The Jeff is too big

Once again the Jeff is being exposed for what it is in International windows - a mess.

If the league was reduced (gradually, over time (1 up, two down) over four years with concomitant adjustment to the Championship and lower leagues) to eight teams then there would be no irrational conflict between club and country.
There would be no need for playoffs whilst a meaningful end-of-year Cup final could be enjoyed and a full-season champion could be celebrated.

The current system stinks by holding clubs back from any proper competitive advantage to be made in Europe.

Fixtures for the remainder of the the 6Ns emphasise the need to separate Jeff from England matches as if the past two weeks haven't already re-exposed arse about face fudged/expedient thinking by Jeff/PRL representatives to ensure sub-optimising the optimal result - successful clubs in Europe alongside a successful England.

Proper club values with meaningful leagues without franchisation without mutual conflict of club/country values.

How does it hold the clubs back from proper competative advantage in Europe? The European games aren't played during the internationals.

It enforces clubs to restrain payments to maintain lesser clubs via social payments e.g. wage caps etc., Hammer. Plus continuing Jeff games through the IWs whilst meaningful parallel competitions would allow the chance of 'smaller' clubs to gain entry to an end-of season spectacular.

Let the League winners be champions and let the cup winners be cup winners and let top clubs sink or swim on merit and pulling-power.

Reduce the size of the Premiership and you reduce the number of matches. This will mean that there is even less money to spend on players and play even further into the hands of the Sugar Daddy clubs.

There will be the same number of matches LT. Just the ones in the IWs will involve 2nd teams just as now.

Those cup games in autumn and spring would involve Championship teams and therefore provide them with extra exposure and the chance of the big HQ final.

LondonTiger wrote:Reduce the size of the Premiership and you reduce the number of matches. This will mean that there is even less money to spend on players and play even further into the hands of the Sugar Daddy clubs.

Spot on LT.

Furthermore the current system is to the overall benefit of English rugby. Take Saints v Glaws on Saturday, both sides were missing a host of players due to international commitments and so the likes of Ben Nutley and Ryan Mills were given first team opportunities. In the long run this will only benefit club and country.

The play-off systems works as a leveller to allow teams handicapped by call ups the opportunity to still win the Jeff. It may not be a proper league, but then the foundations of the Jeff weren't built on a proper league either. The old invitational league (was it the Courage or the merit tables??) could see a team playing half as many games as anyone else yet still win the league on some random average calculation.

HKC who did Gloucester miss due to international commitments?

HongKongCherry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Reduce the size of the Premiership and you reduce the number of matches. This will mean that there is even less money to spend on players and play even further into the hands of the Sugar Daddy clubs.

Spot on LT.

Furthermore the current system is to the overall benefit of English rugby. Take Saints v Glaws on Saturday, both sides were missing a host of players due to international commitments and so the likes of Ben Nutley and Ryan Mills were given first team opportunities. In the long run this will only benefit club and country.

The play-off systems works as a leveller to allow teams handicapped by call ups the opportunity to still win the Jeff. It may not be a proper league, but then the foundations of the Jeff weren't built on a proper league either. The old invitational league (was it the Courage or the merit tables??) could see a team playing half as many games as anyone else yet still win the league on some random average calculation.

Alternatively the playoffs can be looked at in the analogy of having a concrete floor laid - a craftsman would provide a perfectly level floor which could be trusted (a league championship model) vs a bodger coming in and chucking down the floor and tossing on a self-levelling compound to hide the flaws (the playoff model).

beshocked wrote:HKC who did Gloucester miss due to international commitments?

Big Jim Hamilton for one

Wondered how long before we had one of these threads. Boo hoo, some teams with massive squads had to use them this week. Gutted for them.

greytiger wrote:Once again the Jeff is being exposed for what it is in International windows - a mess.

How so? By all reports the Quins v. Wasps at the Stoop was a top notch 80 minutes.

Quins vs Wasps was a good watch but given the error count on both sides probably not top notch (especially if you ask Nick Evans).

Glaws were missing Hamilton and Twelvetrees. Burns was injured. Saints were missing Hartley, Lawes and Wood though were also asked to rest Foden.

beshocked wrote:HKC who did Gloucester miss due to international commitments?

Have you not been watching the 6N?

We were without Hamilton, Morgan and 36 and you could add Burns to the list. Versus Saints Hartley, Lawes, Wood and the injured Foden.

greytiger wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Reduce the size of the Premiership and you reduce the number of matches. This will mean that there is even less money to spend on players and play even further into the hands of the Sugar Daddy clubs.

Spot on LT.

Furthermore the current system is to the overall benefit of English rugby. Take Saints v Glaws on Saturday, both sides were missing a host of players due to international commitments and so the likes of Ben Nutley and Ryan Mills were given first team opportunities. In the long run this will only benefit club and country.

The play-off systems works as a leveller to allow teams handicapped by call ups the opportunity to still win the Jeff. It may not be a proper league, but then the foundations of the Jeff weren't built on a proper league either. The old invitational league (was it the Courage or the merit tables??) could see a team playing half as many games as anyone else yet still win the league on some random average calculation.

Alternatively the playoffs can be looked at in the analogy of having a concrete floor laid - a craftsman would provide a perfectly level floor which could be trusted (a league championship model) vs a bodger coming in and chucking down the floor and tossing on a self-levelling compound to hide the flaws (the playoff model).

So that's a level floor everywhere except Leicester then?

I like the AP as is, it's competitive on a squad level. More than a strong 23 is needed to win the league at present. A club ethos and a squad with depth and unified purpose is required.

We've not always had a smooth run in the HEC but the AP is the premier league competition in the NH for a reason.

I can't see why it is an issue. During the Currie Cup the Springboks hardly play any matches, most of the coaches have the Springboks available for the semi finals and final, and even then they are reluctant to use them as continuity is disrupted.

GT, its funny, there used to be a poster on here who shared some of your thoughts - think the pair of you would have had a good deal in common! He never seemed to get much audience for his ideas either, altho in fairness he didn't half bang on about them, topic after topic - hopefully you won't be heading the same way

The AP is an excellent league - it's not clear who will be in the play-offs, it's not clear who will make the HC and it's not clear who will be relegated. Everyone still has something to play for, the rugby is of a decent standard, plenty of young players get game-time (even more so during the international windows).

Add in increasing incomes, improving stadia, and weekends full of shocks like last weekend and I have no idea what GT is talking about. Plus I love the play-offs - a brilliant way to end the domestic season.

I believe many of the issues which we sometimes refer to as Premiership issues are really Rugby issues. We all know there is too much Rugby for our players. This wears down our players, causes more injuries, and can lower quality of play.

On the other hand, Rugby needs funding to solidify the financial base of the sport, mostly at club level, whilst at the same time continue to grow. Any reduction in the number of matches or the number of clubs will reduce overall revenues. It would also reduce the opportunities for players and make a smaller channel for young players to get to the top level. Even some embellishment of the Championship would not offset the losses because it is still a lower level competition played in mostly smaller stadia to smaller crowds.

The playoffs are a brilliant way to make significant money for the clubs whilst making a big media splash and raising the profile of rugby. The playoffs work exactly because most people love the idea of knock-out sport and a big event, one-off for the league title. We are able to fill Twickenham for the final now simply because of that excitement factor. There is no possible way we are going back to the dinosaur days of the season petering out to nothing. That's suicide financially. And regressive for English Rugby

The question is now that we have a reasonably stable league and playoff structure is where do we go from here? Having a more rational calendar with the Heineken Cup might make sense. On the other hand having two big event weekends in a row, the HEC final and the Premiership final, is a huge media attention grabber. I think expansion of the premiership will not be too far off in the future. A number of obvious hurdles need to be cleared and is not simple to execute. Certainly not happenning in the next year or so. But that would increase cash flow to more clubs which then enables the development of more players. The schedule would need a revamp, most likely into a two-conference system within the league. Regardless, I think in about 5 years we will have a 14 team premiership.

if they scraped the LV would that fix anything.

Matches mean money and money pays wages. Also one of the things that makes the league look so compeditive on paper is that the smaller teams can pull out wins agaisnt the bigger teams during the international period.

Do you know how much the clubs get paid by Liverpool Victoria pay to sponsor the LV= Cup? I remember this cup was originally partnered with the BBC to expand their Rugby coverage. And the original sponsorship was pretty big. No idea the situation today. The LV= Cup does seem a fairly needless competition, except as used as a development opportunity.

I agree its good that during the IW's the youngsters get more gametimes. That can only benefit the national side as a whole....indeed i think we're seeing the benefits now...and whilst the Saxons performances were actually woeful..we have a serious number of players coming through who have all played prem rugby at a young age.

If they had the a team of the Prem play the championship teams in an cup it would be better for the players then it being an u23 competition. Ther could be a carrot that if a championship side win they cup they get promoted too.

As most of the clubs lose money, I can't see how they would agree to fewer matches. The LV cup is a good source of revenue too (both gate and tv) so again I don't see why clubs would want to drop that.

If any changes were to be made it could be to have the weeks during the 6N for the semis/finals of the LV.

But really I think rugby is a squad game and frankly I have no sympathy for poor old Leicester or Sarries who have massive squads of quality players, boo hoo!

Yeah, it must have been terrible for them having to put out these benches at the weekend.

16 Schalk Brits
17 Jamie George
18 Petrus du Plessis
19 Mouritz Botha
20 Jackson Wray
21 Richard Wigglesworth
22 Nils Mordt
23 James Short

16 George Chuter
17 Kieran Brookes
18 Fraser Balmain
19 Brett Deacon
20 Ed Slater
21 Micky Young
22 Dan Bowden
23 Geordan Murphy

Guys stop tarnishing all of us on here due to one person's whinge. this happens far too often and just creates bad feeling.

We currently have a regular season of 36 match weekends from beginning of September to beginning of May, with another 3 weekends of playoffs to the end of May. That then runs into the June IW of another 3 weekends - a total of 42.

From a player management point of view, a potential of 42 games for a top player in the season (if reaching all finals) is too much. Suggesting an arbitrary limit of say 30 games (or 30x80 = 2400 game minutes), of which 11-12 are internationals with 6-9 Euro games, that leaves only 9-13 domestic games.

Assuming internationals are inviolable (because they finance domestic rugby at all levels), then international players have to be rested in either Euro or domestic games, without a risk of overplaying. It's not tweakable, although an 8 team Prem of 14 games would go some way towards it.

The financial arguments against reduction are compelling, but I suggest a loss of 2 home games from 11 to 9 in a 10 team division may be manageable. A secondary LV type competition, run only in IW's, would help significantly, if it can still attract Sponsorship, TV and, say, 2/3rd of AP gates.

Losing two home matches would drive clubs like Exeter and Gloucester who made small profits into the pile of clubs who make a loss.

Clubs need regular home fixtures. Short of re-organising the whole season what we have now works well enough. Sure squad strength may be compromised to provide the depth needed to survive the season - but that is life.

Guys stop tarnishing all of us on here due to one person's whinge. this happens far too often and just creates bad feeling.

Not so much a whinge, just a different take on affairs.

Fudging the fixture list and adding on token playoffs (not mentioning the 'equal' share of EPS payments) merely fudges the league.

An improved structured league season (which would include my preferred multi-divisional European 4Ns home/away competition) could look something like this:

Weeks 1-6 Jeff rounds 1-6
Weeks 7-8 European rounds 1-2
Week 9 Jeff round 7
Weeks 10-14 Autumn Internationals / RU Cup weeks 1-5
Weeks 15-16 European rounds 3-4
Weeks 17-19 Jeff rounds 8-10
Weeks 20-21 European rounds 4-5
Weeks 22-29 4Ns / RU Cup weeks 6-13
Weeks 30-31 Jeff rounds 11-12
Week 32 European QFs
Weeks 33-34 Jeff rounds 13-14
Week 35 European SFs
Week 36-38 RU Cup Qtrs, Semis, Final
Week 39 European Finals

How the hell do you manage to get 13 weeks for this RU cup?

Is it a league, how many teams in it and where from?


If you are going to completely change the season why not do it properly>

LondonTiger wrote:Losing two home matches would drive clubs like Exeter and Gloucester who made small profits into the pile of clubs who make a loss.

Clubs need regular home fixtures. Short of re-organising the whole season what we have now works well enough. Sure squad strength may be compromised to provide the depth needed to survive the season - but that is life.

It would probably be manageable, though. The salary cap is widely expected to increase with the enhanced BT TV deal. So, retain Salary Cap as is (defeats one objective of increasing Euro competitiveness). TV deal would probably reduce in line with number of games - only 18 weekends of TV compared to 22, but only 10 shares of that income compared to 12 (or roughly 11 vs 13 including parachute payments, P share distribution, etc). Less games but against better opposition could lead to better average gates. Increase "LV" games from 4 pool games to 6 or so in the 8 IW weekends).

LondonTiger wrote:How the hell do you manage to get 13 weeks for this RU cup?

Is it a league, how many teams in it and where from?


If you are going to completely change the season why not do it properly>

The structured league season is based exactly on the RFU model 2012-13. The RU Cup would be composed existing clubs in the Jeff and the Championship.

It w/could be composed of qualifying pools - possibly with a Plate competition. It would allow for development and exposure of marginal players to the main home audience. Plus of course any squad rotation into the Main club competition for R&R and/or injury as required.

Of course not every week has to be used - e.g. England home games may be seen as an opportunity to have a rest week.

Incidentally, indicative attendances in the Jeff are http://www.statbunker.com/rugby/btb/index.php?PL=competition&CompID=407&statType=home_Att are indicated (sort of and not claimed by me to be exact) by:

Aviva Premiership Rugby 12/13 / Home Attendance
Club Average Total Highest Lowest
Saracens 23,338 140,028 63,102 4,572
Harlequins 22,830 159,810 82,000 11,630
Leicester Tigers 21,019 147,131 24,000 19,250
London Wasps 14,443 101,100 63,102 5,232
Gloucester 13,597 95,179 16,121 10,782
Northampton Saints 12,669 88,686 13,475 11,695
Bath 11,290 79,027 12,200 10,438
Worcester Warriors 9,062 63,434 12,024 7,847
London Irish 8,399 58,790 10,958 5,828
Exeter Chiefs 7,733 54,134 10,744 5,568
Sale Sharks 6,926 48,481 8,232 5,037
London Welsh 5,513 44,104 10,045 3,072
Total 12,856 1,079,904

These figures are affected 'special' fixtures such as Wembley and double-headers.
Most interesting might be the lowest reported attendances as they will be closest to the 'minimum' as clubs routinely report season ticket holders as attendees.

The arguments presented for maintaining the status quo appear to be based on:
The arbitrary league size of 12 (RFU decision)
Wage caps set on a fixed figure to maintain 12 sides (PRL majority decision)
A playoff system to 'balance' out inevitable IW matches (PRL majority decision)
EPS payments shared on an equal basis per club (RFU/PRL decision)
Parachute payments paid out on unequal basis dependent on transferable 'P' share asset (PRL majority decision)

Additionally I would argue
The Jeff is an illegal cartel and acts as such - indeed when it proposed to exclude London Welsh, it was unable to have confidence to defend in its intention in court as LW threatened to sue.
The proposition to reduce the Jeff to eight members (eventually) would provide Championship clubs with additional revenues in the RU Cup which would provide at least three home games per season against elite level clubs thereby deepening viability in the league.

I would also argue that average Championship gates would rise as its representation by more established clubs.
Championship indicative here: http://www.statbunker.com/rugby/btb/index.php?PL=competition&CompID=408&statType=home_Attattendances

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:We currently have a regular season of 36 match weekends from beginning of September to beginning of May, with another 3 weekends of playoffs to the end of May. That then runs into the June IW of another 3 weekends - a total of 42.

From a player management point of view, a potential of 42 games for a top player in the season (if reaching all finals) is too much. Suggesting an arbitrary limit of say 30 games (or 30x80 = 2400 game minutes), of which 11-12 are internationals with 6-9 Euro games, that leaves only 9-13 domestic games.

Do you have evidence that 42 games is too much?

There's no chance that the AP will shrink, which is a good thing as it would damage English rugby.

I dunno getting rid of Wasps and bath would improve things

LondonTiger wrote:Guys stop tarnishing all of us on here due to one person's whinge. this happens far too often and just creates bad feeling.

Don't worry LT, we'll never pigeon hole you with Portnoy!

If two more teams were added to the prem and the LV scapped would the English teams be better off.

Or would it be a case of sahring the same money with less teams.

One thing that could help it espo if Europe was in one block is

12-16 teams play each team once (every second year at home). Top half then go into home away winner in the winner or top two play off. Same with bottom, top to play for the sheild. The bottom two play to be relegated.

HongKongCherry wrote:

beshocked wrote:HKC who did Gloucester miss due to international commitments?

Have you not been watching the 6N?

We were without Hamilton, Morgan and 36 and you could add Burns to the list. Versus Saints Hartley, Lawes, Wood and the injured Foden.

Morgan and Burns were both injured so don't really count as international commitments.

HongKongCherry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Guys stop tarnishing all of us on here due to one person's whinge. this happens far too often and just creates bad feeling.

Don't worry LT, we'll never pigeon hole you with Portnoy!

Tarnishing an opinion as a whinge is a strategy which may work HKC.

I express my beliefs as valid.

For ten years now English clubs have been held back by the cartel (imo not as heinous as the franchise model) but this is not a matter of the provision of state subsidies or social support. It's about maintaining professional rugby in a professional manner - not having the 'right' to survive off others' success.

A different view to the mainstream, but based on a certain rationality. And presented on a discussion board openly.

What is wrong with suggesting that Jeff games should be played outside IWs?
The concept or just Portnoy?

Ozzy3213 wrote:Yeah, it must have been terrible for them having to put out these benches at the weekend.

16 Schalk Brits
17 Jamie George
18 Petrus du Plessis
19 Mouritz Botha
20 Jackson Wray
21 Richard Wigglesworth
22 Nils Mordt
23 James Short

16 George Chuter
17 Kieran Brookes
18 Fraser Balmain
19 Brett Deacon
20 Ed Slater
21 Micky Young
22 Dan Bowden
23 Geordan Murphy

Ozzy it's only Portnoy's normal whinge. Can't blame the international call ups on Saracens losing. The squad should be good enough to win without the absentees.

I think the system should stay as it is though scrapping the LV games would give more rest periods. If youngsters need more game time then loans with championship sides should be encouraged to increase the overall quality of both the championship and the AP.

I have to say, I would prefer if the LV cup was replaced with a proper English cup. If it was arranged to be played during the international windows that could work well. It would of course mean disbanding the B&I cup, which would be a shame in many ways but I'm sure the Leinster reserves can find another team to thrash.

It would certainly improve the championship clubs finances, with no loss for the premiership clubs. After all, it wasnt that long ago that Birmingham beat Wasps (2004/5?), surely that is good for the english game?

So while I agree with that portnoy/grey, I just don't see how reducing the league to form a 'super league' would help english teams in Europe? Less income, so less money to pay for good players surely?

ST prices Bathhman would be unlikely to reduce as the the number of games wouldn't.

The only difference is that the Jeff would not clash with the IWs and would provide a season-long test of the League without resorting to playoffs.

The end-of season spectacular being provided by (say)The Chiefs v Newcastle at HQ in the RU Cuo.

In the HEC/Amlin I'd suggest that wage caps vs the French and the Irish put a brake on clubs and entrepreneurs from fulfilling their affordable ambitions.

HongKongCherry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Reduce the size of the Premiership and you reduce the number of matches. This will mean that there is even less money to spend on players and play even further into the hands of the Sugar Daddy clubs.

Spot on LT.

Furthermore the current system is to the overall benefit of English rugby. Take Saints v Glaws on Saturday, both sides were missing a host of players due to international commitments and so the likes of Ben Nutley and Ryan Mills were given first team opportunities. In the long run this will only benefit club and country.

The play-off systems works as a leveller to allow teams handicapped by call ups the opportunity to still win the Jeff. It may not be a proper league, but then the foundations of the Jeff weren't built on a proper league either. The old invitational league (was it the Courage or the merit tables??) could see a team playing half as many games as anyone else yet still win the league on some random average calculation.

Not really though, because its rare that teams outside 'the big four' qualify for the play-offs anyway. Stripped of internationals or not, its quite clear that it isn't doing the likes of Tigers, Quins and Sarries too much harm.

The ST prices might not change, but presumably the tv revenue would? Assuming the current deal expires, if there were fewer games to broadcast in the league, would bt/sky/whoever up their offer? It seems unlikely. At the same time as I understand it the LV deal is a very good one for the clubs currently. When that expires, in this scenario it would be re-negotiated on the basis that most of it would be played during the international windows and so would be deprived of the best players. Also in the cup scenario, the money would have to be spread evenly.

So what I'm saying is that I don't think that its as simple as 8 teams getting a bigger slice of the cake than 12 do. I think the cake size would be reduced, so in fact there would be no benefit in Europe, rather just destroying clubs who have worked so hard to rise up to the top.

Are LT and GT not brothers then? Shocked

greytiger wrote:In the HEC/Amlin I'd suggest that wage caps vs the French and the Irish put a brake on clubs and entrepreneurs from fulfilling their affordable ambitions.

Tigers, Quins & Sarries (especially the latter) have all, according to The Rugby club, made an aggregate loss over the last 4 seasons. It could be argued that the past 3 champions of england are going into debt already to fund their ambitions - you want them to go further into debt?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Are LT and GT not brothers then? Shocked

Twins of course

DaveM wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:We currently have a regular season of 36 match weekends from beginning of September to beginning of May, with another 3 weekends of playoffs to the end of May. That then runs into the June IW of another 3 weekends - a total of 42.

From a player management point of view, a potential of 42 games for a top player in the season (if reaching all finals) is too much. Suggesting an arbitrary limit of say 30 games (or 30x80 = 2400 game minutes), of which 11-12 are internationals with 6-9 Euro games, that leaves only 9-13 domestic games.

Do you have evidence that 42 games is too much?There's no chance that the AP will shrink, which is a good thing as it would damage English rugby.

Just my opinion, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence for me to be quite sure. A 30 game limit is, however, completely arbitrary.

Do you have evidence that shrinking the AP would damage English rugby?

Oh, and there has not really been a "Top 4". Since 4 team play-offs started in 2005/06 there have been 10 clubs make the play-offs:

7 times:
Tigers (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006)


4 times
Sarries (2012, 2011, 2010, 2007)

3 times
Saints (2012, 2011, 2010)
Glaws (2011, 2008, 2007)
Bath (2010, 2009, 2008)

Twice
Quins (2012, 2009)
LI (2009, 2006)
Wasps (2008, 2006)

Once
Bristol (2007)
Sale (2006)