  Easy to see where CVC see as being the main game in town.  Why would CVC waste all that money on a tournament that they think is dying.

You've forgotten money in all of this.

The CVC seed money is tiny when you look at their portfolio. That's money to buy influence, to investigate, to learn.

"Union approval" is an anachronism. What will it mean in the future?

"We won't allow this competition!"
"Ok, we will set up our own, take it or leave it"

etc.

Come on, we can all see what's coming.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I still don't see why a player would agree to reduce their value and agree to this when they're currently being paid for that period.

Quite obviously as their existing contract would prevent them from taking up a 12s offer........

But you seem to suggest that the players wouldn't hold a big sway in this. They're not going to reduce their contracts with their current clubs for no reduction in work.

And if the 12s took off its a losing situation for the clubs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I still don't see why a player would agree to reduce their value and agree to this when they're currently being paid for that period.

Quite obviously as their existing contract would prevent them from taking up a 12s offer........

But you seem to suggest that the players wouldn't hold a big sway in this. They're not going to reduce their contracts with their current clubs for no reduction in work.

Ok, let's play this game:

Give me a £5 and I'll give you £10 back.

Up for that?

Sure.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sure.

Then why can't you see the point made above?!?!? It's the same thing.

Where's the growth in the game?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-10188377/Eddie-Joness-fears-Marcus-Smith-sum-rugbys-outdated-backward-mindset.html

Players. They are the commodity.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sure.

Then why can't you see the point made above?!?!? It's the same thing.

You'd be giving me a fiver for nothing.

In the situation of rugby contracts I'd be instructing my agent or lawyer to get the best deal for me. I wouldn't be asking the club to cut money for release, the first would be asking for release and additional games off during the club season for rest. Playing other clubs off against each other etc ie you don't agree to this Sale will, or Worcester will etc. I wouldn't be accepting any offer by the club to but my wage while expecting the same workload, would be crazy. I'd be pointing to all the players who are getting additional money for nothing. Would just never happen.

PhilBB wrote:Where's the growth in the game?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-10188377/Eddie-Joness-fears-Marcus-Smith-sum-rugbys-outdated-backward-mindset.html

Players. They are the commodity.

Could the money men at the PRL see the commercial value of a unique player like Mario.  It would appear only one of them could.

No disrespect to Cips or Smith etc. but Jones is much more aware of the money side of things compared to them.  Yes he is a good coach and rugby mind but he also knows the other side of the business.

Hi all. I am back from my year ban. Strange time period really banning someone for a year and no explanation why. But there we are.

The whole Wales v NZ match was all the proof you need that rugby is now totally dictated by money. Same goes with this new idea. The Lions tour was a a joke also.

My nephew is now on the books for Pontypridd RFC but he's been playing for the local village team until he is match fit. So I happy enough nowadays watching the village team anyway

Doubt I'll ever go to an international or "regional" game again unless there are serious changes

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:So if I have the debate right the Unions days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before the clubs take over.  Just a few problems.

No official games can be played in a country without the Union's approval especially in France where the union has more control as given by the French Government. Doubt the players or club fans would appreciate their club going to war with their Union.  After all in England or France there are plenty clubs who will bend the knee to the Unions if the top ones won't.

There are also the small matter of every league fails without union support except for the T14.  We saw what happens when the Unions pull the plug such as the Championship in England.

We also hsve the amount of money pumped in by CVC into the 6 nations v the PRL  CVC paid big bucks for the PRL £200m for 27% stake.  They only paid a paltry £365 for about 15% for the 6 Nations.  Easy to see where CVC see as being the main game in town.  Why would CVC waste all that money on a tournament that they think is dying.

You've forgotten money in all of this.

The CVC seed money is tiny when you look at their portfolio. That's money to buy influence, to investigate, to learn.

"Union approval" is an anachronism. What will it mean in the future?

"We won't allow this competition!"
"Ok, we will set up our own, take it or leave it"

etc.

Come on, we can all see what's coming.

So I have forgotten money by pointing out that CVC paid 75% more money to 6Nations for half the amount of the business.  Maybe you don't understand how money is made.

Your point on them buying knowledge etc and looking at the long game is flawed.  If that was their purpose they only needed to buy a share in a competition not 3.  Add in that for 100m CVC could just have built their own rugby knowledge bank.  Look at 12s, a few quid here and there and they have world cup winning coaches and former Union bosses. Can't see 12s having paid any more than 10m but probably closer to 5m.  And that is going to be as big as the more established competitions in some people's eyes.

Either CVC understand where the money is in rugby which is the international game or they have no clue and will lose alot of money on rugby.

Steffan wrote:Hi all. I am back from my year ban. Strange time period really banning someone for a year and no explanation why. But there we are.

The whole Wales v NZ match was all the proof you need that rugby is now totally dictated by money. Same goes with this new idea. The Lions tour was a a joke also.

My nephew is now on the books for Pontypridd RFC but he's been playing for the local village team until he is match fit. So I happy enough nowadays watching the village team anyway

Doubt I'll ever go to an international or "regional" game again unless there are serious changes

Cool.  But what’s that got to do with Rugby 12s?!

PhilBB wrote:Where's the growth in the game?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-10188377/Eddie-Joness-fears-Marcus-Smith-sum-rugbys-outdated-backward-mindset.html

Players. They are the commodity.

They're also ten a penny. Fans follow a team, not players simply because players come and go but the team are the constant. Of course the star players are going to be better paid, have higher profiles, etc. but there's never been an example of a breakaway league outstripping or even lasting since RU and RL split a century ago. Packer cricket, "rebel tours" to South Africa,etc.

If the unions don't want this to happen then it won't because that's how it works - any "rebel" player who moves to this league is simply suspended "sine die" from the rest of the sport, so no club games and no international call ups, same applies to any official who takes part, "join this and you're off the union referees list". Same with the grounds - any club that let's it be played at their ground is in trouble.

And the question still stands, who is actually going to watch and more importantly pay to watch this? Sevens is a popular weekend because it's a fun day out once a season at Twickenham, where the event is more important than the actual sport but an actual league

I can see it possibly working as a sort of "veterans" event where ex-internationals and long serving clubmen get one last payday in the format of the sevens comps, "see the legends live" kind of thing, as an alternative to going to Japan or America for them, but as an actual competition, I don't see it.

One last point, you've mentioned the CVC investment both in club and international rugby, they don't seem to have anything to do with this, in which case are they going to be happy that the teams/unions they have invested heavily in are now going to go and play in a breakaway competition?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sure.

Then why can't you see the point made above?!?!? It's the same thing.

You'd be giving me a fiver for nothing.

In the situation of rugby contracts I'd be instructing my agent or lawyer to get the best deal for me. I wouldn't be asking the club to cut money for release, the first would be asking for release and additional games off during the club season for rest. Playing other clubs off against each other etc ie you don't agree to this Sale will, or Worcester will etc. I wouldn't be accepting any offer by the club to but my wage while expecting the same workload, would be crazy. I'd be pointing to all the players who are getting additional money for nothing. Would just never happen.

Dear God.

If you signed the 12 month deal, you couldn't play 12s.

Brendan wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:So if I have the debate right the Unions days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before the clubs take over.  Just a few problems.

No official games can be played in a country without the Union's approval especially in France where the union has more control as given by the French Government. Doubt the players or club fans would appreciate their club going to war with their Union.  After all in England or France there are plenty clubs who will bend the knee to the Unions if the top ones won't.

There are also the small matter of every league fails without union support except for the T14.  We saw what happens when the Unions pull the plug such as the Championship in England.

We also hsve the amount of money pumped in by CVC into the 6 nations v the PRL  CVC paid big bucks for the PRL £200m for 27% stake.  They only paid a paltry £365 for about 15% for the 6 Nations.  Easy to see where CVC see as being the main game in town.  Why would CVC waste all that money on a tournament that they think is dying.

You've forgotten money in all of this.

The CVC seed money is tiny when you look at their portfolio. That's money to buy influence, to investigate, to learn.

"Union approval" is an anachronism. What will it mean in the future?

"We won't allow this competition!"
"Ok, we will set up our own, take it or leave it"

etc.

Come on, we can all see what's coming.

So I have forgotten money by pointing out that CVC paid 75% more money to 6Nations for half the amount of the business.  Maybe you don't understand how money is made.

Your point on them buying knowledge etc and looking at the long game is flawed.  If that was their purpose they only needed to buy a share in a competition not 3.  Add in that for 100m CVC could just have built their own rugby knowledge bank.  Look at 12s, a few quid here and there and they have world cup winning coaches and former Union bosses. Can't see 12s having paid any more than 10m but probably closer to 5m.  And that is going to be as big as the more established competitions in some people's eyes.

Either CVC understand where the money is in rugby which is the international game or they have no clue and will lose alot of money on rugby.

If they bought a share in only one competition, they'd have only knowledge of that competition and the people involved.......

CVC know where the growth area of the game is and which part of it is saturated.

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Where's the growth in the game?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-10188377/Eddie-Joness-fears-Marcus-Smith-sum-rugbys-outdated-backward-mindset.html

Players. They are the commodity.

They're also ten a penny. Fans follow a team, not players simply because players come and go but the team are the constant. Of course the star players are going to be better paid, have higher profiles, etc. but there's never been an example of a breakaway league outstripping or even lasting since RU and RL split a century ago. Packer cricket, "rebel tours" to South Africa,etc.

That's primarily because those breakaways led huge change in the make up of the sport itself. You know, just as what we'll see here.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sure.

Then why can't you see the point made above?!?!? It's the same thing.

You'd be giving me a fiver for nothing.

In the situation of rugby contracts I'd be instructing my agent or lawyer to get the best deal for me. I wouldn't be asking the club to cut money for release, the first would be asking for release and additional games off during the club season for rest. Playing other clubs off against each other etc ie you don't agree to this Sale will, or Worcester will etc. I wouldn't be accepting any offer by the club to but my wage while expecting the same workload, would be crazy. I'd be pointing to all the players who are getting additional money for nothing. Would just never happen.

Dear God.

If you signed the 12 month deal, you couldn't play 12s.

I could. I've just signed a deal with my club saying I can along with additional rest in the normal club season. After 12s takes off I'm leaving my current club for this new one at twice the wage.

...

Irish Londoner wrote:
One last point, you've mentioned the CVC investment both in club and international rugby, they don't seem to have anything to do with this, in which case are they going to be happy that the teams/unions they have invested heavily in are now going to go and play in a breakaway competition?

"seem"

Remembering who owns 91% of the PRL commercial company.....

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Dear God.

If you signed the 12 month deal, you couldn't play 12s.

I could. I've just signed a deal with my club saying I can along with additional rest in the normal club season. After 12s takes off I'm leaving my current club for this new one at twice the wage.[/quote]

So you mean you've signed a new deal? Which was my point above about the 10 mon..... oh never mind.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Dear God.

If you signed the 12 month deal, you couldn't play 12s.

I could. I've just signed a deal with my club saying I can along with additional rest in the normal club season. After 12s takes off I'm leaving my current club for this new one at twice the wage.

So you mean you've signed a new deal? Which was my point above about the 10 mon..... oh never mind.[/quote]

Yup. The club has saved no money and will lose me for additional games for rest. I belive your point was that this would benefit the club.