URC games in Qatar and Boston?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3bcd43ee-2d30-11ed-b64b-1375cd73757d?shareToken=c3d28ef1507d9c669e918aaf5bc68320

More games thousands of miels away? Awesome. Human rights issues? Meh don't care.

European games too by the sounds of it. Rugby Union is a sport that ahs lost its' way.

The perennial thorn in the league, however, is how it can be effectively marketed when a large cohort of the league's best players are missing for large chunks. There is no easy answer, but reducing the number of matches is not the solution.

"I don’t think that’s necessarily the way to move it on.....I don’t know what the answer is, What we want is best players playing in those games, and not all of them will be. I don’t know how you get over that but it’s not easy to follow when the best players aren’t playing every single week."

Lawrence Dallaglio provides an opinion - on the Premiership.

I have no problem with the various Rugby leagues and unions exporting a few games to help broaden Rugby's exposure.  Taking the game to America is one thing and would bring in a little extra dough.  But Qatar is just a money play (not complaining, but we should call it what it is).  

Comes back to how to increase revenue without increasing the number of games played. And club v. country v. player health & safety.

Didn't Martin already rule league games being moved there. At best this would relate to exhibition/friendly matches by all accounts as far as I was away and I didn't think they have made any plans on that front.

Welshmushroom wrote:Didn't Martin already rule league games being moved there.  At best this would relate to exhibition/friendly matches by all accounts as far as I was away and I didn't think they have made any plans on that front.

The worry when they phrase it that way, wonder if a Final would be placed in Qatar as the match would be a mid-way point for flights coming from Europe and SA. The gate receipts for the Final go directly to the URC itself (?), the hosting club doesn't get to pocket it (?). If anything the host club loses slightly as they still put on staff for the day.

Who knows how this will play out?  
But for sure, the people putting up the money won't be satisfied with pre-season friendlies or some made-up tournament which no one will attend - and therefore look bad on tv.  They will want games people will want to watch in person.  And these are probably the important or high profile games most people in URC countries will want to watch in their own stadium.   Leinster-Munster was mentioned for a match in Boston (USA).  That would be a huge money spinner, and I would probably drive up to watch.  But, on the other hand, if that is a league game, most likely about half of Ireland will be ticked off.  If in the Premiership, that would be like taking Saints-Tigers match to Afghanistan.  

So the value judgement is what is it worth?  I guess until we know what games they want and how much £, $, € comes back, it is hard to judge.  One way or another, this is the future coming at us.

doctor_grey wrote:I have no problem with the various Rugby leagues and unions exporting a few games to help broaden Rugby's exposure.  Taking the game to America is one thing and would bring in a little extra dough.  But Qatar is just a money play (not complaining, but we should call it what it is).  

Comes back to how to increase revenue without increasing the number of games played.  And club v. country v. player health & safety.

i do.

We only have 11 home games in both competitions with a Season Ticket.
If we loose 1, or 2 - probably the most attractive fixtures why bother with an ST.
The price would have to drop to account for losing the best fixtures

Not thought through