The future for the nations below Franglais

First topic message reminder :

What is the mid to long term future of professional rugby in countries like Scotland, Italy, Ireland, and Wales?

The news yesterday of another mammoth financial deal for the English means that they and the French have moved from being streets ahead to a level above, although the deal was more structural than product generated. But what with their tv deals and the like they have resources that nobody else in the Northern Hemisphere can touch. The organisers of the Guinness League can talk about American and Spanish clubs joining until the cows come home, but that is not going to make a dent in the gap between the Franglais and everybody else. So my question is twofold:

1) Where do you see the Celtic nations' domestic sides AND national sides in say 5 - 7 years time?
2) Is anybody actually worried about this, or should we let the powers that be sort it out?

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Its also not available to everyone as well, I think Hazels point was a programme aimed at a wide audience. Scrum V is aimed at the Welsh market, which limits its availability and appeal, there needs to be a central program covering the league as a whole

Then why don't the Irish TV channels fork out and pay for one suited towards the Irish audience then ?

They do.

Indeed Fly. But facts are annoying obstacles to be ignored in this particular discussion.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:FFS, this is the point we are trying to make. The league need to be doing something about the whole thing

Yes I agree. They need to be telling the Irish TV channels to cough up. They can then have a highlights programme for their viewers. Just like BBC Wales are doing.

You really are an idiot, I see why your business acumen is regularly questioned.

Do you go to people and tell them to pay you for products?

ah, and here come the insults.

Pot Hale wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Its also not available to everyone as well, I think Hazels point was a programme aimed at a wide audience. Scrum V is aimed at the Welsh market, which limits its availability and appeal, there needs to be a central program covering the league as a whole

Then why don't the Irish TV channels fork out and pay for one suited towards the Irish audience then ?

They do.

Indeed Fly.   But facts are annoying obstacles to be ignored in this particular discussion.

So the Irish do have a high lights programe then ?

If anyone here wants to help improve the Pro12, short of investing millions, they could buy a season ticket for their region/club, join their region/club supporters association (Scarlets have Crys16) and give the league feedback via the various fans surveys that do the rounds from time to time.

Beats bandying about insults on a forum from the comfort of your keyboard and does a whole lot more good.

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Its also not available to everyone as well, I think Hazels point was a programme aimed at a wide audience. Scrum V is aimed at the Welsh market, which limits its availability and appeal, there needs to be a central program covering the league as a whole

Then why don't the Irish TV channels fork out and pay for one suited towards the Irish audience then ?

They do.

Indeed Fly.   But facts are annoying obstacles to be ignored in this particular discussion.

So the Irish do have a high lights programe then ?

Two programmes on two different stations. Have you ever watched them?

I've mentioned it a few time on this thread but the parallels are even more apparent now so I'll post it again and update it.

The Pro 12 now is a lot like Scottish football around the turn of the century, the top teams are currently able to compete and are equal with the top teams in England, however despite the Old firm being big clubs attracting large crowds and big support the TV money told and they slipped down to being equal with bottom Premiership clubs, and then championship clubs.

The teams in the Pro 12 will eventually go the same way unless something changes.

For those wanting to join up with the Aviva, I think you can compare that to the old firms wishes of joining the Premiership. They have made the argument about how it would improve the Premier League since the 90's, but nearly 20 years on nothing has changed. The teams in the Premiership never wanted them as it would mean two of them would drop out, or even if they entered the championship two English teams would drop down. The top teams weren't worried about that but didn't want the extra competition. I think the Pro 12 fans who want to join the Aviva, will be like the old firm fans still hoping, to join the Prem, when they don't offer as much anymore.

For those thinking that eventually the big spending will make the French and English teams go bust, people have been saying that about the Premiership for years and its as strong as ever, I don't think it will happen to the Rugby clubs either.

Around 2004 the old firm and other big teams in weaker leagues (PSV, Porto etc) wanted to create an Atlantic league, as they saw the money flowing into England Spain Italy etc and knew they couldn't keep up, unless they did this, they were blocked by UEFA (for reasons that don't matter on a rugby forum), and we know how it has ended for them. I have no doubt that if it was allowed that the old firm would be better teams now than what they are, (how much better we can only guess at, but certainly better).

This is the point the Pro 12 has found itself at and they know they need their own Atlantic league if they want to have any chance, and fair play to them I hope it works, because it it doesn't we can all watch the standard of player decrease, like we have done with the old firm.

There are many differences, though I get your point.

One of the main differences is that English Rugby is not that strong financially. There are many clubs not paying up to the upper reaches of the salary cap. That creates instability and an uneven financial playing field. A clear road map for failure.

Compared to soccer Rugby is almost invisible. The salary cap is less than the annual salaries of players in soccer, American Football, NBA, NHL, baseball, and so on. More money just got dumped in, but is still small potatoes on a relative basis. Rugby will not, and does not need to be a large as soccer. But it does need financial stability.

My personal belief is the leagues will merge, not for mother love, nor even for the overt betterment of the sport. Rather for the financial stability and predictability it provides. The networks will want it, and as they are increasingly driving the train, their wishes will become a bit more like demands. As someone once said to me: The train is coming. One can stand on the track and try to stop it (and get crushed), get out of the way, or get on and go for the ride.

As folk are using the football comparison - the Pro12's proposal for additional teams has precedent.

In the Championship League, UEFA expanded the competition to more countries, which was politically popular but has failed to maximise commercial returns. Real Madrid won the last Cup and earned less for winning the competition than the top 11 sides in the English Premiership League. The view in other leagues (Spanish/ Italian) is the competition only becomes exciting at the knockout stage with primarily the big marketable teams.

I would not approve of a B&I league but the way the RFU have sidelined the Championship, leads me to believe the possibility is a step closer.

An important juncture is coming up where the finances of NH Unions who fund franchises are potentially about to be squeezed.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/new-zealand-could-threaten-boycott-11690341

A natural result of reaching a financial dead end with their commercial structure and the NZRFU are being blunt about it - as they obviously feel their pre-eminent position means they can demand NH income in Test fixtures. It is by no means certain that this would actually happen but clearly a possibility given the competing factors and the inability to reach a compromise.
The financial impact on the Pro12 would appear obvious. It looks like the Pro12 has basically until the next world cup to come up with a new financial approach and fully expect the noise for a B&I league to grow louder as the only lifeboat.

Recwatcher16 wrote:An important juncture is coming up where the finances of NH Unions who fund franchises are potentially about to be squeezed.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/new-zealand-could-threaten-boycott-11690341

A natural result of reaching a financial dead end with their commercial structure and the NZRFU are being blunt about it - as they obviously feel their pre-eminent position means they can demand NH income in Test fixtures. It is by no means certain that this would actually happen but clearly a possibility given the competing factors and the inability to reach a  compromise.
The financial impact on the Pro12 would appear obvious. It looks like the Pro12 has basically until the next world cup to come up with a new financial approach and fully expect the noise for a B&I league to grow louder as the only lifeboat.

Reading that the NH unions should tell the Kiwis to go forth and multiply themselves, time for some PRL style hardball. The Kiwis need the money more than we do.

Reading that the NH unions should tell the Kiwis to go forth and multiply themselves, time for some PRL style hardball. The Kiwis need the money more than we do.

While I wouldn't put it quite like that, you do have a point. The AB have been at the heart of much of the current development of the game and we have much to thank them for - although it must be said that much of the development is/was not 100% altruistic and often trended towards the way the AB’s wanted the game to go.

However should we give one team favourable rates just because they stamp their feet and tell us they are owed this preference just because of who they are?

It’s a tough commercial environment out there, how many Unions can afford to take a hit on their own gate receipts?

Are the AB’s going to be a luxury we can’t afford?

It's a Pro sport

Only the fittest survive.

So the NZRU logic is, Wales have a big stadium they can fill regularly and NZ don't so they should get a cut because they haven't invested in the infrastructure to support themselves long term? They are happy for those that have to fund them though?

marty2086 wrote:So the NZRU logic is, Wales have a big stadium they can fill regularly and NZ don't so they should get a cut because they haven't invested in the infrastructure to support themselves long term? They are happy for those that have to fund them though?

I suspect that even if they had bigger stadia, they wouldn't necessarily fill them for every test.

SANZAR wanted the three-tour series brought in for the 2012-2019 Tours Schedule to help drive attendances. I'm not sure if they got full houses every time.

NZ are being foolish if they think they can take without giving. I think if they argued that 20% of ticket revenue should go to the away side (rather than paying a set fee) they could make a better debate about spreading tours. If they do not have England, Wales, Ireland and France tours, it will probably destroy a lot of their ability to retain players or generate revenue.

NZ's issues are that they have reached saturation point in a small population pool compared to the far larger wealthy nations in Japan, England and France (SA is not a wealthy country even if they do have a large rugby base). 5 top teams (the Blues still won more than they lost), 3 out of 4 SR semi finalists and World Number 1 is not exactly a limit as much as a ceiling. Their bargaining power can not get any better either.

I read the article. I had to laugh when the Kiwis said they would play more matches against SH opposition if the NH teams didn't stump up the cash. Like it wouldn't be getting a little repetitive playing Australia even more every season.

Do they have a point? They do generate more cash for the NH unions.

profitius wrote:I read the article. I had to laugh when the Kiwis said they would play more matches against SH opposition if the NH teams didn't stump up the cash. Like it wouldn't be getting a little repetitive playing Australia even more every season.

Do they have a point? They do generate more cash for the NH unions.

It would be interesting to see how much extra they generate for NH teams

ABs are starting playing regular games in the US trying to tap into a new market place. That should generate new revenue for them, I wonder how much US rugby is getting from that.

" The Kiwis need the money more than we do.."

Perhaps it is only me that sees the irony in all this. Centrally controlled closed shops everywhere cannot compete over the long term and folk have confused short term playing success as a justification for this type of ongoing structure.

I don't think for one minute the NZRFU would attempt this on their own - they will get SANZAR to carry the threat. Then we will see who in the NH blinks first.

The potential financial impact on the Pro12, which follows the same model, would be significant.

I have always felt the initial Celtic league was a long term mistake but fully understand why the PR campaign undertaken by the Unions was successful.

Recwatcher16 wrote:" The Kiwis need the money more than we do.."

Perhaps it is only me that sees the irony in all this. Centrally controlled closed shops everywhere cannot compete over the long term and folk have confused short term playing success as a justification for this type of ongoing structure.

I don't think for one minute the NZRFU would attempt this on their own - they will get SANZAR to carry the  threat. Then we will see who in the NH blinks first.

The potential financial impact on the Pro12, which follows the same model, would be significant.

I have always felt the initial Celtic league was a long term mistake but fully understand why the PR campaign undertaken by the Unions was successful.

Rec, why did you think it wouldn't be successful?

The Pro12 though is a mix of union controlled teams and private teams.

For me those running the individual teams/clubs have failed to wean themselves of the unions teat and that's the issue facing so many.

NZRU licensed out the franchises and took on the burden of the player and staffing costs which is one of their biggest problems

Do they have a point? They do generate more cash for the NH unions.

I don't think it matters who turns up at against England at Twickenham, it's usually nearly always around 81k or 82k per game.

I can't speak for the others (my google-fu is weak today) but it seems that Lansdowne Rd is always packed and I'm sure if it's a non Sanzar nation rocking up at the Millenium or Murrayfield they usually get a full crowd, and depending on the AB's demands, will the host get more playing at a 75% attendance under the existing terms or a 100% attendance with the AB's taking a big cut?

Another thought - if the AB's inspire a SANZAR boycott of the AI's - what about expanding the 6N to a home and away format to replace the 3 or 4 missed internationals.

marty2086 wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:" The Kiwis need the money more than we do.."

Perhaps it is only me that sees the irony in all this. Centrally controlled closed shops everywhere cannot compete over the long term and folk have confused short term playing success as a justification for this type of ongoing structure.

I don't think for one minute the NZRFU would attempt this on their own - they will get SANZAR to carry the  threat. Then we will see who in the NH blinks first.

The potential financial impact on the Pro12, which follows the same model, would be significant.

I have always felt the initial Celtic league was a long term mistake but fully understand why the PR campaign undertaken by the Unions was successful.

Rec, why did you think it wouldn't be successful?

The Pro12 though is a mix of union controlled teams and private teams.

For me those running the individual teams/clubs have failed to wean themselves of the unions teat and that's the issue facing so many.

NZRU licensed out the franchises and took on the burden of the player and staffing costs which is one of their biggest problems

I understood why the PR campaign was successful - I never said I thought it wouldn't be.

The Pro12 as a league is owned and controlled by the Unions with the majority of teams wholly or partly also owned by the same Unions. The teams won't be weaned entirely because that would be a loss of control.

Licensed franchises suggests different ownership - NZRFU own the S18 sides in their entirety although they have looked at private investment, which hasn't gone very far, as again the Union does not wish to relinquish any of their 100% control.

At the end of the day, the closed financial structure has reached or is anticipted to reach the dead end and the only response appears to be another stop gap of more teams or more Test fixtures.

Recwatcher16 wrote:
Rec, why did you think it wouldn't be successful?

The Pro12 though is a mix of union controlled teams and private teams.

For me those running the individual teams/clubs have failed to wean themselves of the unions teat and that's the issue facing so many.

NZRU licensed out the franchises and took on the burden of the player and staffing costs which is one of their biggest problems

I understood why the PR campaign was successful - I never said I thought it wouldn't be.

The Pro12 as a league is owned and controlled by the Unions with the majority of teams wholly or partly also owned by the same Unions. The teams won't be weaned entirely because that would be a loss of control.

Licensed franchises suggests different ownership - NZRFU own the S18 sides in their entirety although they have looked at private investment, which hasn't gone very far, as again the Union does not wish to relinquish any of their 100% control.

At the end of the day, the closed financial structure has reached or is anticipted to reach the dead end and the only response appears to be another stop gap of more teams or more Test fixtures.[/quote]

Sorry I meant why did you think the Pro12 wouldn't work as you said you thought it was a long term mistake.

I don't think the unions have to lose control of their teams from those teams to be more self sufficient. Too many rely on the unions to keep them afloat rather than finding new revenue streams, I spoke about Toulon earlier in the thread and how Mourad had built a business to sustain it without him having to pump money into the club, though as some pointed out he may not be completely above board on that but there is very little being done within the Pro 12 to do something similar.

As for the NZ franchises, the day to day operations are licensed out with overall ownership remaining with the NZRU. The Chiefs though I think are privately owned, in all cases though the union are responsible for the players and coaches. So you have private companies and regional unions able to run the teams with the benefits of having the staff but without the burden of paying them, seems to be a sweet deal for them and bad business sense from the NZRU.

One of the reasons for trying to get 7s into the Olympics was as a platform to grow the game as a whole beyond traditional strongholds. Olympic powerhouses such as Russia, China and USA which can bring money into the game and grow income tend invest more in sports when they have Olympic gold at the end of them.

That's an interesting twist on the kiwi structure - out of curiosity who are the shareholders of these private operating companies ?

The Pro12 is an elitist structure simply because the Unions can only control /fund an optimum number of teams - this generates a perception that their real objective and priority is to produce Test players rather than a genuine open league. That impacts the level of interest from both fan and commerce.

Articles on each of the teams

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/7938496/Hurricanes-sale-keeps-the-franchise-in-the-capital

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/74479195/Private-investors-take-control-of-Super-Rugby-champion-Highlanders

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/sport/8094629/Mine-owner-new-Crusaders-backer

http://www.newshub.co.nz/sport/blues-new-owners-announced-2013051715#axzz4GBPuLoSH

http://allblacks.com/News/23998/chiefs-embark-on-new-era-off-the-field

Its essentially a mix of the unions that make up the catchment area with private investors in there too. I was wrong on the Chiefs though, all 5 are licensed out.

Recwatcher16 wrote:The Pro12 is an elitist structure simply because the Unions can only control /fund an optimum number of teams - this generates a perception that their real objective and priority is to produce Test players rather than a genuine open league. That impacts the level of interest from both fan and commerce.

That was the original point of the league, it has evolved beyond that but not enough and all sides are to blame for it. Its only now we are getting any unions saying things need to change and those running the teams haven't evolved their business model for one reason or another.

Interesting stuff - particularly the article on the Highlanders with a consortium taking a 77% stake of elements of the business up to 2020.

Perhaps Pro12 could also contract out certain operating functions but again this is just moving some financial deckchairs around and not a fundamental change of direction.The main assets and decision making remain tightly controlled.

Like I said, it seems a poor business setup in NZ and one that has overburdened the union and which they now want the other unions to fund.

The game as a whole needs to grow and enter new markets to increase income across the board.

The Pro 12 is in a huge market in Italy but they have been left to fester and that has seen tv revenue there decrease regularly. If more had been done early on to grow and improve the game there, they would be working in a growing market the same size as France. They wouldn't be bringing in Top 14 money but could be working on that scale.

One area that I seen suggested elsewhere was finding a travel partner,

Unlike the Top 14 and the Premiership, the Pro 12 is a cross-border competition, where supporters must travel long distances to see their team play in one of the other competing nations.

Like in Super Rugby therefore, few supporters attend away fixtures, impacting upon the atmosphere in stadiums. To alleviate this problem somewhat, Pro 12 organisers should endeavour to find travel partners that will make it easier and more affordable for fans to travel with their team.

This wouldn't just help the atmosphere but bank balances, if most games were seeing full houses it would see a significant increase in revenue for teams across the board.

What would help the Scottish and Welsh Unions would be to merge into a Great Britain RFU. There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort. Let the clubs run as commercial entities who sell/hire out their players for test appearances when test duty comes around once or twice a year.

There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort

Bloody good idea - in fact why dither around with three unions, lets get all four into one team.

Think of the impetus it will give the Lions - no excuse for being a pulled together scratch side ever again!

TrailApe wrote:

There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort

Bloody good idea - in fact why dither around with three unions, lets get all four into one team.

Think of the impetus it will give the Lions - no excuse for being a pulled together scratch side ever again!

It would make geographic sense to merge the three of them into one union from an administrative point of view and cut the blazers by a third to a half. If leagues/comps need to be regionalised, then they can be. Just so long as the clubs develop and release players for the three different test sides. No more hanging onto Welsh players by English clubs or having to pay penalties, etc, etc. Everyone works to the same rules. One TV deal for the whole of GB, everyone gets a good sloosh of cash, no more giving out about the WRU, it's now become a regional admin department of the restyled GBRFU. And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

Yeah but that's a bit of a clunky title - much more logical to combine ALL of the 4 'Home' Unions together and thus get 'The Lions'.

All for One and One for All!


After all - we all love each other don't we?

Pot Hale wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort

Bloody good idea - in fact why dither around with three unions, lets get all four into one team.

Think of the impetus it will give the Lions - no excuse for being a pulled together scratch side ever again!

It would make geographic sense to merge the three of them into one union from an administrative point of view and cut the blazers by a third to a half.   If leagues/comps need to be regionalised, then they can be.   Just so long as the clubs develop and release players for the three different test sides.  No more hanging onto Welsh players by English clubs or having to pay penalties, etc, etc.   Everyone works to the same rules.   One TV deal for the whole of GB, everyone gets a good sloosh of cash, no more giving out about the WRU, it's now become a regional admin department of the restyled GBRFU.   And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

TrailApe wrote:

And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

Yeah but that's a bit of a clunky title - much more logical to combine ALL of the 4 'Home' Unions together and thus get 'The Lions'.

All for One and One for All!


After all - we all love each other don't we?

Eh no?.

You do realise that the unions need to be independent of each other?

Pot Hale wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort

Bloody good idea - in fact why dither around with three unions, lets get all four into one team.

Think of the impetus it will give the Lions - no excuse for being a pulled together scratch side ever again!

It would make geographic sense to merge the three of them into one union from an administrative point of view and cut the blazers by a third to a half.   If leagues/comps need to be regionalised, then they can be.   Just so long as the clubs develop and release players for the three different test sides.  No more hanging onto Welsh players by English clubs or having to pay penalties, etc, etc.   Everyone works to the same rules.   One TV deal for the whole of GB, everyone gets a good sloosh of cash, no more giving out about the WRU, it's now become a regional admin department of the restyled GBRFU.   And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

Don't see the benefit for the RFU though.

And would say Ulster want in on this?

marty2086 wrote:You do realise that the unions need to be independent of each other?

No, I don't realise that. But that's ok, don't worry about it.

I was reading an article earlier about the ACT Brumbies and the financial straits they're in. They're looking to bring in a private equity partner.

Welly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort

Bloody good idea - in fact why dither around with three unions, lets get all four into one team.

Think of the impetus it will give the Lions - no excuse for being a pulled together scratch side ever again!

It would make geographic sense to merge the three of them into one union from an administrative point of view and cut the blazers by a third to a half.   If leagues/comps need to be regionalised, then they can be.   Just so long as the clubs develop and release players for the three different test sides.  No more hanging onto Welsh players by English clubs or having to pay penalties, etc, etc.   Everyone works to the same rules.   One TV deal for the whole of GB, everyone gets a good sloosh of cash, no more giving out about the WRU, it's now become a regional admin department of the restyled GBRFU.   And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

Don't see the benefit for the RFU though.

And would say Ulster want in on this?

I was talking about union administrations, not provinces.

Pot Hale wrote:

Welly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort

Bloody good idea - in fact why dither around with three unions, lets get all four into one team.

Think of the impetus it will give the Lions - no excuse for being a pulled together scratch side ever again!

It would make geographic sense to merge the three of them into one union from an administrative point of view and cut the blazers by a third to a half.   If leagues/comps need to be regionalised, then they can be.   Just so long as the clubs develop and release players for the three different test sides.  No more hanging onto Welsh players by English clubs or having to pay penalties, etc, etc.   Everyone works to the same rules.   One TV deal for the whole of GB, everyone gets a good sloosh of cash, no more giving out about the WRU, it's now become a regional admin department of the restyled GBRFU.   And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

Don't see the benefit for the RFU though.

And would say Ulster want in on this?

I was talking about union administrations, not provinces.  

Okay.

But again what would having SRU and WRU bring to the table?

Pot Hale wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You do realise that the unions need to be independent of each other?

No, I don't realise that.   But that's ok, don't worry about it.  

I was reading an article earlier about the ACT Brumbies and the financial straits they're in.  They're looking to bring in a private equity partner.

Don't worry about it you have a cunning plan? Or don't worry about it was a stupid idea to begin with?

marty2086 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You do realise that the unions need to be independent of each other?

No, I don't realise that.   But that's ok, don't worry about it.  

I was reading an article earlier about the ACT Brumbies and the financial straits they're in.  They're looking to bring in a private equity partner.

Don't worry about it you have a cunning plan? Or don't worry about it was a stupid idea to begin with?

One of your favourite phrases.

Pot Hale wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You do realise that the unions need to be independent of each other?

No, I don't realise that.   But that's ok, don't worry about it.  

I was reading an article earlier about the ACT Brumbies and the financial straits they're in.  They're looking to bring in a private equity partner.

Don't worry about it you have a cunning plan? Or don't worry about it was a stupid idea to begin with?

One of your favourite phrases.

Welly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort

Bloody good idea - in fact why dither around with three unions, lets get all four into one team.

Think of the impetus it will give the Lions - no excuse for being a pulled together scratch side ever again!

It would make geographic sense to merge the three of them into one union from an administrative point of view and cut the blazers by a third to a half.   If leagues/comps need to be regionalised, then they can be.   Just so long as the clubs develop and release players for the three different test sides.  No more hanging onto Welsh players by English clubs or having to pay penalties, etc, etc.   Everyone works to the same rules.   One TV deal for the whole of GB, everyone gets a good sloosh of cash, no more giving out about the WRU, it's now become a regional admin department of the restyled GBRFU.   And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

Don't see the benefit for the RFU though.

And would say Ulster want in on this?

ULSTER SAYS NO!




I think Pot is having a bit of a giggle though

Munchkin wrote:

Welly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

There's no need in this modern day and age to have separate unions with all the attendant wastage and duplication of effort

Bloody good idea - in fact why dither around with three unions, lets get all four into one team.

Think of the impetus it will give the Lions - no excuse for being a pulled together scratch side ever again!

It would make geographic sense to merge the three of them into one union from an administrative point of view and cut the blazers by a third to a half.   If leagues/comps need to be regionalised, then they can be.   Just so long as the clubs develop and release players for the three different test sides.  No more hanging onto Welsh players by English clubs or having to pay penalties, etc, etc.   Everyone works to the same rules.   One TV deal for the whole of GB, everyone gets a good sloosh of cash, no more giving out about the WRU, it's now become a regional admin department of the restyled GBRFU.   And you could still have a GB & Ireland Lions Team with potentially a lot more familiarity between players.

Don't see the benefit for the RFU though.

And would say Ulster want in on this?

ULSTER SAYS NO!




I think Pot is having a bit of a giggle though

Indeed, Munchkin. Glad to see someone brought their sense of humour with them.

Anyway back to the topic. The ARU and its teams are also having financial woes. Here's what the Brumbies are thinking. http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/brumbies/act-brumbies-move-to-lock-in-financial-future-to-avoid-western-force-situation-20160803-gqjzli.html

Having dealt with Phil for so long, it kind of dulls your sense of when someone is joking on here

The Brumbies article is very vague, they might do something, then again they might not, they might do something else, then again they might not

The Aussie teams are hurt because they don't own their own stadiums, really restricts their income

In fact - if we bung all the unions together we can get rid of any 'British' or Irish' and just call them the Atlantic Lions - or even better the Atlantic Sea Lions. that must get a seal of approval from even the most die hard.....

oh - I see we have been rumbled...

TrailApe wrote:In fact - if we bung all the unions together we can get rid of any 'British' or Irish' and just call them the Atlantic Lions - or even better the Atlantic Sea Lions. that must get a seal of approval from even the most die hard.....

oh - I see we have been rumbled...

Yep. I was going to suggest Sheep as the emblem for next year's tour. Be friendly to the hosts like....

Pot Hale wrote:It would make geographic sense to merge the three of them into one union from an administrative point of view and cut the blazers by a third to a half.

My god, man, have you lost your mind?????
Blazers need to eat and drink! You can't simply reduce their number. What will happen to the Blazers turned out on the street? Where will they go? What will they do?

You are too radical for me. You make Corbyn look like a Tory.

Yep. I was going to suggest Sheep as the emblem for next year's tour. Be friendly to the hosts like....

As a Northumberland lad I could go for that...