Guinness Pro14 Season 2018-2019

OldRio

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I wouldnt believe everything you read. Most of the rugby Premiership clubs will point back to the start of the soccer Premiership and all those clubs had huge losses as they upgraded grounds and facilities. The clubs are seemingly ploughing money into stadiums etc and that is why such huge losses


Once they had the stadiums and facilities they could get bigger crowds etc and also have TV money. Unless BT go bust in the next few years they are all safe.


Thats the story if you ask the club rugby fan in England

Thats some rewriting of history. Nice and warm and cuddly. Debts paid off and facilities improved for spectators. The truth is somewhat different.
Power struggle between the FL and the FA.
Big clubs wanting more cash. Shiny new Satellite TV company seeing a new and exciting opportunity. Money from Sky spent on foreign players on huge contracts. Ticket prices soaring. Disconnect from fans to clubs growing.
Be very careful for what they wish for.

Former Former

Buer wrote: »

If they do, they're very foolish. There's no comparison between the money that was on the table back then for football and the money that is on the table now for rugby and the cost of development and construction has rocketed also.

In 2015, Premiership Rugby agreed a 6 year tv deal which is supposedly around £200m. 23 years earlier, the Premier League sold the television rights to Sky for £300m for 5 years (that's between £500m and £600m in today's money).

Despite that huge gap, the wage bill for a Premiership Rugby squad today is actually probably slightly more than the wage bill for a Premier League squad in 1993. The risk of financial difficulty is far more likely for the teams in the Premiership; they're being bailed out year after year by wealthy owners.

I guess the question is, what's the alternative?

Don't spend the money, get relegated and go bust?

Reduce the salary cap, bring in tight financial rules for everyone and dilute the quality of the product?

Or continue to invest and hope there's a return somewhere down the line?

I would imagine if you compared the income and expenditure of the Irish provinces with that of most English clubs, there wouldn't be much difference. I doubt they are as profligate as is being made out here.

AdamD

Former Former wrote: »

I guess the question is, what's the alternative?

Don't spend the money, get relegated and go bust?

Reduce the salary cap, bring in tight financial rules for everyone and dilute the quality of the product?

Or continue to invest and hope there's a return somewhere down the line?

I would imagine if you compared the income and expenditure of the Irish provinces with that of most English clubs, there wouldn't be much difference. I doubt they are as profligate as is being made out here.

This is a disingenuous point though. The Irish clubs are owned and run by the IRFU and essentially treated as being part of the entity with a common goal. Therefore you could classify the provinces as loss making but they contribute the players who play in our international matches which make the union as a whole profitable.

The clubs being structured differently in England matters, its far more worrying that they are loss making as individual, privately owned entities.

And spending less wouldn't dilute the quality, I think this is a slight misconception. They're just paying the exact same players more than they should be. Reducing their wage bills may mean slightly fewer SH players but they'd probably still have the money to outspend the SH teams anyways.

Cookiemunster

The English clubs need a version of DNACG to force them into compliance. It works well in France. Balance the books or get relegated.

Former Former

AdamD wrote: »

This is a disingenuous point though. The Irish clubs are owned and run by the IRFU and essentially treated as being part of the entity with a common goal. Therefore you could classify the provinces as loss making but they contribute the players who play in our international matches which make the union as a whole profitable.

It's not disingenuous, especially since you just repeated my exact point back to me.

The Irish provinces operate as they do thanks to their owner keeping them afloat, just like the English clubs. There's no way Connacht could have survived as a standalone entity, the redevelopment of Thomond Park would have pushed Munster very close to bankruptcy, would Leinster be able to afford having 25 international players on their roster? Their finances are completely opaque, we have no idea what is going on.

AdamD wrote: »

The clubs being structured differently in England matters, its far more worrying that they are loss making as individual, privately owned entities.

And spending less wouldn't dilute the quality, I think this is a slight misconception. They're just paying the exact same players more than they should be. Reducing their wage bills may mean slightly fewer SH players but they'd probably still have the money to outspend the SH teams anyways.

No, the misconception is thinking that the English clubs need to outspend the SH teams. They need to outspend (or at least compete with) the French and Irish teams. Slashing their wage bill would mean that gets harder, which makes them less competitive, which means less success, which means fewer people coming in the gate. Maybe even the native English players start looking at France or Japan...

AdamD

Former Former wrote: »

It's not disingenuous, especially since you just repeated my exact point back to me.

The Irish provinces operate as they do thanks to their owner keeping them afloat, just like the English clubs. There's no way Connacht could have survived as a standalone entity, the redevelopment of Thomond Park would have pushed Munster very close to bankruptcy, would Leinster be able to afford having 25 international players on their roster?



No, the misconception is thinking that the English clubs need to outspend the SH teams. They need to outspend (or at least compete with) the French and Irish teams. Slashing their wage bill would mean that gets harder, which makes them less competitive, which means less success, which means fewer people coming in the gate. Maybe even the native English players start looking at France or Japan...

Its not the same though, one is actually sustainable.

AbusesToilets

How sustainable is the Irish model tho, given how heavily it relies on the success of the international team? That anecdote about Quinlan's try against Argentina saving the IRFU would hold some truth to it.

Long term, rugby will have to go to a model similar to the NFL. Major European teams set up as franchises, in a profit sharing competition, which maximises revenues from tv and sponshorship. It's the most successful and profitable sports set up for a reason.

errlloyd

Does anyone think the bonus system is broken. Kings have more points than Dragons despite half as many wins, the same number of draws and worse points difference. They have 5 TBP mostly courtesy of getting whacked out the door by teams in the first 50 and grabbing a few tries in a loose game.

thomond2006

I wish they would change to the French model of winning AND scoring three more tries than the opposition. It shouldn't be possible for a team that loses by a considerable amount to be awarded a bonus point.

This also prevents a team getting two bonus points via scoring four tries and losing within seven.

Zzippy

thomond2006 wrote: »

I wish they would change to the French model of winning AND scoring three more tries than the opposition. It shouldn't be possible for a team that loses by a considerable amount to be awarded a bonus point.

Can only the winning team get a TBP in T14? So only one bonus point can be won in a game, either a TBP for winners or LBP for tight losers?

thomond2006

Zzippy wrote: »

Can only the winning team get a TBP in T14? So only one bonus point can be won in a game, either a TBP for winners or LBP for tight losers?

Correct.

sydthebeat

thomond2006 wrote: »

I wish they would change to the French model of winning AND scoring three more tries than the opposition. It shouldn't be possible for a team that loses by a considerable amount to be awarded a bonus point.

This also prevents a team getting two bonus points via scoring four tries and losing within seven.

yeah they have this in super rugby too and its such a better system.

it encourages a losing team to keep playing against rivals in order to deny them the bonus point.... even if losing by 20 points going into the last 10 minutes.

it is also a lot better for betting
as the current pro14 system allows a much better team to race to a 4 try haul before taking the foot off and the goal becoming just staying ahead

Podge_irl

Zzippy wrote: »

Can only the winning team get a TBP in T14? So only one bonus point can be won in a game, either a TBP for winners or LBP for tight losers?

The opposition can score 3 more tries than you and you can still finish within 7 points so both BPs are on the table, albeit less likely.

molloyjh

Surely giving a team something to pay for for themselves is better? If Dragons played Leinster tomorrow why would they care if Leinster got the TBP or not? Surely they care more about what they can get from the game?

aloooof

molloyjh wrote: »

Surely giving a team something to pay for for themselves is better? If Dragons played Leinster tomorrow why would they care if Leinster got the TBP or not? Surely they care more about what they can get from the game?

If you factor in the conference system as well, maybe the current approach makes more sense than the Top 14 approach?

thomond2006

molloyjh wrote: »

Surely giving a team something to pay for for themselves is better? If Dragons played Leinster tomorrow why would they care if Leinster got the TBP or not? Surely they care more about what they can get from the game?

It's a bit farcical IMO if you get a bonus point while at the same shipping 50-60 points.

Zzippy

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's a bit farcical IMO if you get a bonus point while at the same shipping 50-60 points.

Well, it's rewarding attacking play and scoring tries, which is what the casual viewer wants to see, not to mention the serious rugby fans.

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

Surely giving a team something to pay for for themselves is better? If Dragons played Leinster tomorrow why would they care if Leinster got the TBP or not? Surely they care more about what they can get from the game?

its not better because its artificial

if a team obtains the TBP with say 20 minutes left and they are 25 points ahead.. with the opposition having already scored two tries....
then what interest have they in the rest of the game???
the opposition run in two late tries and leave with a point having being resoundingly beat off the park .

as was rightly said already.. all you have to do is look at the Kings TBP haul already this year... and compare it to their points against (zebre as well actually, which is worse)

having seen the change in super rugby i can attest that the '3 tries or more' rule makes for better games. You (mostly) get genuine 80 minute games as if a team gets 4 tries up, their is always a risk that if they take the foot off the opposition team can run in a couple of tries and rid you of that TBP.

Podge_irl

All bonus points are artificial though. The very fact of considering winning by tries inherently better than winning by penalties is a bit bizarre.

I'd be fine with just leaving it so that only the winning team can get a TBP. I think the "3 more tries" rule is completely stupid.

sydthebeat

Podge_irl wrote: »

All bonus points are artificial though. The very fact of considering winning by tries inherently better than winning by penalties is a bit bizarre.

I'd be fine with just leaving it so that only the winning team can get a TBP. I think the "3 more tries" rule is completely stupid.

i think its infinitely better than the "race to 4 tries" that the pro 14 has...
but hey, each to their own

errlloyd

Of course the other approach is to make bonus points conceded by you count against you. Turning it into a sum zero game.

Normal game winner gets 6 and the loser 1. Winner gets TBP they get 7, loser 0. Loser gets LBP its 5-2. They get tbp and LBP its 4-3.

Eod100

errlloyd wrote: »

Of course the other approach is to make bonus points conceded by you count against you. Turning it into a sum zero game.

Normal game winner gets 6 and the loser 1. Winner gets TBP they get 7, loser 0. Loser gets LBP its 5-2. They get tbp and LBP its 4-3.

A minefield for permutations! :P interesting idea though!

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

You (mostly) get genuine 80 minute games as if a team gets 4 tries up, their is always a risk that if they take the foot off the opposition team can run in a couple of tries and rid you of that TBP.

And there's always a risk that, with nothing to gain, a team losing by 20 and on 2-3 tries doesn't bother going for any more. Let's not forget, the game is played very differently here to Super Rugby.

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

And there's always a risk that, with nothing to gain, a team losing by 20 and on 2-3 tries doesn't bother going for any more. Let's not forget, the game is played very differently here to Super Rugby.

Same rules in France

Burkie1203

Some of the replies 🙄


https://twitter.com/simonrug/status/1116420026981146627?s=19

Squidgy Black

The OP just seems to keep replying "it's the right size for a final in Wales" when anyone says it'd be too small if a team like one of the Irish provinces (who tend to have a bigger travelling support base) made it to the final.

Even though the attendance at Murrayfield in 2016 was 34550 which is over capacity for Cardiff City Stadium.

Eod100

Think capacity would be fine. Like you say highest attendance outside Dublin last few years was Murrayfield.

Squidgy Black

Kings just gave away one of the worst intercept passes I've ever seen, Ospreys shot up in the line and Kings outhalf threw the pass directly into the chest of the Ospreys player two feet away.

Eod100

So Munster 1st in A currently, Leinster and Ulster guaranteed 1st and 2nd in B. Big match for Connacht tomorrow, a win would get them 3rd. Not too shabby!

Former Former

You'd expect Benetton to get over the line against Zebre and secure third, I really hope they do.

Edinburgh will need to beat Glasgow to get the playoff, given that Scarlets have Zebre this week and Dragons last and could well overtake them.

The maths is very simple for Connacht, any win tomorrow seals third spot. Lose and they will need to win in Thomond in the last round... You'd have to back Connacht tomorrow which would mean a straight shoot out between Ospreys and Cardiff for a place in the playoff.

It's mad that Leinster v Ulster on the final day is a dead rubber for both sides.

thomond2006

Ospreys put a cricket score on the Kings so Cardiff are suddenly battling to stay in the top 4, nevermind the top 3.

errlloyd

Former Former wrote: »

It's mad that Leinster v Ulster on the final day is a dead rubber for both sides.

Ita a coincidence of course but I'm always glad when teams with nothing to play for play each other so it doesn't upset balance in the league. Ospreys Cardiff on the final day could be a belter.

Eod100

If Connacht win today they will be guaranteed 3rd so may not need to send their strongest team away next weekend.

Glasgow even if lose today will be fighting for 1st next weekend, Edinburgh will want to get 3rd so that should be competitive.

Zebre don't have much to play for vs Bennetton. Same with Dragons v Scarlets and Kings v Cheetahs.

Cardiff v Ospreys and Glasgow v Edinburgh could be one where both teams have most to play for.

Dylbag

What way are the seedings for the Hcup determined. Is it a combined league from before or after playoffs? If it’s before then there might be a few things to play for next weekend

errlloyd

It's after playoffs now I beleive. It was before originally.

Eod100

Cardiff v Ospreys a shootout for 4th place in conference A so.

Cosmo Kramer

More talk in SA of the Pro 14 becoming the Pro 16 with the Pumas and Griquas joing up within the next two years. An Irish conference, a Welsh conference, a South African conference and a Scots/Italian one seems to be the plan. Top 8 teams would then go forward to the playoffs (presumably with a maximum of two teams per country).

Money talks as ever, but you'd wonder how South African rugby could consider the efforts of the Cheetas and the Kings to be such a success that they want to get another two teams involved. Would also affect Irish rugby badly if only two Irish sides could make the post season out of eight qualifying teams (compared to four Irish sides in the last six this year).

Bazzo

I don't believe for a second that'll happen

sydthebeat

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

More talk in SA of the Pro 14 becoming the Pro 16 with the Pumas and Griquas joing up within the next two years. An Irish conference, a Welsh conference, a South African conference and a Scots/Italian one seems to be the plan. Top 8 teams would then go forward to the playoffs (presumably with a maximum of two teams per country).

Money talks as ever, but you'd wonder how South African rugby could consider the efforts of the Cheetas and the Kings to be such a success that they want to get another two teams involved. Would also affect Irish rugby badly if only two Irish sides could make the post season out of eight qualifying teams (compared to four Irish sides in the last six this year).

Irfu would and should never agree to a situation like that.

It could possibly end up like the super 18 rugby of a few seasons back... Where there is an overall table for conference winners and then wildcard European spots.

The Welsh would love this though.

thomond2006

Super Rugby adopted a contrived system of playoff places spread across countries and it was a disaster.

Eod100

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

More talk in SA of the Pro 14 becoming the Pro 16 with the Pumas and Griquas joing up within the next two years. An Irish conference, a Welsh conference, a South African conference and a Scots/Italian one seems to be the plan. Top 8 teams would then go forward to the playoffs (presumably with a maximum of two teams per country).

Money talks as ever, but you'd wonder how South African rugby could consider the efforts of the Cheetas and the Kings to be such a success that they want to get another two teams involved. Would also affect Irish rugby badly if only two Irish sides could make the post season out of eight qualifying teams (compared to four Irish sides in the last six this year).

They're both Currie Cup teams aren't they?

Think bit in bold applies to Pro14 even more so. Both SA teas are both 2nd last in their conference as it stands.

bilston

If we are going to bring weaker teams in I'd rather they were Spanish and Georgian.

I was reading that 25,000 turned up to the Spanish final last year. If a Spanish team even got 5,000 to their home games week on week they'd already be ahead of 3 or 4 current teams in the Pro 14.

PMC83

bilston wrote: »

If we are going to bring weaker teams in I'd rather they were Spanish and Georgian.

I was reading that 25,000 turned up to the Spanish final last year. If a Spanish team even got 5,000 to their home games week on week they'd already be ahead of 3 or 4 current teams in the Pro 14.

Totally agree, spanish team and Gregoria would be the business, nothing to gain from two Currie Cup teams

thomond2006

Judging by the last round of fixtures, it looks like the playoffs will be:

Leinster vs Munster/Benetton
Glasgow vs Ulster/Connacht

4th place HCC playoff: Cardiff vs Scarlets

ClanofLams

Reporting about 16 team league seems to be coming from South Africa, must be someone there flying their own kite. Impossible to imagine the IRFU agreeing to that structure given the strength of provinces and impossible to justify a South African conference given how bad the two teams have been so far.

Jump_In_Jack

16 teams, 4 conferences, play teams in own conference home and away, play all the other teams once either home or away, totaling 18 matches.
Then,
Option 1)
Top 6 teams based on points total go through to playoffs.
Or,
Option 2)
Winner of each conference gets home quarter final against the 4 teams with highest points total that didn’t top a conference.

Either way, can’t have a guaranteed two teams from each conference, the second placed team in one conference could be way down the table.

sydthebeat

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

16 teams, 4 conferences, play teams in own conference home and away, play all the other teams once either home or away, totaling 18 matches.
Then,
Option 1)
Top 6 teams based on points total go through to playoffs.
Or,
Option 2)
Winner of each conference gets home quarter final against the 4 teams with highest points total that didn’t top a conference.

Either way, can’t have a guaranteed two teams from each conference, the second placed team in one conference could be way down the table.

That kind of format was quickly ditched by super rugby as no one liked it.... And it made for a VERY uneven competition.

The joburg lions were pretty much waltzing to a home semi final, not in the least by racking up easy 20 points against the kings and cheetahs each season.

Jump_In_Jack

thomond2006 wrote: »

Judging by the last round of fixtures, it looks like the playoffs will be:

Leinster vs Munster/Benetton
Glasgow vs Ulster/Connacht

4th place HCC playoff: Cardiff vs Scarlets

Glasgow v Edinburgh will be interesting, as will Cardiff v Ospreys.

thomond2006

I see Sean Kennedy is leaving Edinburgh. A possible signing for one of the provinces?

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/sport/374871/limerick-scrum-half-leaving-edinburgh-rugby-after-eight-seasons.html

MarinersBlues

thomond2006 wrote: »

I see Sean Kennedy is leaving Edinburgh. A possible signing for one of the provinces?

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/sport/374871/limerick-scrum-half-leaving-edinburgh-rugby-after-eight-seasons.html

He would be an NIQ so probably not