Guinness Pro14 Season 2018-2019

Former Former

Blut2 wrote: »

The South Africans joining brought in additional TV revenue of about £500k per pre-existing team to the Pro14. Or roughly £6-7m total, a jump of about 1/3rd from its previous level in the high teens. They're unlikely to be going anywhere when they bring that kind of money to the table, even if they're not playing very well*.

That money was put on the table before a ball was kicked by the SA teams. We're now into the second season of poor crowds and mediocre players. I don't know what the TV ratings are like in SA but I'd guess they're not great.

So, chances are that money is going to be reduced next time around, and so the rationale for keeping the Saffers in is likewise reduced.

awec

Making the playoffs doesn't indicate much. The league structure is just weird to be honest. The Cheetahs will only play Leinster once this season, while Connacht have to play them twice. Cheetahs get two games against the Kings, Connacht only get one.

The conference system is total garbage IMO, looking forward to when it is inevitably canned.

The Lost Sheep

awec wrote: »

Making the playoffs doesn't indicate much. The league structure is just weird to be honest. The Cheetahs will only play Leinster once this season, while Connacht have to play them twice. Cheetahs get two games against the Kings, Connacht only get one.

The conference system is total garbage IMO, looking forward to when it is inevitably canned.

Will it be canned? Its better than if we have 14 teams and playing everyone twice like Top14 as we'd have so many more games which isnt needed.

awec

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Will it be canned? Its better than if we have 14 teams and playing everyone twice like Top14 as we'd have so many more games which isnt needed.

I am hoping the two south africans will be kicked to touch and we'll go back to a 12 team league.

Neil3030

There's 103k registered rugby players in Sri Lanka....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

wft?

The Lost Sheep

awec wrote: »

I am hoping the two south africans will be kicked to touch and we'll go back to a 12 team league.

I dont think we should. We need to think about game overall and what do South Africans do then?

Neil3030 wrote: »

There's 103k registered rugby players in Sri Lanka....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

wft?

Has long enough history of being played there it seems.

sydthebeat

Neil3030 wrote: »

There's 103k registered rugby players in Sri Lanka....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rugby_union_playing_countries

wft?

Rugby would be just behind cricket and volleyball in Sri Lanka and actually is more popular than football. There's a huge schools tradition in rugby there due to its colonial history.

I know an ex coach of their national team who was quite impressed at their standards when he first went over there.

Neil3030

Wow, never knew this at all. So why are they.... ****e?

Eod100

Neil3030 wrote: »

Wow, never knew this at all. So why are they.... ****e?

I don't know enough about them to know how good they are to be fair. Brazil beat Canada at weekend for only 2nd time so guess it's all relative!

sydthebeat

Neil3030 wrote: »

Wow, never knew this at all. So why are they.... ****e?

If you extrapolate the figures you see why....

Of the 103,000 players, only 3850 of them are senior males.... 3.7%

As a comparison Irelands senior male percentage is 16%

troyzer

Here's a really interesting insight on what we were just talking about.

“I’ve said it many times now, even to South Africans here, and I was even chatting to Rassie Erasmus last week about it – it [PRO14] is the best competition for South Africa to play in. It’s very Test-match related.

I know a lot of this is SARU sabre rattling to try and get a better deal out of Super Rugby but I think there is a genuine sense that the Pro14 is better for South African rugby.

Iompair

The Premiership and Top 14 are going to have to start playing more like the Pro 14 in coming seasons or they're simply going to destroy their players.

I think the days of expecting your number 1 player to play more than 80% of league games are disappearing, injuries are becoming to common and flogging your best players will eventually catch up with you as it seems to be doing in the Premiership this year. The only 2 decent teams have reasonably large squads and can do some rotation, the middle 8 have good first teams but little depth and are struggling, the bottom 2 are trickling along getting an occasional upset but generally don't have the players to challenge.

People expecting to see the same players week in week out are harking back to the amateur and early Pro days I think, the games too physical for that now.

Leinster have a great first team and rediculous depth, Saracens great first team and good depth, Racing very good (if mercurial) first team, okish depth. The rest of the quarter finalists have good first teams and some depth. All could beat each other, but to compete year in year out Leinster and Saracens are well ahead.

ClanofLams

troyzer wrote: »

Here's a really interesting insight on what we were just talking about.



I know a lot of this is SARU sabre rattling to try and get a better deal out of Super Rugby but I think there is a genuine sense that the Pro14 is better for South African rugby.

Interesting price. No Currie cup clashes for SA teams with Pro14 next season, not sure how much impact that had but it can’t hurt.

awec

Iompair wrote: »

The Premiership and Top 14 are going to have to start playing more like the Pro 14 in coming seasons or they're simply going to destroy their players.

I think the days of expecting your number 1 player to play more than 80% of league games are disappearing, injuries are becoming to common and flogging your best players will eventually catch up with you as it seems to be doing in the Premiership this year. The only 2 decent teams have reasonably large squads and can do some rotation, the middle 8 have good first teams but little depth and are struggling, the bottom 2 are trickling along getting an occasional upset but generally don't have the players to challenge.

People expecting to see the same players week in week out are harking back to the amateur and early Pro days I think, the games too physical for that now.

Leinster have a great first team and rediculous depth, Saracens great first team and good depth, Racing very good (if mercurial) first team, okish depth. The rest of the quarter finalists have good first teams and some depth. All could beat each other, but to compete year in year out Leinster and Saracens are well ahead.

There is a balance to be had between having the strongest team every week and what we have right now, which is the big players having a bit-part role in the league at best. The league really is just a glorified development league, where the big players play the odd game to stay fit and then get wheeled out at the end of the season when the games become important.

We don't need to go from one extreme to the other, but it needs to change.

Thrashssacre

Alot of people are suggesting dumping Italian and saffer teams but bar Edinburgh and scarlets away are the Welsh and Scottish teams really at a level that we need to put full strength teams to beat them? I seriously doubt it, this may be an unpopular opinion but the midfield being so clustered and competitive due to benneton and cheetahs is actually what might push the level of the Welsh and Scottish teams higher in order to secure European rugby.

Eod100

Thrashssacre wrote: »

Alot of people are suggesting dumping Italian and saffer teams but bar Edinburgh and scarlets away are the Welsh and Scottish teams really at a level that we need to put full strength teams to beat them? I seriously doubt it, this may be an unpopular opinion but the midfield being so clustered and competitive due to benneton and cheetahs is actually what might push the level of the Welsh and Scottish teams higher in order to secure European rugby.

Well Bennetton are 2nd in conference B. Glasgows and Ospreys 2nd and 3rd in conference A.

Munster and Glasgow ahead on 48 and 46, but only 2 points separating 3rd place Ospreys (38) from 6th (36) placed Cheetahs.

Leinster have pulled away in conference B on 58 (and effectively have 1st wrapped up) but only 2 points separating 2nd placed Bennetton (37) from 5th placed Ulster (35).

So yup could be onto something alright!

Former Former

Dumping the Italians wouldn't be about the quality of their teams, it would be about the commercial viability of the league.

The Pro14 is going nowhere. The Italians have not added much. The South Africa thing was a brave and imaginative move but unless there is massive change, it will be a resounding failure.

None of this really matters to IRFU so long as the European success keeps coming and that's part of the problem.

Podge_irl

Former Former wrote: »

Dumping the Italians wouldn't be about the quality of their teams, it would be about the commercial viability of the league.

But you haven't explained why you think it would improve the commercial viability of the league?

sydthebeat

Former Former wrote: »

Dumping the Italians wouldn't be about the quality of their teams, it would be about the commercial viability of the league.

.

genuine question, as i dont know the ins and outs of the commercial side of the league... but....

how do the italian teams threaten the commercial viability of the league?

Eod100

Former Former wrote: »

Dumping the Italians wouldn't be about the quality of their teams, it would be about the commercial viability of the league.

The Pro14 is going nowhere. The Italians have not added much. The South Africa thing was a brave and imaginative move but unless there is massive change, it will be a resounding failure.

None of this really matters to IRFU so long as the European success keeps coming and that's part of the problem.

When you say Italians haven't added much is that also in terms of commercial value? Think it's probably a bit early to judge SA teams with it only being 2nd season they're in it though. I just don't know what appetite there is from any of the unions to change current Price and what those changes would involve .

Former Former

Podge_irl wrote: »

But you haven't explained why you think it would improve the commercial viability of the league?

They dilute the quality of the product. Not that the quality of their teams is worse, but it just doesn't make sense having them there.

You're selling TV rights, sponsorship deals, naming rights, whatever. Across the Celtic nations, everyone is speaking the same language, we're buying the same stuff, we get the same channels, we respond to the same ads. It's an easy enough sell.

Except then you bring the Italians and South Africans into it; how many brands are there that can sell their product across all five countries? Your pool of partners is much smaller. Now, you might get someone on board who has a global reach and you're quids in, or you might not. Your TV rights become a fragmented mess, or you don't sell them at all in the case of Italy.

There are too many game weekends in which Joe Public just has no interest. Going back to ten teams frees up four weekends in the calendar. That means you can drop the game days that clash directly with international matches.
It means (in theory) that because there's more opportunity for rest, teams can send out their better players in a greater proportion of matches and they're the players most people want to see. Most people just don't want to see the Leinster thirds travelling to Parma taking on a bunch of nobodies. Fewer games, higher quality, more attractive product.

None of this will happen, I understand that, and that's why the Pro14 will just keep trundling along.

awec

Eod100 wrote: »

When you say Italians haven't added much is that also in terms of commercial value? Think it's probably a bit early to judge SA teams with it only being 2nd season they're in it though. I just don't know what appetite there is from any of the unions to change current Price and what those changes would involve .

The South African teams will forever be garbage. They will constantly lose their best players. They can't play in Europe and they can't play in Super Rugby, how are they going to attract anyone decent or hold on to anyone who turns decent?

Their crowds, the Kings especially, are a man and his dog.

Eod100

awec wrote: »

The South African teams will forever be garbage. They will constantly lose their best players. They can't play in Europe and they can't play in Super Rugby, how are they going to attract anyone decent or hold on to anyone who turns decent?

Their crowds, the Kings especially, are a man and his dog.

Yeah think the Europe thing is catch 22 not being able to retain players as a result. Not even sure long-term if they will ever be eligible to play in Champions Cup but with logistics and practicalities involved, not sure they would.

Think crowds issue is disappointing given their population but would imagine economic issues and competing for fans with the 4 Super Rugby sides could be issue too.

sydthebeat

Former Former wrote: »

You're selling TV rights, sponsorship deals, naming rights, whatever. Across the Celtic nations, everyone is speaking the same language, we're buying the same stuff, we get the same channels, we respond to the same ads. It's an easy enough sell.
.

4 irish, 4 welsh and 2 scottish teams in a league with no relegation is an easy enough sell to viewers??

Rigor Mortis

sydthebeat wrote: »

4 irish, 4 welsh and 2 scottish teams in a league with no relegation is an easy enough sell to viewers??

Combined population of about 10 million people. Rugby not being the main sport in two of the three countries.
A celtic only league has zero commercial appeal to sponsors or broadcasters.

molloyjh

I’d love to know which games the internationals will need to give up playing in order to play more league games. The international games that bring in most of the money for each of the unions? The European games that we can’t afford to lose without crashing out of that competition?

Does anyone actually think that any one set-up has it all? In England they prioritise their league so much they struggle to compete in Europe. There are real issues with squad depth in most English sides and that has translated over to the national side a bit in recent times. And there have been more and more noises about player welfare there due to the way guys are getting flogged. In France their approach to away games is well documented and the entire set up over there has contributed to the complete collapse of their national side.

Both set ups have at their heart private clubs. They are by default separate from their Union. And they can be because they have a completely different market (in every sense) compared to the smaller rugby countries. Bringing in investment is a far easier task in a much larger country. Selling a product the same. Especially when that product has existed for decades (at the least). The national sides can survive with that based on sheer weight of player numbers. The smaller rugby countries can’t do that.

Simply put, we cannot separate our league from our national side. The whole has got to work in tandem. So discussing the league in isolation is pointless. And comparing ourselves to something utterly different is the clearest case of apples and oranges you’ll get. If you want to prioritise the league more, you need to take away from somewhere else. So where will that be?

The idea that the IRFU treat the league with disdain is a nonsense as well. They treat it as they need to. Would Carbery have seen as much game time as he has in England or France? Or Byrne? We need to maximise the production of talent from the provinces for the national sides benefit. And for the provinces so that when they lose internationals they can still compete. So the league needs to provide that for us. Take away from that and we reduce the players coming through, which has its knock on impacts everywhere else. We’re one of the best sides in the world because of how we manage the game here.

troyzer

The issue is that there simply isn't enough money in rugby.

The NFL is vastly wealthier which allows it to have a much shorter season of only 16 games + 4 playoff games at most.

If you can somehow make the TV rights worth several times more than they are, many of the problems will disappear. You can afford to shorten the season then.

Tigerandahalf

Going back to the pro12 format would be a disaster. It was failing previously and there was a fear of a player exodus to England or France if something wasn't done.

Even without the SA teams involved the new tv deal probably came about because of the increased popularity of the game in Ireland with increased fan interest and sponsorship and thus eir sports interest. The Scots and Welsh bring very little to the party.

Sky were prepared to buy the uk and Ire rights but obviously didn't offer enough to secure it.
They may well be the broadcaster behind the new world league idea.

If the pro14 is to expand they could consider teams in England or France that are outside the top tiers but you are scraping the barrell. There may be options there if relegation is scrapped in England and France.

Ultimately I think France can't sustain 14 teams in its top tier and the same for England.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

I’d love to know which games the internationals will need to give up playing in order to play more league games. The international games that bring in most of the money for each of the unions? The European games that we can’t afford to lose without crashing out of that competition?

Does anyone actually think that any one set-up has it all? In England they prioritise their league so much they struggle to compete in Europe. There are real issues with squad depth in most English sides and that has translated over to the national side a bit in recent times. And there have been more and more noises about player welfare there due to the way guys are getting flogged. In France their approach to away games is well documented and the entire set up over there has contributed to the complete collapse of their national side.

Both set ups have at their heart private clubs. They are by default separate from their Union. And they can be because they have a completely different market (in every sense) compared to the smaller rugby countries. Bringing in investment is a far easier task in a much larger country. Selling a product the same. Especially when that product has existed for decades (at the least). The national sides can survive with that based on sheer weight of player numbers. The smaller rugby countries can’t do that.

Simply put, we cannot separate our league from our national side. The whole has got to work in tandem. So discussing the league in isolation is pointless. And comparing ourselves to something utterly different is the clearest case of apples and oranges you’ll get. If you want to prioritise the league more, you need to take away from somewhere else. So where will that be?

The idea that the IRFU treat the league with disdain is a nonsense as well. They treat it as they need to. Would Carbery have seen as much game time as he has in England or France? Or Byrne? We need to maximise the production of talent from the provinces for the national sides benefit. And for the provinces so that when they lose internationals they can still compete. So the league needs to provide that for us. Take away from that and we reduce the players coming through, which has its knock on impacts everywhere else. We’re one of the best sides in the world because of how we manage the game here.

You're just proving our point though that the league is just a development league, which is exactly why it struggles to be taken seriously.

Your first paragraph is basically saying that we cannot rely on our league for any decent amount of income (again, because it struggles to attract any meaningful investment), so we have to put all our eggs in the european and test baskets.

awec

troyzer wrote: »

The issue is that there simply isn't enough money in rugby.

The NFL is vastly wealthier which allows it to have a much shorter season of only 16 games + 4 playoff games at most.

If you can somehow make the TV rights worth several times more than they are, many of the problems will disappear. You can afford to shorten the season then.

TV rights will remain relative pennies so long as the majority of fixtures are glorified A games. This is just the reality.

It is a chicken and egg problem. TV rights won't increase until the league actually acts like a serious league, but the league won't do that without guarantees of more money. So nothing will happen, and the pro14 will trundle along as the half-baked product that it is today.

The Lost Sheep

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Going back to the pro12 format would be a disaster. It was failing previously and there was a fear of a player exodus to England or France if something wasn't done.

Even without the SA teams involved the new tv deal probably came about because of the increased popularity of the game in Ireland with increased fan interest and sponsorship and thus eir sports interest. The Scots and Welsh bring very little to the party.

Do they?
Wasnt it that irish tv rights were much lower than the welsh for a while or am i wrong?

Sky were prepared to buy the uk and Ire rights but obviously didn't offer enough to secure it.
They may well be the broadcaster behind the new world league idea.

If the pro14 is to expand they could consider teams in England or France that are outside the top tiers but you are scraping the barrell. There may be options there if relegation is scrapped in England and France.

Ultimately I think France can't sustain 14 teams in its top tier and the same for England.

France can sustain the number but it then does affect these sides interest in whatever european competition they also are playing in

Eod100

awec wrote: »

TV rights will remain relative pennies so long as the majority of fixtures are glorified A games. This is just the reality.

It is a chicken and egg problem. TV rights won't increase until the league actually acts like a serious league, but the league won't do that without guarantees of more money. So nothing will happen, and the pro14 will trundle along as the half-baked product that it is today.

Guess big money only comes in when it's 2 private bidders bidding for same rights. As far as I can see BT show 2 or 3 fixtures per weekend in Premiership. Dunno had they interest in competing for Pro14 also.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

You're just proving our point though that the league is just a development league, which is exactly why it struggles to be taken seriously.

Your first paragraph is basically saying that we cannot rely on our league for any decent amount of income (again, because it struggles to attract any meaningful investment), so we have to put all our eggs in the european and test baskets.

My post was never about disproving anything though. It was about putting the situation into context. The league doesn’t exist in isolation and shouldn’t be judged in isolation. Every league has its issues. No country has it all sussed. We have ours set up so that the national team takes priority over all else, obviously because the national team brings in the majority of the income and so funds the game. And that has worked incredibly well for us, and hasn’t hurt our success provincially in any way. That to me seems like a good balancing act.

Also, the league won’t ever be able to earn big money by itself because it has numerous different markets, all small, operating in different countries with different languages etc. That reality means we can never hope to truly compete with England or France because we aren’t operating in a similar environment.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

My post was never about disproving anything though. It was about putting the situation into context. The league doesn’t exist in isolation and shouldn’t be judged in isolation. Every league has its issues. No country has it all sussed. We have ours set up so that the national team takes priority over all else, obviously because the national team brings in the majority of the income and so funds the game. And that has worked incredibly well for us, and hasn’t hurt our success provincially in any way. That to me seems like a good balancing act.

Also, the league won’t ever be able to earn big money by itself because it has numerous different markets, all small, operating in different countries with different languages etc. That reality means we can never hope to truly compete with England or France because we aren’t operating in a similar environment.

Not really sure you can claim this.

Tigerandahalf

One way to make the league more attractive would be to switch the 6 Nations to April/May, at the end of the league season. That would give the league a fuller run.

But if there is more income from the 6 Nations why would a league get that preference. The current 6 Nations slot in the calendar also probably appeals to a lot of interests.

I would think Sky would love to have the 6 Nations in the April/May slot, just when the soccer season finishes up. It would also make for much better rugby on a drier pitch.

There are no soccer world cups, olympics in that calendar slot either.

The Lost Sheep

awec wrote: »

Not really sure you can claim this.

You can though with levels of success irish rugby has had

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

One way to make the league more attractive would be to switch the 6 Nations to April/May, at the end of the league season. That would give the league a fuller run.

But if there is more income from the 6 Nations why would a league get that preference. The current 6 Nations slot in the calendar also probably appeals to a lot of interests.

I would think Sky would love to have the 6 Nations in the April/May slot, just when the soccer season finishes up. It would also make for much better rugby on a drier pitch.

There are no soccer world cups, olympics in that calendar slot either.

Would Sky pay more for 6 Nations than the free to air channels and is putting behind pay wall going to show games to more people?
April/May is end of soccer season so competing with that isnt best for rugby is it?

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Not really sure you can claim this.

Munster and Leinster are among the most successful sides in Europe. Ulster have had a few callow years but that hasn’t been of thebIRFUs making. Connacht have begun to push on the last few years too. And Ireland are one of the best teams in the world. I’m not sure how it could really be argued tbh.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Munster and Leinster are among the most successful sides in Europe. Ulster have had a few callow years but that hasn’t been of thebIRFUs making. Connacht have begun to push on the last few years too. And Ireland are one of the best teams in the world. I’m not sure how it could really be argued tbh.

Munster haven't won a sausage in almost 10 years. Ulster even longer. Connacht have won like one thing ever.

It definitely doesn't affect Leinster though, the way the system works benefits clubs like Leinster.

The provinces would do better if they could play their best players in a higher percentage of games, rather than this nonsense of the likes of Ulster having to send their A team to the RDS each year.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Munster haven't won a sausage in almost 10 years. Ulster even longer. Connacht have won like one thing ever.

It definitely doesn't affect Leinster though, the way the system works benefits clubs like Leinster.

You don’t just measure success or good performance in trophies won. Munster have been regularly one of the top 4 sides in Europe in the last decade. You don’t just ignore that because they only have 1 trophy in that time. That’s Ewan McKenna style BS right there.

awec wrote: »

The provinces would do better if they could play their best players in a higher percentage of games, rather than this nonsense of the likes of Ulster having to send their A team to the RDS each year.

So then that means them playing less internationals then? Or just more games overall? Option 1 means we weaken our cash cow. We’d be cutting off our proverbial noses if we did that. Option 2 is to flog players at a time when other unions are starting to cop on in that front. And there’s absolutely no guarantee that it would make teams any more competitive in the long run.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

You don’t just measure success or good performance in trophies won. Munster have been regularly one of the top 4 sides in Europe in the last decade. You don’t just ignore that because they only have 1 trophy in that time. That’s Ewan McKenna style BS right there.



So then that means them playing less internationals then? Or just more games overall? Option 1 means we weaken our cash cow. We’d be cutting off our proverbial noses if we did that. Option 2 is to flog players at a time when other unions are starting to cop on in that front. And there’s absolutely no guarantee that it would make teams any more competitive in the long run.

Of course you measure it on trophies won, it is the only measurement that means anything at all. Who gives a stuff about semi or quarter finalists.

You missed the option of getting rid of a lot of the dross in the pro14 to reduce the overall fixtures in a season and therefore allow for rest weeks, which will allow the better players to play a greater percentage of their teams games.

And of course having their best players available for a greater percentage of their games will make teams more competitive.

Tigerandahalf

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Would Sky pay more for 6 Nations than the free to air channels and is putting behind pay wall going to show games to more people?
April/May is end of soccer season so competing with that isnt best for rugby is it?

Pay tv always pay more. Sky probably need to expand their summer schedule. With their streaming service Now TV showing a lot of growth and with people being able to cancel when they want, Sky might be keen to fill that slot, especially if it also covered the June internationals.

I am sure the unions would sell to Sky no bother with maybe an evening highlights package for fta.

Saying all that rugby players will never be able to play the amount of games soccer players do. Perhaps the league will need to be shortened, 8 months in the NH while Super Rugby is only 5 months.

They do need to be open to new ideas. Even look at the possibility of a 7s competition involving the same teams, maybe treating it as a cup competition.

The Lost Sheep

awec wrote: »

Of course you measure it on trophies won, it is the only measurement that means anything at all. Who gives a stuff about semi or quarter finalists.

You missed the option of getting rid of a lot of the dross in the pro14 to reduce the overall fixtures in a season and therefore allow for rest weeks, which will allow the better players to play a greater percentage of their teams games.

And of course having their best players available for a greater percentage of their games will make teams more competitive.

That isnt going to happen. Even if number of game weeks were to be reduced we are not going to see the top players playing more
Irish provinces will continue to do as they have until they are consistently beaten by opposition and have to change.
Reducing exposure in terms of number of games wont be better for the sport.

Former Former

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

Combined population of about 10 million people. Rugby not being the main sport in two of the three countries.
A celtic only league has zero commercial appeal to sponsors or broadcasters.

It's not great but having the Italians and South Africans makes it worse.

awec

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Pay tv always pay more. Sky probably need to expand their summer schedule. With their streaming service Now TV showing a lot of growth and with people being able to cancel when they want, Sky might be keen to fill that slot, especially if it also covered the June internationals.

I am sure the unions would sell to Sky no bother with maybe an evening highlights package for fta.

Saying all that rugby players will never be able to play the amount of games soccer players do. Perhaps the league will need to be shortened, 8 months in the NH while Super Rugby is only 5 months.

They do need to be open to new ideas. Even look at the possibility of a 7s competition involving the same teams, maybe treating it as a cup competition.

April is the business end of the football season.

May is too close to the June internationals.

Eod100

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

One way to make the league more attractive would be to switch the 6 Nations to April/May, at the end of the league season. That would give the league a fuller run.

But if there is more income from the 6 Nations why would a league get that preference. The current 6 Nations slot in the calendar also probably appeals to a lot of interests.

I would think Sky would love to have the 6 Nations in the April/May slot, just when the soccer season finishes up. It would also make for much better rugby on a drier pitch.

There are no soccer world cups, olympics in that calendar slot either.

Champions Cup qf end of March. Sfs usually mid April. Pro 14 and other leaves knock out in May too so don't see how it could work

The Lost Sheep

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Pay tv always pay more. Sky probably need to expand their summer schedule. With their streaming service Now TV showing a lot of growth and with people being able to cancel when they want, Sky might be keen to fill that slot, especially if it also covered the June internationals.

I am sure the unions would sell to Sky no bother with maybe an evening highlights package for fta.

Saying all that rugby players will never be able to play the amount of games soccer players do. Perhaps the league will need to be shortened, 8 months in the NH while Super Rugby is only 5 months.

They do need to be open to new ideas. Even look at the possibility of a 7s competition involving the same teams, maybe treating it as a cup competition.

Will pay tv always pay more?
Like i dont see Sky really paying more than BBC/ITV etc
We cant compare anything to soccer. Scale of everything is smaller in soccer.
When do you play this 7s competition and what benefits does this bring?
Premiership has a 7s tournament and has for years played in July and August. When would you play it and what crowds would it really attract?

thomond2006

I'm not sure how going back to 10 teams improves anything. It was called the Magners League and it wasn't very popular either.

awec

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Will pay tv always pay more?
Like i dont see Sky really paying more than BBC/ITV etc
We cant compare anything to soccer. Scale of everything is smaller in soccer.
When do you play this 7s competition and what benefits does this bring?
Premiership has a 7s tournament and has for years played in July and August. When would you play it and what crowds would it really attract?

Pay TV pay more than free to air because usually the content owners want compensated for the reduced exposure compared to FTA tv.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Of course you measure it on trophies won, it is the only measurement that means anything at all. Who gives a stuff about semi or quarter finalists.

Anyone who wants to have a discussion with an element of depth to it. By your logic there have only been 3 good sides in Europe in the last 8 years, which is clearly a ridiculous statement.

awec wrote: »

You missed the option of getting rid of a lot of the dross in the pro14 to reduce the overall fixtures in a season and therefore allow for rest weeks, which will allow the better players to play a greater percentage of their teams games.

Which will have 2 additional impacts. The first isnthat a reduction in the number of games will almost certainly have an impact on the commercial aspect. Sure, each game will have proportionally more value, but the less games the less advertising. The second impact is the wider picture. Less players getting developed, knock on impacts when the internationals get injured like in England at the moment. And subsequently less players available for the national team which finds the game in the country. As I said, none of this can be discussed in isolation.

awec wrote: »

And of course having their best players available for a greater percentage of their games will make teams more competitive.

It would if it meant that other teams weren’t also improving too. Would Ulster fancy their chances more getting 3 or 4 guys back from Ireland camp against a Leinster side getting 15+ back?

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Anyone who wants to have a discussion with an element of depth to it. By your logic there have only been 3 good sides in Europe in the last 8 years, which is clearly a ridiculous statement.

No, but you were talking about success. Success = winning things. Only one Irish team have been winning things in recent years.

molloyjh wrote: »

Which will have 2 additional impacts. The first isnthat a reduction in the number of games will almost certainly have an impact on the commercial aspect. Sure, each game will have proportionally more value, but the less games the less advertising. The second impact is the wider picture. Less players getting developed, knock on impacts when the internationals get injured like in England at the moment. And subsequently less players available for the national team which finds the game in the country. As I said, none of this can be discussed in isolation.

But again you keep referring back to the national team, which while true, just reinforces the fact the pro14 is just a development league, which is exactly why we constantly see complaints about it from the Welsh, why it's stuck on a tiny, niche broadcaster in the UK and why it struggles to be taken seriously.

molloyjh wrote: »

It would if it meant that other teams weren’t also improving too. Would Ulster fancy their chances more getting 3 or 4 guys back from Ireland camp against a Leinster side getting 15+ back?

Yes, 100%. Losing internationals is much more costly for Ulster compared to Leinster. We don't have a huge squad.