Pro12 Finals

First topic message reminder :

This year signalled a shift towards a neutral, predetermined venue for the "Grand Final". Belfast was a fantastic choice for this and was a wonderful venue however there are some calls to move the final to a larger stadium to create an atmosphere similar to that at Twickenham yesterday and therefore making it a bigger occasion. There are a number of issues with this, namely that it would mean the final would have to be held in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dublin or Cardiff every year but for argument's sake how do we look to fill out these larger venues?

Firstly it's worth remembering that (if we discount the Italians) we have a combined population of 10 million which is a sixth of the English, and this population is spread far less densely and with far more expensive and difficult transport links so it is logistically difficult. Also Twickenham is the home of rugby for english fans and therefore represents something close to a pilgrimage for English fans regardless of club allegiances, this is something you wouldn't get for a fan of the Dragons if the final was in Scotland or Ireland between clubs from Scotland or Ireland especially when you factor cost of transport and the fact that diehard rugby fans would have probably travelled long distances just a couple of months before for the Six Nations. Nevertheless giving the final to the top team is also difficult as it's hard to create a big occasion befitting of the league in just one week, so what it the solution?

The first step in my opinion would be to appeal to and, in many ways, reward the diehard fans. By that I mean give heavily subsidised tickets to the season ticket holders regardless of club and maybe organise travel from major population bases so Dublin, Belfast, Edinbugh, Glasgow and Dublin. That way you get a crowd with large numbers of real rugby fans who enjoy each others company. Of course you want to make sure the finalists have large numbers of fans there so it's a bit more partisan so maybe holding back 20,000 tickets until the play-offs and then give 2,500 tickets each to the semi-finalists and then after the semis give 5,000 each to the finalists to be sold at their own price and also divide up any remaining tickets. Anything they lose from cheap tickets they'll gain in the long run through a bigger spectacle and more sponsorship as a result.

Second step would be to make it more relevant to fans of every club so either a sevens tournament of sorts in the morning between the teams or perhaps more effectively some form of exhibition or charity game. Either between two "best of the rest" Pro12 XVs, or Pro12 XV against the Barbarians or two teams chosen by outgoing Pro12 legends in a kind of testimonial match.

Finally I'd try to make more of a spectacle of the event, you can say what you like about the SRU but they do put on a good show before matches. Say it was in Glasgow then there are a lot of local comedians and musicians who make a big deal about their allegiance to the city guys like Kevin Bridges and Amy Macdonald so get them involved have fireworks and really build up an atmosphere for the final.

I have to say, even when you guys are having a frank argument with each other it's still pretty pleasant to read, there is little insulting or threatening behaviour, childishness is kept to a minimum and agendas are hard to see...

Or maybe you guys are just so subtle that i'm missing a lot of the negativity?

Fanster - its the never ending niggly accusations of cheating / corruption / bias aimed at the Irish by one or two posters. Its not the one post - its the cumulative effect. also mods will clamp down quickly on abusive posts

One poster in particular makes every thread he can about pro Irish anti welsh Bias despite there being no evidence at all for his case and despite his points being comprehensively refuted time and time again. Its xenophobia verging on racism. over the months it becomes wearing

TJ wrote:Fanster - its the never ending niggly accusations of cheating / corruption / bias aimed at the Irish by one or two posters.  Its not the one post - its the cumulative effect.  also mods will clamp down quickly on abusive posts

One poster in particular makes every thread he can about pro Irish anti welsh Bias despite there being no evidence at all for his case and despite his points being comprehensively refuted time and time again.  Its xenophobia verging on racism.  over the months it becomes wearing

To be fair. There is a whole load of pulling up previous comments on other threads causing a never ending wumming battle (with both sides being guilty of it!). And there is a whole heap of people jumping on anything certain posters post and looking for the 'offence' in the post rather than just looking at it as a thread and reading/responding to it as they would if it were written by a different poster.

This is how it goes:

Poster A:  You guys are a bunch of cheating scum schits and A, B and C facts tells me that I'm right.
Poster B:  Hang on a minute.  You can't just call us cheating scum schits and expect to get away with it.
Poster A:  Not only can I get away with it,  saying it is legit 'coz I got A, B and C facts backing me up.
Poster B:  Last week you didn't have A, B and C facts and you still called us schits.
Poster A:  Now I have proof.
Poster B:  Proof my arse.  You're a xenophobic asswhole who just dislikes us being reasonably good at what we do.
Poster A:  There you go.  That's what you lot are like.  Someone says something legit like calling you lot cheating scum schits and all you can say back is to start with the personal insults.  I'd expect nothing more from you and it's even more proof that I'm right.
Poster B: You mean you can dish it out and can't take it, big boy?

Poster C:  Will all you B type posters leave Poster A alone and stop victimising him for telling the truth -or at least a legitimate version of it based on A, B and C facts.
Poster D: They're not facts.  They're balderdash.
Poster C: Oh here we go.  Mr Always Right turn up with the lonnnnggg memory.  Give it a rest.  Stop remembering what everyone said in 1946.  Poster A has legitimate reasons for calling yis all lowlife scum cheats and none of you can argue his opinion away, so you revert to ganging up on him and bullying him and personal name calling.
Poster B:  Are you for real, you f*king gobshite?
Poster C:  Where's the mods?  I won't take this personal stuff being thrown at me simply because I support the opinions of an oppressed bullied poster that legitimately thinks you're all cheating scum schits!



It's a weird world we live in okay - on that fact I'll agree with anyone.

SecretFly wrote:This is how it goes:

Poster A:  You guys are a bunch of cheating scum schits and A, B and C facts tells me that I'm right.
Poster B:  Hang on a minute.  You can't just call us cheating scum schits and expect to get away with it.
Poster A:  Not only can I get away with it,  saying it is legit 'coz I got A, B and C facts backing me up.
Poster B:  Last week you didn't have A, B and C facts and you still called us schits.
Poster A:  Now I have proof.
Poster B:  Proof my arse.  You're a xenophobic asswhole who just dislikes us being reasonably good at what we do.
Poster A:  There you go.  That's what you lot are like.  Someone says something legit like calling you lot cheating scum schits and all you can say back is to start with the personal insults.  I'd expect nothing more from you and it's even more proof that I'm right.
Poster B: You mean you can dish it out and can't take it, big boy?

Poster C:  Will all you B type posters leave Poster A alone and stop victimising him for telling the truth -or at least a legitimate version of it based on A, B and C facts.
Poster D: They're not facts.  They're balderdash.
Poster C: Oh here we go.  Mr Always Right turn up with the lonnnnggg memory.  Give it a rest.  Stop remembering what everyone said in 1946.  Poster A has legitimate reasons for calling yis all lowlife scum cheats and none of you can argue his opinion away, so you revert to ganging up on him and bullying him and personal name calling.
Poster B:  Are you for real, you f*king gobshite?
Poster C:  Where's the mods?  I won't take this personal stuff being thrown at me simply because I support the opinions of an oppressed bullied poster that legitimately thinks you're all cheating scum schits!



It's a weird world we live in okay - on that fact I'll agree with anyone.

Either that way or

Poster A: I have an opinion on something other than you lot being cheatin scum schits.
Poster B, C, D, E: Oh yeah that's right call us a bunch of cheating scum schits.
Poster A, F: I didn't, but to be honest you guys are a bunch of cheating scum schits and A, B and C facts tells me that I'm right.
Poster B, C, D, E: See we knew it you always call us cheating scum schits and expect to get away with it.
Poster A, F: Not only can I get away with it, saying it is legit 'coz I got A, B and C facts backing me up.
Poster B, C, D, E: Last week you didn't have A, B and C facts and you still called us schits.
Poster A, F: Now I have proof.
Poster B, C, D, E: Proof my arse. You're a xenophobic asswhole who just dislikes us being reasonably good at what we do.
Poster A, F: There you go. That's what you lot are like. Someone says something legit like calling you lot cheating scum schits and all you can say back is to start with the personal insults. I'd expect nothing more from you and it's even more proof that I'm right.
Poster B, C, D, E, F: You mean you can dish it out and can't take it, big boy?
Poster H: Will all you B type posters leave Poster A alone and stop victimising him for telling the truth -or at least a legitimate version of it based on A, B and C facts.
Poster I: They're not facts. They're balderdash.
Poster H: Oh here we go. Mr Always Right turn up with the lonnnnggg memory. Give it a rest. Stop remembering what everyone said in 1946. Poster A has legitimate reasons for calling yis all lowlife scum cheats and none of you can argue his opinion away, so you revert to ganging up on him and bullying him and personal name calling.
Poster B, C, D, E: Are you for real, you f*king gobshite?
Poster H: Where's the mods? I won't take this personal stuff being thrown at me simply because I support the opinions of an oppressed bullied poster that legitimately thinks you're all cheating scum schits!
Poster SecretFly: Some exceptionally long winded, half logical clap trap, wrapped in pseudo humour. Ensuring the bitch-fest continues

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Poster SecretFly: Some exceptionally long winded, half logical clap trap, wrapped in pseudo humour.  Ensuring the bitch-fest continues

I make a very good point there about Posters A, B, C, D, E, H and I. Everyone should take note of my opinion on them as I'm usually always right.

Well spotted, Scarlet. I forgot I said that.

Half logical was being generous...

I think Fly summed up the discussion very well. A logical summary

Am not in the mood of reading all 6 pages of this thread but can someone summarise what are A, B and C facts?

The A,B and C facts are opinion based on imagination. Now that is a succinct and logical summary

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

TJ wrote:Fanster - its the never ending niggly accusations of cheating / corruption / bias aimed at the Irish by one or two posters.  Its not the one post - its the cumulative effect.  also mods will clamp down quickly on abusive posts

One poster in particular makes every thread he can about pro Irish anti welsh Bias despite there being no evidence at all for his case and despite his points being comprehensively refuted time and time again.  Its xenophobia verging on racism.  over the months it becomes wearing

To be fair.  There is a whole load of pulling up previous comments on other threads causing a never ending wumming battle (with both sides being guilty of it!).  And there is a whole heap of people jumping on anything certain posters post and looking for the 'offence' in the post rather than just looking at it as a thread and reading/responding to it as they would if it were written by a different poster.

Please try to use a bit of common sense, for goodness sake. If the same poster was not consistently trying to be antagonistic in the first place, there would not be the same continuous and tiresome arguments on these forums. You would have to be a complete moron to try and suggest both sides are doing the same thing, how much more obvious does it need to be to see that there is one poster who is consistently trying to get a reaction? Are you really so dull?

You have said before that you will defend yourself if you must on these forums, so why are you struggling to see that the "other side" are also defending themselves from one poster who wants to create trouble?

If you want to carry on living in your fantasy world, go right ahead, but don't complain when the circle of life continues.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

TJ wrote:Fanster - its the never ending niggly accusations of cheating / corruption / bias aimed at the Irish by one or two posters.  Its not the one post - its the cumulative effect.  also mods will clamp down quickly on abusive posts

One poster in particular makes every thread he can about pro Irish anti welsh Bias despite there being no evidence at all for his case and despite his points being comprehensively refuted time and time again.  Its xenophobia verging on racism.  over the months it becomes wearing

To be fair.  There is a whole load of pulling up previous comments on other threads causing a never ending wumming battle (with both sides being guilty of it!).  And there is a whole heap of people jumping on anything certain posters post and looking for the 'offence' in the post rather than just looking at it as a thread and reading/responding to it as they would if it were written by a different poster.

Please try to use a bit of common sense, for goodness sake. If the same poster was not consistently trying to be antagonistic in the first place, there would not be the same continuous and tiresome arguments on these forums. You would have to be a complete moron to try and suggest both sides are doing the same thing, how much more obvious does it need to be to see that there is one poster who is consistently trying to get a reaction? Are you really so dull?

You have said before that you will defend yourself if you must on these forums, so why are you struggling to see that the "other side" are also defending themselves from one poster who wants to create trouble?

If you want to carry on living in your fantasy world, go right ahead, but don't complain when the circle of life continues.

Step back and breathe. Then re-read your post calmly. It reads like a rant, and reads pretty un-rugby related and pretty uneven handed. Yes some posters do get peoples noses out of join. And the reactions get other peoples noses out of joint. And the reactions from both sides are laughable (a bit like your post was a bit 'direct' to be polite about it). Both sides are flinging their fair share if muck.

There was an interesting article by Stuart Barnes in the Sunday Times highlighting the departure of rugby from it's traditional values. He cited the All Blacks as being perpetrators in chief and makes some fair points.

When posters can't tell the difference between a different by valid rugby opinion and an unashamed troll being contrary for the sake of it that is just another symptom of the general decline in values.

The Great Aukster wrote:There was an interesting article by Stuart Barnes in the Sunday Times highlighting the departure of rugby from it's traditional values. He cited the All Blacks as being perpetrators in chief and makes some fair points.

When posters can't tell the difference between a different by valid rugby opinion and an unashamed troll being contrary for the sake of it that is just another symptom of the general decline in values.

Are you talking about Stuart Barnes?

I think we've all been taking ourselves a little bit too seriously.

Sorry - for me these two trolls really spoil the boards. constant negative posting verging on racism. It really puts me off coming here

Notch wrote:I think we've all been taking ourselves a little bit too seriously.

Yes but some of us are looking after the good of the game but the others are purely acting from self-interest. I'll let you'll work out which is which

TJ wrote: It really puts me off coming here

Good.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Notch wrote:I think we've all been taking ourselves a little bit too seriously.

Yes but some of us are looking after the good of the game but the others are purely acting from self-interest. I'll let you'll work out which is which

Nah man. We're all just a bunch of rugby fans arguing about stuff that doesn't matter that much on the internet.

The Saint wrote:

TJ wrote: It really puts me off coming here

Good.

FFS - if you quote the numptie I end up seeing his posts despite having him blocked.
Why he is allowed to remain here is beyond me

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

When these little tiffs occur with the same two posters I always think that cartoon (which I can't upload)

'Are you coming to bed love?'
'Nooooo, someone's wrong on the internet'

Not sure if it'll work but...

That's the very one Hammer.
It's funny because it's so true

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:There was an interesting article by Stuart Barnes in the Sunday Times highlighting the departure of rugby from it's traditional values. He cited the All Blacks as being perpetrators in chief and makes some fair points.

When posters can't tell the difference between a different by valid rugby opinion and an unashamed troll being contrary for the sake of it that is just another symptom of the general decline in values.

Are you talking about Stuart Barnes?

He also made a few dubious points and did contradict himself as well, but hey...

I did a bit of moderating back in the days on ye olde forums in late nineties and the method of approach for dealing with posters who were possibly aggravating other posters was real simple.

1. The forum for the most part recognised if a poster was being an ar$e and told him or her so to encourage them to alter the ar$sey bits of behaviour.

2. If ar$ey behaviour continued anyway, then they simply got ignored - no matter how hard they tried.

3. Ban was always an absolute last resort.

Made my role a lot easier and everybody generally got along (2 bans in five years).

When I started out moderating I was pretty ruthless with the old ban hammer, but now I tend not to use it if at all possible. Of course, having taken both hardline and laissez faire approaches its now obvious that whatever approach you take you're always going to be the worst in the world for some people regardless

Turns out that bans are ineffective. Deploying them involves long, exhausting email exchanges with the aggrieved party, allegations of bias and, no lie, conspiracy () and enduring the rage of slighted, angry people with little outlet for that negativity in real life. It makes a small difference when serial offenders are removed, but it causes so much hue and cry that it takes up time and energy you would rather commit to your actual work and your real-world personal life. Eventually, you just let things slide until the point where things devolve to the level of hurling insults. Then you have to involve yourself and the tiresome cycle of opprobrium begins again.

We get a lot of this

Notch wrote:When I started out moderating I was pretty ruthless with the old ban hammer, but now I tend not to use it if at all possible. Of course, having taken both hardline and laissez faire approaches its now obvious that whatever approach you take you're always going to be the worst in the world for some people regardless

Turns out that bans are ineffective. Deploying them involves long, exhausting email exchanges with the aggrieved party, allegations of bias and, no lie, conspiracy () and enduring the rage of slighted, angry people with little outlet for that negativity in real life. It makes a small difference when serial offenders are removed, but it causes so much hue and cry that it takes up time and energy you would rather commit to your actual work and your real-world personal life. Eventually, you just let things slide until the point where things devolve to the level of hurling insults. Then you have to involve yourself and the tiresome cycle of opprobrium begins again.

We get a lot of this

Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!!!!!

I just saw "ban hammer" and wondered what I had done.

HammerofThunor wrote:I just saw "ban hammer" and wondered what I had done.

Ah yes, the Ban Hammer campaign... about that. I think you're a good bloke, but the people have spoken and I really just want a quiet life so...

Don't take it personally. You can take an hour or so to say your farewells

I don't really care for anyone on here so I'll just be off then.

Edit: oh and if "the people" ran this place I wouldn't be here anyway. People be crazy.

Erm, if it's not obvious I was joking...

Notch wrote:Erm, if it's not obvious I was joking...

Me too

Notch - my advise is not to get into conversations with folk you ban. One forum ( I got a life ban from :-) ) had a policy of no discussion of moderator decisions and no discussions with banned folk for that very reason

Warn, temp ban, life ban. No discussions.

Moderating is a tricky balancing act and on the whole this place is done fairly well ande thus reamins good temperd.

To go back to Numbers original post

Seen as how our home final was ermmm.... removed from us ! The Pro 12 final should be played in Glasgow next year. But Numbers ffs not Amy MacDonald, lets have Biffy Clyro, who, after all, are band/composers of one of our theme songs - The Captain. Maybe we could get AC/DC as well for Back in Black ?

TJ, you got a life ban from somewhere. That shocks me.

Some how, I've never even had a warning.

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:To go back to Numbers original post

Seen as how our home final was ermmm.... removed from us !   The Pro 12 final should be played in Glasgow next year.    But Numbers ffs not Amy MacDonald, lets have Biffy Clyro, who, after all, are band/composers of one of our theme songs - The Captain.       Maybe we could get AC/DC as well for Back in Black ?

You just know it'll be The Proclaimers, I think the Scottish Parliament have their participation at any public event in Scotland enshrined in law

Maybe Glasgow could do the first "Rock and Rugby" final, PRO12 final in the afternoon and then a gig in the evening, put on the Biff, Primal Scream and some others then end of season paarty !

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:To go back to Numbers original post

Seen as how our home final was ermmm.... removed from us !   The Pro 12 final should be played in Glasgow next year.    But Numbers ffs not Amy MacDonald, lets have Biffy Clyro, who, after all, are band/composers of one of our theme songs - The Captain.       Maybe we could get AC/DC as well for Back in Black ?

Just like this years Final was played in Belfast because our home final was removed from us? Where does it stop?

Notch wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:To go back to Numbers original post

Seen as how our home final was ermmm.... removed from us !   The Pro 12 final should be played in Glasgow next year.    But Numbers ffs not Amy MacDonald, lets have Biffy Clyro, who, after all, are band/composers of one of our theme songs - The Captain.       Maybe we could get AC/DC as well for Back in Black ?

Just like this years Final was played in Belfast because our home final was removed from us? Where does it stop?

Wales?

The irony of it is, I think if the rules had remained the same as they have been for the past few years and the league played out the same way... we would have had Glasgow making this decision regarding their 'home' final; Ravenhill, Belfast or Murrayfield, Edinburgh. Those are the two closest grounds to Glasgow they could have got at short notice that meet the old requirements and I just can't see how they could have avoided it being narrowed down to those two.

I'm not sure if the lessons of our saga in 2013 have been learned; Ulster had two weeks to find an appropriate venue for a 'home' final and get tickets sold, and that wasn't enough time for Casement Park to become an option due to it not being owned by any team or union in the league. So we had to go outside our city and bring our home final to our rivals ground. Ulster fans were just as indignant and outraged about that as various other fans were about the decision to change the format this year, but like the protests over the decision to change the rules this year it's because they hadn't thought it through. People thought we could have a home Final if we finished top, but that was never likely under the rules at that time. The old format realistically only allowed five teams to host their own Final in 2013, with Ulster only joining that club since then. Unlike Edinburgh, Glasgow weren't in that club then and they wouldn't be in it now. if people think Glasgow could have hammered out a deal with Kilmarnock FC, Celtic FC, Glasgow Rangers or the SFA to rent their ground AND got tickets on sale AND sold them quickly enough in the span of a week to have a final in Glasgow I think we're looking at the old status quo through seriously rose-tinted glasses. Only stadiums owned by rugby unions involved in the Pro12 could be secured at that short notice. Only rugby stadium which is big enough in Scotland for them to use for a Final is in Edinburgh, nearest stadium of the appropriate smaller size to sell out in that timeframe is in Belfast.

I've always found Glasgow fans criticism of the new rules ironic, because now they have a realistic chance of seeing a Pro12 final within the city of Glasgow and had it not changed there would not have been very much chance of that happening until Glasgow got the money together to expand their home stadium to 18000+.

I'm a supporter of Glasgow 2016 for the Pro12 final as well, as it happens. Now is the time for the league to capitalise on the interest generated by their league win. I think that will be an amazing weekend in one of the best cities for going out in the UK if it comes together, whether Glasgow make it or not. And we should thank the Pro12 for changing the rules to make a Glasgow final possible. I genuinely believe that.

HammerofThunor wrote:TJ, you got a life ban from somewhere. That shocks me.

We're all very shocked .

...... yis are all still wrong though...... and mostly obnoxious!


Just doing me 'Keeping it going' duty....

Notch wrote:The irony of it is, I think if the rules had remained the same as they have been for the past few years and the league played out the same way... we would have had Glasgow making this decision regarding their 'home' final; Ravenhill, Belfast or Murrayfield, Edinburgh. Those are the two closest grounds to Glasgow they could have got at short notice that meet the old requirements and I just can't see how they could have avoided it being narrowed down to those two.

Why wouldn't Rugby Park have met the old requirements?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:The irony of it is, I think if the rules had remained the same as they have been for the past few years and the league played out the same way... we would have had Glasgow making this decision regarding their 'home' final; Ravenhill, Belfast or Murrayfield, Edinburgh. Those are the two closest grounds to Glasgow they could have got at short notice that meet the old requirements and I just can't see how they could have avoided it being narrowed down to those two.

Why wouldn't Rugby Park have met the old requirements?

Doesn't it have an artificial surface? Not sure that would even suit the new requirements.

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:The irony of it is, I think if the rules had remained the same as they have been for the past few years and the league played out the same way... we would have had Glasgow making this decision regarding their 'home' final; Ravenhill, Belfast or Murrayfield, Edinburgh. Those are the two closest grounds to Glasgow they could have got at short notice that meet the old requirements and I just can't see how they could have avoided it being narrowed down to those two.

Why wouldn't Rugby Park have met the old requirements?

Doesn't it have an artificial surface? Not sure that would even suit the new requirements.

Same stuff as Cardiff and Saracens isn't it?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:The irony of it is, I think if the rules had remained the same as they have been for the past few years and the league played out the same way... we would have had Glasgow making this decision regarding their 'home' final; Ravenhill, Belfast or Murrayfield, Edinburgh. Those are the two closest grounds to Glasgow they could have got at short notice that meet the old requirements and I just can't see how they could have avoided it being narrowed down to those two.

Why wouldn't Rugby Park have met the old requirements?

Doesn't it have an artificial surface? Not sure that would even suit the new requirements.

Same stuff as Cardiff and Saracens isn't it?

And it gives Saracens at least a huge advantage. Cardiff are just terrible.

To prepare to play on that type of surface, teams would need more than a week's notice.

Sin é wrote:

To prepare to play on that type of surface, teams would need more than a week's notice.

So, given that the likes of me and Lord Dowlias have been crucified on here for not bringing official evidence of the pro12 eligibility rules to the debate, I can only assume you are just about to upload a scanned copy of this ruling?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

To prepare to play on that type of surface, teams would need more than a week's notice.

So, given that the likes of me and Lord Dowlias have been crucified on here for not bringing official evidence of the pro12 eligibility rules to the debate, I can only assume you are just about to upload a scanned copy of this ruling?

I've no evidence. Just a guess that artificial surfaces might not be on as most if all the players would not be used to them.

I can also see a reason why (as much as it is possible) final games used be played in Rugby Union Grounds (benefitting a club/province) that have actually invested money in rugby as opposed to a soccer franchise.

Sin é wrote:

I've no evidence. Just a guess that artificial surfaces might not be on as most if all the players would not be used to them.

So all the way through the season it's fine for 11 of the 12 teams to regularly come and play on one. But not the final.

I can also see a reason why (as much as it is possible) final games used be played in Rugby Union Grounds (benefitting a club/province) that have actually invested money in rugby as opposed to a soccer franchise.

I used this reasoning recently when I was told that Cardiff City soccer stadium was eligible if Cardiff got to the final. But it was rubbished.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

I've no evidence. Just a guess that artificial surfaces might not be on as most if all the players would not be used to them.

So all the way through the season it's fine for 11 of the 12 teams to regularly come and play on one. But not the final.

I can also see a reason why (as much as it is possible) final games used be played in Rugby Union Grounds (benefitting a club/province) that have actually invested money in rugby as opposed to a soccer franchise.

I used this reasoning recently when I was told that Cardiff City soccer stadium was eligible if Cardiff got to the final. But it was rubbished.

It gives the team who are used to it an advantage. That is ok in a home league game (home games nearly always do have an advantage) - just not suitable for a Final.

All stadia over 18K would be eligible. Just that preferential treatment possible ( I agree) .