2 partners set up a law firm...

They cost everything up and split the bill 50/50, and agree to a 50/50 split down the line for the next 10 years.

10 years later and they both have children;

Partner 1 has 2 children, lives in a nice estate, near a decent high school. The children go to the high school with other children in the neighborhood, they go to a middling high school and play team sports.

Partner 2 has 1 child, lives in a nice estate, but has chosen to send his child to a private scholl with a great rugby programme.

Upon negotiations Partner 1 isn't happy, he doesn't think his children are getting a level playing feild with his partners, so he asks for 66% of the profit from the law firm so each of his children can get 2/3's of the profit, and partner 2 child gets a third also.

Partner 2 tells him to F@@K OFF!

Sorry for the bad language (ish) but wanted to highlight my point.

Definitely needed another article though, cheers   

Maybe not another article, but definately a more light hearted one!

When people reach boiling point on the serious ones maybe they pop in here and just mess around a bit.

 

butterfingers wrote:They cost everything up and split the bill 50/50, and agree to a 50/50 split down the line for the next 10 years.

10 years later and they both have children;

Partner 1 has 2 children, lives in a nice estate, near a decent high school. The children go to the high school with other children in the neighborhood, they go to a middling high school and play team sports.

Partner 2 has 1 child, lives in a nice estate, but has chosen to send his child to a private scholl with a great rugby programme.

Upon negotiations Partner 1 isn't happy, he doesn't think his children are getting a level playing feild with his partners, so he asks for 66% of the profit from the law firm so each of his children can get 2/3's of the profit, and partner 2 child gets a third also.

Partner 2 tells him to F@@K OFF!

Sorry for the bad language (ish) but wanted to highlight my point.

A more likely scenario and one in which I have personal experience is:

Two partners set up a law firm on a 50:50 basis but knowing partnerships are complicated they put provision in the contract to have regular reviews of how profits are distributed. After 5 years partner 1 hasn't changed much, services his clients to a high standard but hasn't seen any growth. Partner 2 has seen his work load quadruple and has had to take on a team to support him. They review the position, partner 1 accepts that he is only contributing 20% of the profits and thus agrees to take a lower share of the distribution. The partnership continues and everyone is happy...

Surely its a law fair so both partners are constantly trying to screw each other over, whilst their gardeners are doing the same to their wifes?

so taking that analogy back to rugby, who is the gardener?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Surely its a law fair so both partners are constantly trying to screw each other over, whilst their gardeners are doing the same to their wifes?

 
I think you've hit the nail on the head there!

I guess the Gardener would be the big money backers, and the wives would be the fans.

and the difference between this and reality is that one partner puts in significantly more into the pot via his clients then the other. Would you be happy with that arrangement?

fa0019 wrote:and the difference between this and reality is that one partner puts in significantly more into the pot via his clients then the other. Would you be happy with that arrangement?

It depends if Mr Lawyer's high paying clients are using the firm because they have heard of the reputation of Lawyer And Solicitor Ltd because of the high quality work Mr Solicitor has done. If that is the case you could argue the Mr Lawyer would not have had as many clients if it wasn't for Solicitor's input.

(Geebus couldn't you have used a corner shop or something as the anology instead far more fun than lawyers)

yes but these clients are exclusive to this partner... where the partner goes, the clients go too. It doesn't matter if the other partner is just as skilled/superior or even better value for money, thats just the way this law firm is. Loyalty and familiarity are the overriding key points to partner-client relationships in this specific field.

The clients are not necessarily exclusive to that parnter though (are the clients the tv audience) just because they are in Mr Lawyer's catchment area, they could still decide to use Mr Solicitor's services, especially if they are originally from Mr SOlicitor's catchment area and have to Mr Lawyers catchement area due to the lack of work for available in their original home towns.

Arkwright or Granville?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:The clients are not necessarily exclusive to that parnter though (are the clients the tv audience) just because they are in Mr Lawyer's catchment area, they could still decide to use Mr Solicitor's services, especially if they are originally from Mr SOlicitor's catchment area and have to Mr Lawyers catchement area due to the lack of work for available in their original home towns.

SS, yeah clients were TV audience. Sure technically their is no reason why they wouldn't be fully exclusive I agree but without English clubs involved the interest in a Leinster vs. Ospreys match will fall dramatically ... if so then why don't people in England watch the Rabo (ex. all those from Rabo nations living in England of course).

SR is the highest skill and entertainment club competition in union... yet I doubt it has a big following in Europe even if its on TV for those not from the 3N nations. Skill and viewer entertainment isn't the most important point of viewer numbers surely, its support and mutual interest.... at least I assume so.

The TV revenue thing always makes me wonder, because yes the largest subscriptions to sky sports is in England, but is there any proof that they are subscribing primarily for the HEC (and to only view the Jeff sides). I would hazard a guess that there are a fair few who have sky sports that don't ever watch rugby, HEC, Rugby Championship, etc.

I think Sky would look at a none England France HC and think... it has little value to their core support and would either, keep up the coverage at drastically reduced rates or drop them completely.

If I was an advisor for sky and lets say 70% of their market share moved to a rival I wouldn't be keen to keep things as they were.

Perhaps more people in Wales watch rugby in proportion to those in England but given England has a 16 times pop compared it doesn't really mean much right... especially given in terms of player numbers England is by far the biggest participating rugby nation and therefore probably the best supported rugby nation in the world (at least in numbers).

I myself think its a good thing. In SA we have every league under the sun on TV.... bar the Rabo. We even watch 3rd division rugby, amateur club rugby, university rugby and schools rugby on TV... why not the Rabo? People just aren't interested in it.... making it more competitive may just bring in these TV royalties in other rugby nations and therefore boost revenues.

If you dont have the Rabo how do you know what it is like? I would actually suggest that it throws up much more exciting games than the AP and Top 14. The standard of rugby and basic skill in the Top 14 is apauling and getting worse and the AP has always been dire enough. Toulon is the most boring team in world rugby and Saffersens arent far off.

The reason there is more interest in the Top 14 and AP is simple, both leagues are crammed full of South Africans. You have it all wrong Faa

We watch ITM cup to Guns. No bokke in there.

Literally we have every league bar the Rabo... and given there is quite a few high profile bokke in the league now such as Nel, Strauss, Stander, Pienaar, Muller etc etc I would have thought it would have been worth it if the TV company (Supersport) thought it was worth it.

GunsGerms wrote:If you dont have the Rabo how do you know what it is like? I would actually suggest that it throws up much more exciting games than the AP and Top 14. The standard of rugby and basic skill in the Top 14 is apauling and getting worse and the AP has always been dire enough. Toulon is the most boring team in world rugby and Saffersens arent far off.

The reason there is more interest in the Top 14 and AP is simple, both leagues are crammed full of South Africans. You have it all wrong Faa

cough cough Ulster cough. Or do the 'Irish' South Africans not count because they are not going to be South Africans in the future?

fa0019 wrote:I think Sky would look at a none England France HC and think... it has little value to their core support and would either, keep up the coverage at drastically reduced rates or drop them completely.

If I was an advisor for sky and lets say 70% of their market share moved to a rival I wouldn't be keen to keep things as they were.

Perhaps more people in Wales watch rugby in proportion to those in England but given England has a 16 times pop compared it doesn't really mean much right... especially given in terms of player numbers England is by far the biggest participating rugby nation and therefore probably the best supported rugby nation in the world (at least in numbers).

I myself think its a good thing. In SA we have every league under the sun on TV.... bar the Rabo. We even watch 3rd division rugby, amateur club rugby, university rugby and schools rugby on TV... why not the Rabo? People just aren't interested in it.... making it more competitive may just bring in these TV royalties in other rugby nations and therefore boost revenues.

But this whole viewship stuff is still not accurate enough IMO. It doesn't really factor in who (nationality) has sky, and what the major reason for having it is. All it does is state where the largest amount of sky viewers are situated.

Also maybe SA rugby should be given a larger slice of the HEC cake then, as they could bring in more money than the Rabo nations (via tv rights etc).

lostinwales wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:If you dont have the Rabo how do you know what it is like? I would actually suggest that it throws up much more exciting games than the AP and Top 14. The standard of rugby and basic skill in the Top 14 is apauling and getting worse and the AP has always been dire enough. Toulon is the most boring team in world rugby and Saffersens arent far off.

The reason there is more interest in the Top 14 and AP is simple, both leagues are crammed full of South Africans. You have it all wrong Faa

cough cough Ulster cough. Or do the 'Irish' South Africans not count because they are not going to be South Africans in the future?

Ulster only have 2 South Africans. Muller and Piennar. Diack and Herring are both Irish qualified. Diack has been in Ireland for about 6 years. This compared to Toulon and Sarries for example:

Toulon: 5 South Africans, none qualified. (plus 5 Kiwis)
Sarries: 7 South Africans

In the Top 14 and AP they are more Saffers than the Pro14.

fa0019 wrote:We watch ITM cup to Guns. No bokke in there.

Literally we have every league bar the Rabo... and given there is quite a few high profile bokke in the league now such as Nel, Strauss, Stander, Pienaar, Muller etc etc I would have thought it would have been worth it if the TV company (Supersport) thought it was worth it.

You dont watch it though so you clearly have no clue how good or bad it is. 1,106,873 attended Rabo games last year. It is a new league without as much tradition and history as the AP and Top 14 but you are completly wrong about how good it is compared to the other two.

Watch the Leinster v Munster derby and tell me there is a better derby match in any of the other two leagues. Watch highlights of the Ospreys v Leinster Rabo final two seasons ago and tell me how that fares v the drap Top 14 finals or any AP final.

Out of curiosity, what is the viewing figures for rugby in the England and France.  I know population wise they are significant, but where are the hard figures.  Sky Sports rugby fixtures don't even break into the top30 viewership on 'other' in the BARB website (so that excludes BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5) and that is a list that contains multiple Family guy episodes!

And on the exclusivity of clients, how would a fixture between Montpelier and Leicester compare to a fixture between Leicester and Leinster from a viewership point of view.  I know a Zebre or Treviso v Leicester won't draw the crowds so the general concensus is just scrap that nation from being involved. Scotland have never won the HC, so scrap them. All the good welsh players are moving to Jeff and Top14 so no point having them involved either.  So can IRFU bring anything of quality to the table for Jeff and Top14 to get interested by?