Guinness Pro12 2015/2016 Season thread

neelia11

Bazzo wrote: »

Seems ludicrous to me. It says that the pro 12 teams would be in a conference with the South Africans to "avoid long haul flights". There might not be much a time difference but it's still a 10 hour flight from London to Johannesburg. I really don't see how those kind of travel times are feasible.

Going to SA/Arg to play 2-3 games at a time like a mini tour. Its the only way it is remotely feasible

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

neelia11 wrote: »

Going to SA/Arg to play 2-3 games at a time like a mini tour. Its the only way it is remotely feasible

That's how the other teams do it, isn't it? The current Super Rugby teams, I mean.

Neil3030

I don't get the logic - we are failing to generate money so the solution is frequent costly trips to the other side of the world to pair up with a league that makes less money?

I mean, it would be great for our players to play against SANZAR opposition, but it's a logistical nightmare and doesn't seem to make any sense. Will Aussies suddenly tune in to union if the Waratahs are playing a Pro12 team instead of a Super team? I doubt it....

irishbucsfan

Neil3030 wrote: »

I don't get the logic - we are failing to generate money so the solution is frequent costly trips to the other side of the world to pair up with a league that makes less money?

I mean, it would be great for our players to play against SANZAR opposition, but it's a logistical nightmare and doesn't seem to make any sense. Will Aussies suddenly tune in to union if the Waratahs are playing a Pro12 team instead of a Super team? I doubt it....

Nah it's not a solution or an option, but could be a useful carrot/stick

Bazzo

neelia11 wrote: »

Going to SA/Arg to play 2-3 games at a time like a mini tour. Its the only way it is remotely feasible

Yeah I forgot the Argentinians are involved now. It's a similar travel time for them(maybe a little longer) but the difference is they have no choice but to be involved if they want competitive rugby.

I think looking at ways to change the current league is infinitely more sensible than this idea.

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Nah it's not a solution or an option, but could be a useful carrot/stick

For... sky? BT? Dot down a few more zeros or we hit the road?

galwaylad14

Think the league has been great this year. Why would we possibly want to change it?!


Warning I may be ever so slightly biased.

thomond2006

Despite having a year left on his Glasgow deal, Leone Nakarawa has signed for Racing. What a blow to the Pro12, phenomenal player to watch.

awec

thomond2006 wrote: »

Despite having a year left on his Glasgow deal, Leone Nakarawa has signed for Racing. What a blow to the Pro12, phenomenal player to watch.

For 17/18? Or have Racing paid compo to get him next season?

Buer

awec wrote: »

For 17/18? Or have Racing paid compo to get him next season?

They're buying out his final year.

errlloyd

Serious blow, he's class. 100k seems like pretty crap compensation to be honest. If they only got that for him I imagine we got pittance for Douglas.

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

Serious blow, he's class. 100k seems like pretty crap compensation to be honest. If they only got that for him I imagine we got pittance for Douglas.

That's just paying out his contract, plus a nominal payment on top of it. Nakarawa never played professionally before Glasgow so wouldn't be on big money, at all. He didn't become a key player for Glasgow until the last year or so.

I suppose if you've a player who wants to leave and a club who are willing to pay out his contract, you're in a tricky situation. Not worth having a guy on the books who wants out.

errlloyd

Buer wrote: »

That's just paying out his contract, plus a nominal payment on top of it. Nakarawa never played professionally before Glasgow so wouldn't be on big money, at all. He didn't become a key player for Glasgow until the last year or so.

I suppose if you've a player who wants to leave and a club who are willing to pay out his contract, you're in a tricky situation. Not worth having a guy on the books who wants out.

So Nakarawa was only on 100k a year Salary? That's pretty mental to be fair. Is that how rugby transfer fees are calculated? Pay the club what they value the player at and you can have him? Interesting.

Buer

errlloyd wrote: »

So Nakarawa was only on 100k a year Salary? That's pretty mental to be fair. Is that how rugby transfer fees are calculated? Pay the club what they value the player at and you can have him? Interesting.

I'm just guessing. His initial contract would have been pretty paltry, I reckon, when he joined from the amateur game. When he extended, it was late 2014 so he really hadn't established himself with Glasgow as an important player.

He spent a lot of his first two seasons sitting on the bench (22 starts, 24 sub appearances) so I'd well believe he was only on £100k a year and possibly less.

thomond2006

£100k a year for Nakarawa is the contract of the century from the club's POV.

Buer

thomond2006 wrote: »

£100k a year for Nakarawa is the contract of the century from the club's POV.

Based on his profile at the time and what we learned from Muldoon's interview a couple of seasons ago, it's not really too surprising. When he signed the deal he had a grand total of 13 starts in professional rugby.

Based on how he has developed, it has turned out excellently but at the time, it was a pretty standard deal.

Akrasia

Ok, so how do they 'fix' the pro 12.

Is it the quality of the teams?
The interference of the national rugby unions?

This year we have had an extremely competitive league, with 4 games left, the top 6 teams can all make the playoffs

The bottom 2 or 3 teams are pretty awful, but there is also some dynamic movement from season to season, with Connacht going from 7th last season, to deservedly topping the table this season so far.


The Italians are what they are, but the welsh really need to pull their finger out. For a nation that considers themselves to be rugby mad, two of their top 4 clubs are bottom feeders on the league, and the Ospreys haven't bothered to turn up this year.

Scythica

Make Celtic Warriors financially viable

RAKM

I think the Welsh fans have a very poor attitude. When the regions were being formed Celtic Warriors were to be called Rhonda Valley Ravens. Pontypridd fans objected to this as Ravens is the nickname of a rival club. I think Bridgend. The NGD were simply the Gwent Dragons, IMO a fine and less awkward name. However IIRC the Newport fans boycotted this team until Xmas of their first season. When they got their way the attendances increased.


Now I understand tradition and club loyalty. We got it here when the AIL became less important around 2001. But they need to move on a little. Why not support both club and province as I do.


What I do find negative is that they complain that we do not take it so seriously by sending weakened teams which is true but we have still got a great record when it comes to the Pro12.


It might have been better if the Pro12 had been around before the HC. It might have been a bit more estd. and not had the lesser feel to it in many people's eyes.


The Pro12 teams may need to start liking it a bit more as it seems success in the CC is a bit beyond us for the time being.

Podge_irl

RAKM wrote: »

Now I understand tradition and club loyalty. We got it here when the AIL became less important around 2001. But they need to move on a little. Why not support both club and province as I do.

The fact their regions are completely new constructs can't really be overstated. The naturally existing divisions in Ireland certainly helped with the identity of the provinces. We weren't taking rival clubs and throwing them together into some completely new fangled superteams.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

The fact their regions are completely new constructs can't really be overstated. The naturally existing divisions in Ireland certainly helped with the identity of the provinces. We weren't taking rival clubs and throwing them together into some completely new fangled superteams.

The GarryShannon Gombeens would have been a great team.

Cookiemunster

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The GarryShannon Gombeens would have been a great team.

I think you me the Young GarryShannon Gombeens

whatawaster

What about this for an alternative structure for the Pro 12?

Phase 1
12 teams are divided into 2 groups of 6. 4 Irish teams in one, 4 Welsh teams in the other. 2 Scottish and 2 Italian alternate between the two each year.
Each group is round robin, home and away (so 10 matches in total)

There will be a much greater concentration of local derbies this way, but obvious disadvantages, such as no Ire v Wales matches until later in comp.

For example
Group A (Standings based on current pro-12 table)
1. Connacht
2. Leinster
3. Munster
4. Ulster.
5. Zebre
6. Treviso

Group B
1. Scarlets
2. Glasgow
3. Edinburgh
4. Cardiff
5. Ospreys
6. Dragons

Phase 2
Split into 3 Groups based on their finishes in phase 1
Group 1 - Connacht, Leinster, Scarlets, Glasgow (guaranteed quarter-final places, just playing for seeding)
Group 2 - Munster, Ulster, Edinburgh, Cardiff (top 2 make quarter final, bottom two make play-off)
Group 3 - Zebre, Treviso, Ospreys, Dragons (top 2 make play-off)

Round robin, home and away (6 matches each)

Example of final standings:
Group 1
1. Glasgow
2. Leinster
3. Connacht
4. Scarlets

Group 2
1. Ulster
2. Munster
3. Edinburgh
4. Cardiff

Group 3
1. Ospreys
2. Dragons
3. Zebre
4. Treviso

Phase 3 - Knockout
- 4 teams from Group 1 guaranteed quarter final spot
- Top 2 from Group 2 guaranteed quarter final spot
- Bottom two from group 2 and top 2 from group 3 enter play-off round

Playoff-round
Cardiff v Ospreys
Edinburgh v Dragons

Quarter Finals - 2 legs home and away
Glasgow v Ospreys
Scarlets v Ulster
Connacht v Munster
Leinster v Edinburgh


Semi final - 2 legs home and away
Glasgow v Ulster
Connacht v Leinster

Final
Glasgow v Leinster

Teams would have between 16 and 21 (16 round-robin matches and then knockouts) matches under this system, so maybe less likely to rest key international players, but on the downside of course there would be less gate-receipts.

errlloyd

Leinster play 4 round robin games against Connacht in one year? Imagine, draw them in the H/Cup too and a quarter of your annual games would be against one other teams! the players would hate each other.

Podge_irl

Em...why?

Seems needlessly complicated.

CMOTDibbler

What the Pro 12 lacks and what the other main leagues have, is a lower division. We need to look at promoting some of the top AIL clubs to a pro league with clubs from the other nations added in to make a Pro 12 D2 as it were.

Now I know there will be the obvious cost factors and other issues in doing so, but if we could overcome that difficulty, it would be a very useful outlet for players and coaches. In time it could provide a much needed boost to the league if there was promotion and relegation.

Podge_irl

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

What the Pro 12 lacks and what the other main leagues have, is a lower division. We need to look at promoting some of the top AIL clubs to a pro league with clubs from the other nations added in to make a Pro 12 D2 as it were.

Now I know there will be the obvious cost factors and other issues in doing so, but if we could overcome that difficulty, it would be a very useful outlet for players and coaches. In time it could provide a much needed boost to the league if there was promotion and relegation.

The Pro12 struggles (or less charitably fails) to field 12 competitive teams as it is. A second division is a complete and utter fantasy.

CMOTDibbler

Podge_irl wrote: »

The Pro12 struggles (or less charitably fails) to field 12 competitive teams as it is. A second division is a complete and utter fantasy.

You're just a knocker :P

Resisting the urge to put a gif up

It's an idea. It would be difficult, but talking about mix 'n' match with the Super Rugby sides is even more fanciful imo. Viadana against Lansdowne would be an interesting prospect.

irishbucsfan

The Pro 12 doesn't need different teams, it needs different leadership.

The important difference between the Pro 12 and the other leagues is not competitiveness between teams, or even really the quality of the sides (for now). The most important difference is that those leagues are run by people whose primary interest is the league and the teams within it.

Just my own opinion.

Podge_irl

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's an idea. It would be difficult, but talking about mix 'n' match with the Super Rugby sides is even more fanciful imo. Viadana against Lansdowne would be an interesting prospect.

Sure, it would be kind of interesting.

Lansdowne against literally any team in the Pro12 would be one of the most uninteresting things I could think of.

The Lost Sheep

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

What the Pro 12 lacks and what the other main leagues have, is a lower division. We need to look at promoting some of the top AIL clubs to a pro league with clubs from the other nations added in to make a Pro 12 D2 as it were.

Now I know there will be the obvious cost factors and other issues in doing so, but if we could overcome that difficulty, it would be a very useful outlet for players and coaches. In time it could provide a much needed boost to the league if there was promotion and relegation.

Top AIL clubs aren't capable of doing this. How would you over come this? A lower division would be fine but the only possible way to do that is to include Georgian sides etc but a second division isn't needed.

CMOTDibbler

Podge_irl wrote: »

Sure, it would be kind of interesting.

Lansdowne against literally any team in the Pro12 would be one of the most uninteresting things I could think of.

Agreed. But against Welsh 1st division sides or Italian Excellenza ones? Georgian and Romanian clubs etc.

Sure there are loads of issues and obstacles. It's not that far-fetched though and a bit of thinking outside the box could overcome a lot of them. The problem with the Pro 12 is that it's mainly disconnected from the rest of rugby in the four nations. The Welsh situation is a case in point.

Podge_irl

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's not that far-fetched though and a bit of thinking outside the box could overcome a lot of them.

Yes it is. It's incredibly, incredibly far-fetched.

Even if you funded the absolute money sink that would be a second league it would be completely pointless to have promotion/relegation for about 20/30 years.

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Pro 12 doesn't need different teams, it needs different leadership.

The important difference between the Pro 12 and the other leagues is not competitiveness between teams, or even really the quality of the sides (for now). The most important difference is that those leagues are run by people whose primary interest is the league and the teams within it.

Just my own opinion.

And it's true. But the leadership issue is only one of the problems with the Pro 12. Solving it wouldn't make the other ones go away. Ireland is probably the only nation involved in the league where there isn't a disconnect between the pro teams and the buying public. Scotland, Wales and Italy all suffer from this.

CMOTDibbler

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes it is. It's incredibly, incredibly far-fetched.

Even if you funded the absolute money sink that would be a second league it would be completely pointless to have promotion/relegation for about 20/30 years.

That's probably an exaggeration. I say probably because we're just guessing.

There are always reasons not to do something. Inertia has its own rewards.

irishbucsfan

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

And it's true. But the leadership issue is only one of the problems with the Pro 12. Solving it wouldn't make the other ones go away. Ireland is probably the only nation involved in the league where there isn't a disconnect between the pro teams and the buying public. Scotland, Wales and Italy all suffer from this.

I don't think the problems would just go away, but I think they would attended to with a degree of urgency by people whose primary interests are in solving them.

Zzippy

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Pro 12 doesn't need different teams, it needs different leadership.

The important difference between the Pro 12 and the other leagues is not competitiveness between teams, or even really the quality of the sides (for now). The most important difference is that those leagues are run by people whose primary interest is the league and the teams within it.

Just my own opinion.

It's easy to compare unfavourably with T14/Prem when those leagues have access to relatively huge markets and a resulting much bigger pot of money. The uncertainty caused by the Prem courting of the Welsh teams before the HEC renegotiation didn't help in attracting tv money. The Prem and Top14 are becoming a parody of the way soccer has gone with wage inflation, dominance of rich clubs, dependence on foreign talent, etc. Not the best example IMHO

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Pro 12 doesn't need different teams, it needs different leadership.

The important difference between the Pro 12 and the other leagues is not competitiveness between teams, or even really the quality of the sides (for now). The most important difference is that those leagues are run by people whose primary interest is the league and the teams within it.

Just my own opinion.

What would the new leadership do to make a difference? A single specific tangible change that they might make?

I'm always incredibly wary when "Change the people who solve the problems" is presented as a solution to a problem, it's not, it's just changing the people who are to find that solution.

Conflicts of interest obviously make it difficult or nigh on impossible for certain people to engage a particular solution, but that solution is independent of the people making it.

What kind of decisions would 'A.N Other Leadership' make that the current crop cannot? If there is a solution available to the current crop that would also be available to the 'A.N Other Leadership', lets hear that!

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

What would the new leadership do to make a difference? A single specific tangible change that they might make?

I'm always incredibly wary when "Change the people who solve the problems" is presented as a solution to a problem, it's not, it's just changing the people who are to find that solution.

Conflicts of interest obviously make it difficult or nigh on impossible for certain people to engage a particular solution, but that solution is independent of the people making it.

What kind of decisions would 'A.N Other Leadership' make that the current crop cannot? If there is a solution available to the current crop that would also be available to the 'A.N Other Leadership', lets hear that!

I don't think there's anything particularly huge that they would change. It's smaller things in how they deal with the partners, how they market the competition. I don't think they'd make any major difference that would be evident to the fans. They need to improve the pitiful valuation of the league by advertisers and media companies, and the league itself doesn't need any major changes to do that.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think there's anything particularly huge that they would change. It's smaller things in how they deal with the partners, how they market the competition. I don't think they'd make any major difference that would be evident to the fans. They need to improve the pitiful valuation of the league by advertisers and media companies, and the league itself doesn't need any major changes to do that.

Anything that would be evident to anyone?

Again, what are these options available to this suggested new leadership that are not taken by the current ones that could improve the pitiful valuation of the league by advertisers and media companies?

The 'solution' is surely independent of the proposers of that solution?

It doesn't make sense to conflate them without exposing the underlying solution. Suggest the solutions that we need taking, not the takers!

For a silly example, it might be possible to suggest that midweek games would improve the marketability of the games, but current leadership is reluctant to accept this as they have a conflict of interest due to X/Y/Z and so a change in leadership would be required to do this. However, the solution here is 'midweek games', not a change in leadership.

What is the solution that you are proposing?
Following that, why is this only available to a different administration?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything that would be evident to anyone?

Again, what are these options available to this suggested new leadership that are not taken by the current ones that could improve the pitiful valuation of the league by advertisers and media companies?

The 'solution' is surely independent of the proposers of that solution?

It doesn't make sense to conflate them without exposing the underlying solution. Suggest the solutions that we need taking, not the takers!

For a silly example, it might be possible to suggest that midweek games would improve the marketability of the games, but current leadership is reluctant to accept this as they have a conflict of interest due to X/Y/Z and so a change in leadership would be required to do this. However, the solution here is 'midweek games', not a change in leadership.

It's things like this. Or guarantees around availability to sponsors. Or a guarrantee of exposure. Or provision of materials for broadcasters, or greater allowance of control over scheduling to broadcasters. Or a different method of tendering for broadcasters. I'm not sure exactly where they're at at this moment in time.

The current TV deal is worth a tiny fraction of the current Premiership deal. People talk about a difference in population, but in reality the difference in demographics isn't remotely as large as the difference in the valuation of the two leagues. And the difference in the quality of the leagues was until recently non-existent.

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the solution that you are proposing?
Following that, why is this only available to a different administration?

It's not about what options are available to a different administration. All of these options are available. The issue is the objectives of those in control. I would much prefer the league to run by the clubs themselves and for that group to appoint leadership to the league whose objectives would be much different.

C'mon ibf, just answer the qs!

• What is the solution that you are proposing?
• Following that, why is this only available to a different administration?

I don't want to go back to rehashing 'that' thread. I just want an answer to these two questions. It is logical that "changing the administration" could certainly make sense if there are answers to both of these questions. I am trying to find out if there are answers to both of these questions.

It's very strange to suggest solutions regarding guarantees of anything while admitting that you don't know if there already are any of these in place. I'll happily explain the OTT value of the Premiership Deal if you'd like btw.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

C'mon ibf, just answer the qs!

• What is the solution that you are proposing?
• Following that, why is this only available to a different administration?

I don't want to go back to rehashing 'that' thread. I just want an answer to these two questions. It is logical that "changing the administration" could certainly make sense if there are answers to both of these questions. I am trying to find out if there are answers to both of these questions.

It's very strange to suggest solutions regarding guarantees of anything while admitting that you don't know if there already are any of these in place. I'll happily explain the OTT value of the Premiership Deal if you'd like btw.

I just did?

The solution is that the league is run by a board/committee consisting of members appointed by constituent clubs. That's a solution that I think we're almost certainly going to see in the future, however maybe not for a few years.

If you're looking for a big silver bullet solution then I'd imagine your understanding of the problems facing the Pro 12 is very different to mine. There is not major change that would make the league more like the Premiership or the Top 14. The leagues themselves are actually very similar.

Rather than explain your opinion of the valuation of the Premiership deal, which Ive never agreed with, can you explain your opinion as to why the Pro 12's deal could be worth about 35-75 times less (depending on who you believe on the BBC portion) than the Top 14 TV deal?

"These people would find the solution just because" is not a solution.

Not sure any other way to make that clear.

thomond2006

Deleted User wrote: »

"These people would find the solution just because" is not a solution.

What if John Hayes runs the league?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

"These people would find the solution just because" is not a solution.

Not sure any other way to make that clear.

Objectivism plays a huge role in this, if the people negotiating contracts and making key strategic decisions are incentivised by something other than maximising the value of the league for the clubs, and potentially incentivised to make decisions contrary to that, it's a pretty serious problem.

I listed 5 minor areas where I believe we do things differently, it's small things like that. I'd imagine the most important issue though in the process of the negotiation itself. I'm sorry if it doesn't suit you I don't think the answer is one easy-to-debate decision or change that can be made immediately.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Objectivism plays a huge role in this, if the people negotiating contracts and making key strategic decisions are incentivised by something other than maximising the value of the league for the clubs, and potentially incentivised to make decisions contrary to that, it's a pretty serious problem.

I listed 5 minor areas where I believe we do things differently, it's small things like that. I'd imagine the most important issue though in the process of the negotiation itself. I'm sorry if it doesn't suit you I don't think the answer is one easy-to-debate decision or change that can be made immediately.

You suggested that if we change the people who make the decisions that the decisions get made that help the league. (did you not?)

Without any reasoning why that might be. Or what those decisions that help the league might be.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

You suggested that if we change the people who make the decisions that the decisions get made that help the league.

Maybe it was unclear, but what I'm saying is that it's not one major problem, it's a lot of smaller issues which I don't think are being addressed, and the fact the leadership are more interested in other competitions has a part to play in that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Without any reasoning why that might be.

Really? I said exactly why that would be:

Objectivism plays a huge role in this, if the people negotiating contracts and making key strategic decisions are incentivised by something other than maximising the value of the league for the clubs, and potentially incentivised to make decisions contrary to that, it's a pretty serious problem

Deleted User

But you've actually not outlined a single decision that objectively would be made differently by anyone else. Which is the most important part of the entire argument!

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything that would be evident to anyone?

Again, what are these options available to this suggested new leadership that are not taken by the current ones that could improve the pitiful valuation of the league by advertisers and media companies?

The 'solution' is surely independent of the proposers of that solution?

It doesn't make sense to conflate them without exposing the underlying solution. Suggest the solutions that we need taking, not the takers!

For a silly example, it might be possible to suggest that midweek games would improve the marketability of the games, but current leadership is reluctant to accept this as they have a conflict of interest due to X/Y/Z and so a change in leadership would be required to do this. However, the solution here is 'midweek games', not a change in leadership.

What is the solution that you are proposing?
Following that, why is this only available to a different administration?

You are asserting that a different decision maker would make a different decision about something.
And that something would be important enough to improve the pitiful valuation of the league.
What is the something?
What is the decision that they would make instead of what has been made?
Why is that decision not being made by the current administration?

These are straightforward questions that would instantly help your case if there were answers available.

its_phil

thomond2006 wrote: »

What if John Hayes runs the league?

Pat Lam the only man for the job. Key word in every Pro 12 press release will be "Systems" and "Process"