URC Season 2022/23

First topic message reminder :

Fixtures out for the coming season:-

United Rugby Championship schedule 2022/23
Round one
September16/17/18

Benetton v Glasgow

Cardiff v Munster

Zebre v Leinster

Scarlets v Ospreys

Edinburgh v Dragons

Ulster v Connacht

February3/4

Stormers v Sharks

Lions v Bulls

Round two
September23/24/25

Zebre v Sharks

Glasgow v Cardiff

Leinster v Benetton

Scarlets v Ulster

Bulls v Edinburgh

Stormers v Connacht

Ospreys v Lions

Dragons v Munster

Round three
September 30/October 1/2

Cardiff v Lions

Ulster v Leinster

Stormers v Edinburgh

Bulls v Connacht

Ospreys v Glasgow

Munster v Zebre

Benetton v Scarlets

Dragons v Sharks

Round four
October7/8/9

Connacht v Munster

Edinburgh v Lions

Zebre v Stormers

Leinster v Sharks

Scarlets v Cardiff

Glasgow v Bulls

Ulster v Ospreys

Benetton v Dragons

Round five
October14/15/16

Ospreys v Stormers

Munster v Bulls

Lions v Ulster

Sharks v Glasgow

Edinburgh v Benetton

Cardiff v Dragons

Scarlets v Zebre,

Connacht v Leinster

Round six
October21/22/23

Benetton v Bulls

Connacht v Scarlets

Zebre v Edinburgh

Lions v Glasgow

Sharks v Ulster

Cardiff v Stormers

Leinster v Munster

Dragons v Ospreys

Round seven
October28/29/30

Scarlets v Leinster

Glasgow v Benetton

Munster v Ulster

Dragons v Zebre

Ospreys v Connacht

Cardiff v Edinburgh

February10/11

Bulls v Sharks

Lions v Stormers

Round eight
November25/26/27

Stormers v Scarlets

Ulster v Zebre

Bulls v Ospreys

Benetton v Edinburgh

Leinster v Glasgow

Munster v Connacht

Lions v Dragons

Sharks v Cardiff

Round nine
December2/3/4

Sharks v Ospreys

Edinburgh v Munster

Stormers v Dragons

Zebre v Glasgow

Connacht v Benetton.

Bulls v Cardiff

Leinster v Ulster

Lions v Scarlets

Round 10
December23/24/26

Sharks v Lions

Stormers v Bulls

Glasgow v Edinburgh

Benetton v Zebre

Connacht v Ulster

Ospreys v Scarlets

Munster v Leinster

Dragons v Cardiff

Round 11
December 31/January 1

Edinburgh v Glasgow

Zebre v Benetton

Sharks v Bulls

Stormers v Lions

Cardiff v Ospreys

Scarlets v Dragons

Ulster v Munster

Leinster v Connacht

Round 12
January6/7/8

Munster v Lions

Dragons v Bulls

Benetton v Ulster

Glasgow v Stormers

Cardiff v Scarlets

Connacht v Sharks

Ospreys v Leinster

Edinburgh v Zebre

Round 13
January27/28/29

Ulster v Stormers

Scarlets v Bulls

Benetton v Munster

Dragons v Glasgow

Leinster v Cardiff

Edinburgh v Sharks

Connacht v Lions

Zebre v Ospreys

Round 14
February17/18/19

Glasgow v Ulster

Munster v Ospreys

Lions v Sharks

Bulls v Stormers

Zebre v Connacht

Scarlets v Edinburgh

Cardiff v Benetton

Leinster v Dragons

Round 15
March3/4/5

Glasgow v Zebre

Munster v Scarlets

Bulls v Lions

Sharks v Stormers

Edinburgh v Leinster

Ospreys v Benetton

Cardiff v Ulster

Dragons v Connacht

Round 16
March24/25/26

Zebre v Cardiff

Leinster v Stormers

Benetton v Lions

Ospreys v Dragons

Connacht v Edinburgh

Munster v Glasgow

Scarlets v Sharks

Ulster v Bulls

Round 17
April14/15/16

Sharks v Benetton

Glasgow v Scarlets

Ulster v Dragons

Lions v Leinster

Bulls v Zebre

Stormers v Munster

Connacht v Cardiff

Edinburgh v Ospreys

Round 18
April21/22/23

Stormers v Benetton

Ulster v Edinburgh

Lions v Zebre

Dragons v Scarlets

Bulls v Leinster

Ospreys v Cardiff

Sharks v Munster

Glasgow v Connacht

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And do either of you reckon the main aim of clubs should be to make money? Man U make a shed load of it from their owners; the fans are exceedingly unhappy because of it believing it should all go back into the team, stadium etc.

At this stage of professional rugby, clubs should be breaking even (or losing relatively little) whilst growing their value.

Exactly how CVC sees the GP, for example.

Why though? As long as you can stay running I doubt many people care if the club is making small losses, big ones or a profit. Indeed as with my example when clubs are making a profit and it's not all going back in they can quickly lose patience if performance and results aren't to their liking.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm intrigued to find out why you think the popularity of England prevents Saracens being profitable.

I didn't mention "popularity", if that question is (badly) aimed at me.

Can't be that badly aimed as it was obviously for you. I'm intrigued still why you think the number of internationals prevent Saracens being profitable.  Or do you mean European competitions as thats the next step down?

International rugby is a competitor to club rugby. It takes sponsors, commercial income and ticket sales from the domestic game. It also removes the best players from the clubs and it takes fixture time away from the clubs.

I can't make the point any more obvious than it already is.

And, yes, it was badly aimed as it even included a fabricated clause.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And do either of you reckon the main aim of clubs should be to make money? Man U make a shed load of it from their owners; the fans are exceedingly unhappy because of it believing it should all go back into the team, stadium etc.

At this stage of professional rugby, clubs should be breaking even (or losing relatively little) whilst growing their value.

Exactly how CVC sees the GP, for example.

Why though? As long as you can stay running I doubt many people care if the club is making small losses, big ones or a profit. Indeed as with my example when clubs are making a profit and it's not all going back in they can quickly lose patience if performance and results aren't to their liking.

Sorry, but "why" what?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm intrigued to find out why you think the popularity of England prevents Saracens being profitable.

I didn't mention "popularity", if that question is (badly) aimed at me.

Can't be that badly aimed as it was obviously for you. I'm intrigued still why you think the number of internationals prevent Saracens being profitable.  Or do you mean European competitions as thats the next step down?

International rugby is a competitor to club rugby. It takes sponsors, commercial income and ticket sales from the domestic game. It also removes the best players from the clubs and it takes fixture time away from the clubs.

I can't make the point any more obvious than it already is.

And, yes, it was badly aimed as it even included a fabricated clause.

Well not really. The clubs rely on the international game as it's far more popular and provides funds. Wishing away internationals doesn't mean that the clubs just get all that interest. Casual viewers are more likely to watch an international; it's the main draw for the game. If it rally is a competitor then it's done and dusted, internationals win hands down. Personally I'd say in regards to England stopping Saracens from being profitable it's probably more down to Saracens cheating the cap. If they were a bit more frugal and spent to their means they'd more likely have a bit more dough.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:And do either of you reckon the main aim of clubs should be to make money? Man U make a shed load of it from their owners; the fans are exceedingly unhappy because of it believing it should all go back into the team, stadium etc.

At this stage of professional rugby, clubs should be breaking even (or losing relatively little) whilst growing their value.

Exactly how CVC sees the GP, for example.

Why though? As long as you can stay running I doubt many people care if the club is making small losses, big ones or a profit. Indeed as with my example when clubs are making a profit and it's not all going back in they can quickly lose patience if performance and results aren't to their liking.

Sorry, but "why" what?

Why should they be breaking even or losing relatively little? If you have a wealthy owner for example would you really not want that guy to be backing the club a little more than the club brought in? I've never been one to get my knickers too much in a twist for clubs to be spending what is outside their normal means. I'm a Boro fan in football and very much enjoyed the days of Steve Gibson allowing us to compete with the big boys. At that point as long as we remain in business couldn't care less.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Well not really. The clubs rely on the international game as it's far more popular and provides funds. Wishing away internationals doesn't mean that the clubs just get all that interest. Casual viewers are more likely to watch an international; it's the main draw for the game. If it rally is a competitor then it's done and dusted, internationals win hands down. Personally I'd say in regards to England stopping Saracens from being profitable it's probably more down to Saracens cheating the cap. If they were a bit more frugal and spent to their means they'd more likely have a bit more dough.

They wouldn't rely on it if they had the space to grow their own game....Yours is a self fulfilling prophecy that explains where we are today.

As for Saracens, you clearly should read their accounts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Why should they be breaking even or losing relatively little? If you have a wealthy owner for example would you really not want that guy to be backing the club a little more than the club brought in? I've never been one to get my knickers too much in a twist for clubs to be spending what is outside their normal means. I'm a Boro fan in football and very much enjoyed the days of Steve Gibson allowing us to compete with the big boys. At that point as long as we remain in business couldn't care less.

They should be because there's a salary cap.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Well not really. The clubs rely on the international game as it's far more popular and provides funds. Wishing away internationals doesn't mean that the clubs just get all that interest. Casual viewers are more likely to watch an international; it's the main draw for the game. If it rally is a competitor then it's done and dusted, internationals win hands down. Personally I'd say in regards to England stopping Saracens from being profitable it's probably more down to Saracens cheating the cap. If they were a bit more frugal and spent to their means they'd more likely have a bit more dough.

They wouldn't rely on it if they had the space to grow their own game....Yours is a self fulfilling prophecy that explains where we are today.

As for Saracens, you clearly should read their accounts.

Life's too short. And no I think you're projecting what you'd like to happen that's not realistic. Most people see the internationals as the top of the tree. And a fair few as the only thing to watch, much more than vice versa.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Why should they be breaking even or losing relatively little? If you have a wealthy owner for example would you really not want that guy to be backing the club a little more than the club brought in? I've never been one to get my knickers too much in a twist for clubs to be spending what is outside their normal means. I'm a Boro fan in football and very much enjoyed the days of Steve Gibson allowing us to compete with the big boys. At that point as long as we remain in business couldn't care less.

They should be because there's a salary cap.

Salary caps don't mean much to the likes of Saracens or Leicester. But that's a completely different point to spending to your means, making money etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Life's too short. And no I think you're projecting what you'd like to happen that's not realistic. Most people see the internationals as the top of the tree. And a fair few as the only thing to watch, much more than vice versa.

Well if life is too short for you to make educated posts then so be it but at least that explains most of your output.

As you've noted that "a fair few" solely watch the internationals then you've proven my point. They are satiated by the number of internationals so they have no need for the club game. So the club game gets stagnated growth because the international game is a competitor.

You claim that I'm "projecting" only for you to go on to make a point that disproves your take but proves mine. Fair play to you.

Plus, of course, your woeful language has turned your posts into a hint that I'd want international rugby to disappear, when the truth is far from that.

So, in short, you're too lazy to make educated comments and the ones you do make undermine your own opinion.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Why should they be breaking even or losing relatively little? If you have a wealthy owner for example would you really not want that guy to be backing the club a little more than the club brought in? I've never been one to get my knickers too much in a twist for clubs to be spending what is outside their normal means. I'm a Boro fan in football and very much enjoyed the days of Steve Gibson allowing us to compete with the big boys. At that point as long as we remain in business couldn't care less.

They should be because there's a salary cap.

Salary caps don't mean much to the likes of Saracens or Leicester. But that's a completely different point to spending to your means, making money etc.

Well that's obviously complete horse pwp as both have been fined, so clearly they do mean something.

When the largest cost of a business is staff, a limited spend on staff will obviously affect profitability, thus underlining the point I was making.

If you can't see this, we're back to you being too lazy to read a set of accounts in order to make an informed comment.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Life's too short. And no I think you're projecting what you'd like to happen that's not realistic. Most people see the internationals as the top of the tree. And a fair few as the only thing to watch, much more than vice versa.

Well if life is too short for you to make educated posts then so be it but at least that explains most of your output.

As you've noted that "a fair few" solely watch the internationals then you've proven my point. They are satiated by the number of internationals so they have no need for the club game. So the club game gets stagnated growth because the international game is a competitor.

You claim that I'm "projecting" only for you to go on to make a point that disproves your take but proves mine. Fair play to you.

Plus, of course, your woeful language has turned your posts into a hint that I'd want international rugby to disappear, when the truth is far from that.

So, in short, you're too lazy to make educated comments and the ones you do make undermine your own opinion.

Phil no need to be childish here it's not twitter. The idea that you think with fewer international matches clubs would prosper, there's just evidence of that at all.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Why should they be breaking even or losing relatively little? If you have a wealthy owner for example would you really not want that guy to be backing the club a little more than the club brought in? I've never been one to get my knickers too much in a twist for clubs to be spending what is outside their normal means. I'm a Boro fan in football and very much enjoyed the days of Steve Gibson allowing us to compete with the big boys. At that point as long as we remain in business couldn't care less.

They should be because there's a salary cap.

Salary caps don't mean much to the likes of Saracens or Leicester. But that's a completely different point to spending to your means, making money etc.

Well that's obviously complete horse pwp as both have been fined, so clearly they do mean something.

When the largest cost of a business is staff, a limited spend on staff will obviously affect profitability, thus underlining the point I was making.

If you can't see this, we're back to you being too lazy to read a set of accounts in order to make an informed comment.

If you want to discuss the cheating go ahead and start the thread again. That's not around the points of profitability.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Phil no need to be childish here it's not twitter. The idea that you think with fewer international matches clubs would prosper, there's just evidence of that at all.

Exposing your contradictions is not childish, but I see we've reached the point where your obvious desire to be contrary ends up with you writing flat out lies.

And I assume you mean there's no evidence which, of course, is part of the self fulfilling prophecy. Of course there's no evidence as it's never been tried, ffs.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

When the largest cost of a business is staff, a limited spend on staff will obviously affect profitability, thus underlining the point I was making.

If you want to discuss the cheating go ahead and start the thread again. That's not around the points of profitability.[/quote]

So I write my bit, that completely undermines your previous claims yet you reply with something completely unrelated in order to try to deflect from the actual point I made.

And that's why your deliberately contrarian act has a limited shelf life.

Why should clubs be now breaking even or losing little? Because of a salary cap
Why does a salary cap affect profitability? Because staff costs are the greatest costs to the business
"I don't think that's the case for Saracens" & other deflection nonsense - read the accounts to educated yourself
"Life is too short" - so your comments aren't from a position of knowledge but just fabricated bullsit
"Don't be childish" - it's not childish to point out the shortcomings in your thinking

End.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Phil no need to be childish here it's not twitter. The idea that you think with fewer international matches clubs would prosper, there's just evidence of that at all.

Exposing your contradictions is not childish, but I see we've reached the point where your obvious desire to be contrary ends up with you writing flat out lies.

And I assume you mean there's no evidence which, of course, is part of the self fulfilling prophecy. Of course there's no evidence as it's never been tried, ffs.

My contradictions, lol. You dont have much self reflection going on do you? I'm loving the less slash what's really popular in the game and watch the clubs prosper approach. Really good idea! To be serious though you just want to see more of the internationals at your club and for them to do well. I get it. It's just not going to happen.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

When the largest cost of a business is staff, a limited spend on staff will obviously affect profitability, thus underlining the point I was making.

If you want to discuss the cheating go ahead and start the thread again. That's not around the points of profitability.

So I write my bit, that completely undermines your previous claims yet you reply with something completely unrelated in order to try to deflect from the actual point I made.

And that's why your deliberately contrarian act has a limited shelf life.

Why should clubs be now breaking even or losing little? Because of a salary cap
Why does a salary cap affect profitability? Because staff costs are the greatest costs to the business
"I don't think that's the case for Saracens" & other deflection nonsense - read the accounts to educated yourself
"Life is too short" - so your comments aren't from a position of knowledge but just fabricated bullsit
"Don't be childish" - it's not childish to point out the shortcomings in your thinking

End.[/quote]
You wrote about salary caps, not my point. If that dictated profitability all the English clubs would make a profit. But then I forgot, if not for England Worcester would be rolling in cash.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
My contradictions, lol. You dont have much self reflection going on do you? I'm loving the less slash what's really popular in the game and watch the clubs prosper approach. Really good idea! To be serious though you just want to see more of the internationals at your club and for them to do well. I get it. It's just not going to happen.

International rugby is at saturation point. As it's reached that, it is now negatively affecting the level below it meaning that the players coming into the international game in the future will be less prepared / efficient / talented than those there now. That's a negative spiral.

When you over play the international card, the pyramid is turned.

But the point was about the stagnant growth of the domestic game which YOU, yourself, yes you, explained why in your post above, despite you trying to argue the alternative.

Fair play, that's still funny now.

PhilBB wrote:
Meanwhile, the URC is reducing its broadcast income but is kept alive by Irish tax breaks and SA TV money.

No truth or supporting evidence behind this statement. It also shows a total lack of understanding of how the URC is funded currently. A more factual statement would be the clubs/regions within the URC would not survive without the funding of the various unions.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
You wrote about salary caps, not my point. If that dictated profitability all the English clubs would make a profit. But then I forgot, if not for England Worcester would be rolling in cash.

So we continue with the lie, this time about Worcester. It's always the same when your contrariness is called out and when you get to the point whereby your own posts undermine whichever contrary opinion you're trying to project.

You didn't have a point, remember? You asked me about my points. You asked me why should clubs break even, only to write some nonsensical straw man bullsit about Middlesborough football club who play a sport without a salary cap.

If you can't understand the simple point that the largest spend at rugby clubs is on wages and, therefore, the less they spend on wages leads to a likelier increase in profitability, you can't understand why the GP has reduced the salary cap. Or why the T14 has done the same.

And, therefore, you're not in a position to comment because, you know, "life's too short" to learn something.

Welshmushroom wrote:

PhilBB wrote:
Meanwhile, the URC is reducing its broadcast income but is kept alive by Irish tax breaks and SA TV money.

No truth or supporting evidence behind this statement.  It also shows a total lack of understanding of how the URC is funded currently.  A more factual statement would be the clubs/regions within the URC would not survive without the funding of the various unions.

The truth is the £6m put in by Supersport, the URC being based in Dublin because sporting organisations are exempt from Corporation Tax in Ireland.

I wrote about the URC, not the participating entrant clubs.

So now you've had the supporting evidence and now you've realised that your "more factual statement" had nothing to do with mine, maybe you'd like to retract that post as it's complete nonsense.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
My contradictions, lol. You dont have much self reflection going on do you? I'm loving the less slash what's really popular in the game and watch the clubs prosper approach. Really good idea! To be serious though you just want to see more of the internationals at your club and for them to do well. I get it. It's just not going to happen.

International rugby is at saturation point. As it's reached that, it is now negatively affecting the level below it meaning that the players coming into the international game in the future will be less prepared / efficient / talented than those there now. That's a negative spiral.

When you over play the international card, the pyramid is turned.

But the point was about the stagnant growth of the domestic game which YOU, yourself, yes you, explained why in your post above, despite you trying to argue the alternative.

Fair play, that's still funny now.

Internationals aren't at saturation point though. Still plenty of interest and money made.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Internationals aren't at saturation point though. Still plenty of interest and money made.

Your second sentence doesn't prove or disprove your first. They are unrelated.

So you clearly don't know what saturation point means.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
You wrote about salary caps, not my point. If that dictated profitability all the English clubs would make a profit. But then I forgot, if not for England Worcester would be rolling in cash.

So we continue with the lie, this time about Worcester. It's always the same when your contrariness is called out and when you get to the point whereby your own posts undermine whichever contrary opinion you're trying to project.

You didn't have a point, remember? You asked me about my points. You asked me why should clubs break even, only to write some nonsensical straw man bullsit about Middlesborough football club who play a sport without a salary cap.

If you can't understand the simple point that the largest spend at rugby clubs is on wages and, therefore, the less they spend on wages leads to a likelier increase in profitability, you can't understand why the GP has reduced the salary cap. Or why the T14 has done the same.

And, therefore, you're not in a position to comment because, you know, "life's too short" to learn something.

You don't have to get so aggressive Phil, this is a forum not twitter. Less anger may mean you take more time to spell place names correctly. And yes clubs could be profitable if they spent less on their staff completely agree. Nothing to do with internationals.  And just because there's a salary cap doesn't mean that clubs won't spend outside their means.

PhilBB wrote:
So you write a whole piece about how the GP is wrong to move to 14 clubs but then acknowledge how the Top14 (clue there) would survive without international rugby.

Can you see the massive contradiction? You've just undermined your entire point.

And the point of international rugby is very, very simple: if there was not so much of it, the better players would play more domestic rugby, so the commercial value of domestic rugby would grow.

Actually it's not a contradiction. That would only be the case if the Premiership and Top 14 were similar. Given the obvious National differences of sport in each country it's like comparing Apples with Oranges. In England Rugby is only about 3rd in viewership numbers and that primarily is distorted by the 6 Nations. Without the international viewership numbers Rugby wouldn't even break into the top 5.

I notice however you didn't refute the claim that without international money the Premiership would cease to be a viable professional league. Without the RFU and other Unions access to player payments, how long could the Premiership survive before all of its household names (assets) were hovered up by the Top 14?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Internationals aren't at saturation point though. Still plenty of interest and money made.

Your second sentence doesn't prove or disprove your first. They are unrelated.

So you clearly don't know what saturation point means.

Dear me. As long as there's a clamour for tickets and money is made its all good. Its why more international games are added, why we expand the WC and look to expand the 6Ns. The demand to watch is there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
You don't have to get so aggressive Phil, this is a forum not twitter. Less anger may mean you take more time to spell place names correctly. And yes clubs could be profitable if they spent less on their staff completely agree. Nothing to do with internationals.  And just because there's a salary cap doesn't mean that clubs won't spend outside their means.

Ah, the "aggressive" card is played despite there being no aggression on display.

If you learned about what some clubs spend on beyond their means, this would be a useful and fruitful competition.

But, you know, "life's too short" for you to make informed comments.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Dear me. As long as there's a clamour for tickets and money is made its all good. Its why more international games are added, why we expand the WC and look to expand the 6Ns. The demand to watch is there.

That doesn't mean that saturation point isn't reached.

See https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/10000-empty-seats-but-irfu-defend-ticket-prices-41023803.html for a tiny ground.

See https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-03-10/wru-criticised-over-10000-empty-seats-at-wales-v-france-clash for a bigger ground

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
You don't have to get so aggressive Phil, this is a forum not twitter. Less anger may mean you take more time to spell place names correctly. And yes clubs could be profitable if they spent less on their staff completely agree. Nothing to do with internationals.  And just because there's a salary cap doesn't mean that clubs won't spend outside their means.

Ah, the "aggressive" card is played despite there being no aggression on display.

If you learned about what some clubs spend on beyond their means, this would be a useful and fruitful competition.

But, you know, "life's too short" for you to make informed comments.

Personally I think the amount of swear words you're typing, misspelling to get round the swear ban, comes across as aggressive. If that's not your aim perhaps adapt your writing style.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Dear me. As long as there's a clamour for tickets and money is made its all good. Its why more international games are added, why we expand the WC and look to expand the 6Ns. The demand to watch is there.

That doesn't mean that saturation point isn't reached.

See https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/10000-empty-seats-but-irfu-defend-ticket-prices-41023803.html for a tiny ground.

See https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-03-10/wru-criticised-over-10000-empty-seats-at-wales-v-france-clash for a bigger ground

Oh OK. I see your point. Maybe we should reduce amount of club rugby massively first then if that's what saturation means to you.

Welshmushroom wrote:

Actually it's not a contradiction.  That would only be the case if the Premiership and Top 14 were similar.  Given the obvious National differences of sport in each country it's like comparing Apples with Oranges.  In England Rugby is only about 3rd in viewership numbers and that primarily is distorted by the 6 Nations.  Without the international viewership numbers Rugby wouldn't even break into the top 5.

I notice however you didn't refute the claim that without international money the Premiership would cease to be a viable professional league.  Without the RFU and other Unions access to player payments, how long could the Premiership survive before all of its household names (assets) were hovered up by the Top 14?

It's a huge contradiction because your argument was about "too many fixtures" despite both competitions having the same number. I notice you haven't compared the income streams for the GP and T14, but rather thrown in a straw man about the international game.

The RFU pay about £25m a year to the 14 clubs of the GP. If there were no internationals (which is a stupid idea), don't you think each club would be able to make up the less-than-£2m-a-year payment?

I do.

5 or so more home fixtures each and a pick of broadcasters and sponsors wishing to reach ABC1 customers.

But, you know, facts.......

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Dear me. As long as there's a clamour for tickets and money is made its all good. Its why more international games are added, why we expand the WC and look to expand the 6Ns. The demand to watch is there.

That doesn't mean that saturation point isn't reached.

See https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/10000-empty-seats-but-irfu-defend-ticket-prices-41023803.html for a tiny ground.

See https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-03-10/wru-criticised-over-10000-empty-seats-at-wales-v-france-clash for a bigger ground

Oh OK. I see your point. Maybe we should reduce amount of club rugby massively first then if that's what saturation means to you.

Well clearly you don't see my point else you wouldn't have continued to write something unrelated and stupid.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Personally I think the amount of swear words you're typing, misspelling to get round the swear ban, comes across as aggressive. If that's not your aim perhaps adapt your writing style.

Or, more pertinently, you could amend your understanding

But, as we've seen, "life's too short" for you to learn.

PhilBB wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

Just to elaborate on this point, when club seasons are so long is not difficult to see why only the very dedicated club rugby fans will regularly attend.  I'd also point on this is a key factor why clubs are not pulling that many away fans in their domestic leagues because a lot of fans have plenty of home games to attend instead so unless the game has a particular significance they feel less likely to take the trip.

This format also won't help bringing new fans on as your already talking about having a very complicated game to follow but then essentially creating a scenario where you are trying to get them to attend over the course of 10 months of the year.   Premiership and Top 14 rugby probably will still be exactly where they are now in terms of attendance looking 5 years ahead.  The growth under their current model just isn't there to support anything than stale growth at club level.

Mate, seasons are long precisely because there's too much international rugby clogging up the fixture lists.

Where's your evidence that fans aren't pulling in away fans?

And you fail to recognise the stale growth is precisely because there's too much international rugby!!

And yet the first chance the Premiership has to increase the amount of games played from 2023 they take thus contributing to the exact the same problem your leveling at international rugby.

Welshmushroom wrote:

And yet the first chance the Premiership has to increase the amount of games played from 2023 they take thus contributing to the exact the same problem your leveling at international rugby.

Sorry, I'm not quite following.

Are you telling me club rugby is saturated? Even though you told us the T14 was successful?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Dear me. As long as there's a clamour for tickets and money is made its all good. Its why more international games are added, why we expand the WC and look to expand the 6Ns. The demand to watch is there.

That doesn't mean that saturation point isn't reached.

See https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/10000-empty-seats-but-irfu-defend-ticket-prices-41023803.html for a tiny ground.

See https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-03-10/wru-criticised-over-10000-empty-seats-at-wales-v-france-clash for a bigger ground

Oh OK. I see your point. Maybe we should reduce amount of club rugby massively first then if that's what saturation means to you.

Well clearly you don't see my point else you wouldn't have continued to write something unrelated and stupid.

Shed loads of clubs don't fill their grounds regularly. It's clearly saturated.  Reduce the number allow more top tier international games, allows the clubs to reduce wages and become more profitable. You've convinced  me.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Personally I think the amount of swear words you're typing, misspelling to get round the swear ban, comes across as aggressive. If that's not your aim perhaps adapt your writing style.

Or, more pertinently, you could amend your understanding

But, as we've seen, "life's too short" for you to learn.

Swearing for no reason comes across as aggressive Phil. Twitter is fine for that sort of thing but it's gernally more relaxed here. Just calm down and it'll be a more peaceful place.

PhilBB wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

Actually it's not a contradiction.  That would only be the case if the Premiership and Top 14 were similar.  Given the obvious National differences of sport in each country it's like comparing Apples with Oranges.  In England Rugby is only about 3rd in viewership numbers and that primarily is distorted by the 6 Nations.  Without the international viewership numbers Rugby wouldn't even break into the top 5.

I notice however you didn't refute the claim that without international money the Premiership would cease to be a viable professional league.  Without the RFU and other Unions access to player payments, how long could the Premiership survive before all of its household names (assets) were hovered up by the Top 14?

It's a huge contradiction because your argument was about "too many fixtures" despite both competitions having the same number. I notice you haven't compared the income streams for the GP and T14, but rather thrown in a straw man about the international game.

The RFU pay about £25m a year to the 14 clubs of the GP. If there were no internationals (which is a stupid idea), don't you think each club would be able to make up the less-than-£2m-a-year payment?

I do.

5 or so more home fixtures each and a pick of broadcasters and sponsors wishing to reach ABC1 customers.

But, you know, facts.......

No I don't actually. Unless you think you just will be able to ask the broadcasters for the difference which is I'm sure how they arrive at their figures as well.

So if you can't get the 2 million difference from TV revenue, the only place left would be through gates and merchandise, unless there is a magic money tree I seem to have missed?

Welshmushroom wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

Just to elaborate on this point, when club seasons are so long is not difficult to see why only the very dedicated club rugby fans will regularly attend.  I'd also point on this is a key factor why clubs are not pulling that many away fans in their domestic leagues because a lot of fans have plenty of home games to attend instead so unless the game has a particular significance they feel less likely to take the trip.

This format also won't help bringing new fans on as your already talking about having a very complicated game to follow but then essentially creating a scenario where you are trying to get them to attend over the course of 10 months of the year.   Premiership and Top 14 rugby probably will still be exactly where they are now in terms of attendance looking 5 years ahead.  The growth under their current model just isn't there to support anything than stale growth at club level.

Mate, seasons are long precisely because there's too much international rugby clogging up the fixture lists.

Where's your evidence that fans aren't pulling in away fans?

And you fail to recognise the stale growth is precisely because there's too much international rugby!!

And yet the first chance the Premiership has to increase the amount of games played from 2023 they take thus contributing to the exact the same problem your leveling at international rugby.

I'm hoping it means more youngsters get the chance as they did during the restart from covid. Can but dream.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Dear me. As long as there's a clamour for tickets and money is made its all good. Its why more international games are added, why we expand the WC and look to expand the 6Ns. The demand to watch is there.

That doesn't mean that saturation point isn't reached.

See https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/10000-empty-seats-but-irfu-defend-ticket-prices-41023803.html for a tiny ground.

See https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-03-10/wru-criticised-over-10000-empty-seats-at-wales-v-france-clash for a bigger ground

Oh OK. I see your point. Maybe we should reduce amount of club rugby massively first then if that's what saturation means to you.

Well clearly you don't see my point else you wouldn't have continued to write something unrelated and stupid.

That comes across as quite aggressive too. It's only your own logic after all.

PhilBB wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

And yet the first chance the Premiership has to increase the amount of games played from 2023 they take thus contributing to the exact the same problem your leveling at international rugby.

Sorry, I'm not quite following.

Are you telling me club rugby is saturated? Even though you told us the T14 was successful?

P
Top14 makes money currently based on its current viewership deal. You can't really compare it with the English Premiership as I said earlier.

What I will say is that the Top14 is saturated and they won't be able to grow much further past what they have already achieved to date. I also don't think this move will help grow the game in England either. Granted only time will tell so neither of us will be proven right until time passes.

What I will say however again as it's a point you breezed past without commenting on is that this will be at the expense of the fan and player welfare. The NFL are a million miles ahead of how they promote their sports and rugby could actually learn from them in a lot of respects by creating larger off seasons (by reducing both international and club rugby).

The Premiership and top 14 have been increaing the number of games, as there is a battle with the unions to claim the free weekends. They both know that with player welfare and hopefully a unified world season that there will have to be a reduction somewhere, and both want to be in as strong a position as possible have the cuts come more out of the others share.

It could well lead to the demise of the HCup, because if the domestic season is shorterned, I dont see the Top 14 reducing thier season and its Europe that will lose out. URC really should now be developing to being seen as more important than the HCup, like French view the Top 14.

Welshmushroom wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

And yet the first chance the Premiership has to increase the amount of games played from 2023 they take thus contributing to the exact the same problem your leveling at international rugby.

Sorry, I'm not quite following.

Are you telling me club rugby is saturated? Even though you told us the T14 was successful?

P
Top14 makes money currently based on its current viewership deal.  You can't really compare it with the English Premiership as I said earlier.

What I will say is that the Top14 is saturated and they won't be able to grow much further past what they have already achieved to date.  I also don't think this move will help grow the game in England either.  Granted only time will tell so neither of us will be proven right until time passes.

What I will say however again as it's a point you breezed past without commenting on is that this will be at the expense of the fan and player welfare.  The NFL are a million miles ahead of how they promote their sports and rugby could actually learn from them in a lot of respects by creating larger off seasons (by reducing both international and club rugby).  

The NFL didn't have to compete with the behemoth that is soccer until relatively recently though. Soccer hovers up the majority of the sports fans and coverage here, everyone else is fighting for scraps.

I don't think a longer off season is necessarily going to do much, we had no crowds or games for long periods due to covid and if anything ticket sales seemed to go down this year, it certainly did with Leinster. On the flip side soccer never seems to stop, even in their off season they are flying around the world in extravagant friendlies, yet people never seem to get enough of it.

I take your point.

That said its not like the NFL does not have to compete with other sports.  Baseball, Hockey and Basketball are all massive in their own right.

Also Football as a sport lends itself better to more games. It is after all non contact.

Welshmushroom wrote:I take your point.

That said its not like the NFL does not have to compete with other sports.  Baseball, Hockey and Basketball are all massive in their own right.  

True yes, but the likes of the MLB are already feeling the pinch from the MLS's continued growth.

https://frontofficesports.com/mlb-attendance-figures-continue-to-trend-downward/. Not sure about how the other leagues are fairing.

[quote="PhilBB"]

Welshmushroom wrote:Lets be honest here - Pro Rugby is only pro in salaries.  It's light years behind in terms of marketing, analysis, training and a whole host of different areas including management.  You only have to look at the Premiership as an example. They made decisions primarily thinking they could replicate football.  The key point however is football is a non contact sport.  NFL for example is the closest thing currently that is most similar to Rugby.  Premiership increasing teams to 14 and presumably more matches (26 in total for the league) is the complete opposite of what the NFL did many years ago.  The NFL reduced games but improved quality and then have a decent off season which then gets fans excited for the new season rolls around.  Meanwhile in rugby the breaks a virtually non existent and there are no real no rugby resets during the year.

The argument from the owners will be they need to be playing games all the time at club level to give them best chance to grow their own clubs.  Problem is I actually think this doesn't help the growth of a club or league.  Part of the reason rugby has to rely so heavily on the international game to grow the sport is because at international the windows are far smaller for fans to follow and the standard of rugby is much higher.  

I actually think the fact the URC for example have made better decisions on reducing games rather than increasing games at club level.  

I don't see any evidence that even remotely suggests that international rugby hinders the club game in anyway, and if anything in most cases club sides wouldn't even exist without it, aside from the TOP14.

So you write a whole piece about how the GP is wrong to move to 14 clubs but then acknowledge how the Top14 (clue there) would survive without international rugby.

Can you see the massive contradiction? You've just undermined your entire point.

And the point of international rugby is very, very simple: if there was not so much of it, the better players would play more domestic rugby, so the commercial value of domestic rugby would grow.

Meanwhile, the URC is reducing its broadcast income but is kept alive by Irish tax breaks and SA TV money.[/quote]

Dont think thats true,

https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/pro14-united-rugby-championship-tv-rights-2021-streaming/

According to the Financial Times (FT), the URC has new broadcast partnerships in place including with the BBC in the UK, RTE in Ireland and SuperSport in South Africa worth UK£55 million a year (US$77.4 million), up from UK£25 million (US$35.2 million) for the Pro14 last year.

Which is higher than the current premiership deal of £110 million over 3 years which is £36million a year.

Even taking into account the greater number of clubs that still works out at more per club in the URC than the English Prem

URC - £55 million, 16 teams = £3.43 million per team
English Prem - £36 million, 13 teams - £2.89 million per team

Pretty sure I read that the broadcast / comeptition money handed to the 4 Welsh clubs had actually gone down in the last set of WRU accounts?

Kingshu wrote:

It could well lead to the demise of the HCup, because if the domestic season is shorterned, I dont see the Top 14 reducing thier season and its Europe that will lose out. URC really should now be developing to being seen as more important than the HCup, like French view the Top 14.

The HCup is already dead. Only about 3 or 4 teams can win it. Most clubs don't even bother with it because they have a league salary cap and have to use the same squad in Europe. Where teams from the URC can spend what they like on playing squads.

What do you mean by most clubs don't even bother with it (Champions Cup)?