Pro12 value - the facts

First topic message reminder :

Broadcasting revenue. As revealed today by the CEO of PRW:

The French Top14 = £50m
Aviva Prem = £40m
Pro12 = £11.5m.

That is quite simply unsustainable if you want to be a professional rugby team in domestic Northern Hem rugby. Somethign has to change for the celtic teams, and quickly.

Sin é wrote:

Samoa, Tonga and Fiji would be top 10 teams if they played more frequently.

Maybe, but we still don't see many games againt them. Specially from New Zealand, the closest country.

Sin é wrote:The new organisation were very criticial of the ERC for not doing anything. Most of what they said was misleading PR. They had no intention of doing anything about the 3rd competition and they have destroyed the 2nd one.

I see they are saying in the Telegraph that the new company is planning on having a 6 figure loss for this season. Seems they have been unable to attract any sponsors. I wonder will the PRO12 countries get their guaranteed participation money now?

I will see, how the things will go in the next years before criticize them like I did for ERC. Even if I quite agree with you: I think they will probably damage a lot the cup. And if there isn't enough money...... it's quite easy to understand it will affect hugely the rugby in Europe.

Sin é wrote:

Griff wrote:Sin, it's applaudable that you've played Georgia but isn't that just part of the 10 year schedule the IRB announced a few years back to make the tier 1 nations/developed nations play the developing nations? The top 8 were just playing each other all the time so then IRB announced the schedule. Ireland therefore don't get much of a say in it, it was just they were up first for Georgia, and other nations will have their turn against them, Japan (wales did their stint their last year), etc. in the comings years.

I think that's it anyway.

Not sure that is correct Griff. Otherwise NZ would not be demanding such huge fees for playing the US and they might play some of their Islander neigbhours every now and then if that was the case.

There is also a huge difference between playing a team on tour and giving them the opportunity to play an autumn international because of the loss of revenue involved for the home nation as its not going to be easy to attract fans to these games apart from giving up a valuable autumn international slot to more attractive opposition. Georgia would have been up for playing more than Ireland in the autumn. Why didn't Scotland, Wales, England drop one of their SH opposition to give them a game.

It depends how you want to look at it. Georgia is an emerging nation and of course needs games against the top sides. However, Fiji, Tonga, et al. while not emerging are also in need of assistance in terms of development and income.

Wales played Fiji last autumn, Tonga and Argentina the autumn before, Japan in summer that year, Samoa and Argentina the autumn before that (2012), Argentina in a WC warm up game, Fiji the year before that, etc., etc. Ireland in that time have played a few of these sides (only the strongest ones - Argentina and Samoa) but have not played Tonga since 2003, Fiji since 2009, or Japan since 2005. But that's fine. Not a big deal as these teams were playing other Tier 1 sides in that time. Georgia is the only 'outlier'. And you've played them once outside of a world cup. Wales have played Canada twice as many times as Ireland, USA about the same (our 7 to your 8), Romania the same number of times (8), etc.

I'm sure the other nations will get their chance. But I don't think the Georgia game points to Ireland being the rugby development force of world rugby like seems to be suggested.

shuren34 wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:What i was trying to point out was that if as seems likely the new era of rugby is increasingly about the rich getting richer and/or spending more (more TV money, increased salary caps, etc.), how will this square up against trying to support the smaller nations - are we going to end up with the situation like football, where the Champions League is taken seriously but an increasing number of clubs are not playing full strength sides in the secondary competition, and the smaller nations are going to be permanently frozen out, the couple of lower tier sides that make it to the secondary competition are always going to be on the end of cricket scores, so where does the development aspect come from?
Incidentally UEFA have jsut revised their criteria to give a Champions League place to the Europa League winners to make the competition more meaningful - maybe rugby could do the same?

Quite agree with that. And you could see how the french team were playing this pointless competition this year.

So a team that wins the Challenge Cup gets a place in the Champions Cup the following year?

Back to the future

Seem outwardly meritocratic'.  But the only problem is that it means teams in the Challenge Cup put all their best eggs into the Challenge Cup in order to get into the Champions Cup, without having the requirement to try hard in their own League to reach the Top Six!  

So, in theory, the sides in each League that DO get into the Top Six in any given year have been given an easier ride by the Challenge Cup operators of the pervious year.  Those Challenge Cup sides would have been saving their best players and efforts for that Challenge Cup, and not trying hard enough in their own League as a result.    

I thought the whole idea about the New Way in Europe was to make the efforts in each League (Top14/AP/Pro12) be the determining factor in getting to the Premium European Competition - Meritocracy; Places given for Honest Efforts made in League.

Back to the future we go.  

In the new scenario, you'd get into the Champions Cup by prioritising European Competition over and above your own League?  
The taunt thrown at Irish Provinces for a decade.  

You'd also have a side IN the Champions Cup that, by the new definition of the Champions Cup itself, wasn't up to the standards required for that Cup.  
You'd then also have the concept of some Big Championship side having a perceived Easier Pool than their Rivals, with the inclusion of that Challenge Cup side in their group.

Back to the future of the old ERC

The Challenge Cup needs to stand by itself and not just be seen as a springboard to the Champions Cup. It should be seen as worth winning in its own right.

I think not having Champions Cup qualification for the winners or having sides drop down from the Champions Cup into the knockout stages should help this. It needs its own identity. Keep Champions Cup qualification for league placing only to ensure sides concentrate on that.

Having said that, 2nd-tier competitions are always going to suffer in comparison to the big one, especially for neutral fans who tune in for the big sides/names.

SecretFly wrote:
So a team that wins the Challenge Cup gets a place in the Champions Cup the following year?

Back to the future

Seem outwardly meritocratic'.  But the only problem is that it means teams in the Challenge Cup put all their best eggs into the Challenge Cup in order to get into the Champions Cup, without having the requirement to try hard in their own League to reach the Top Six!  

So, in theory, the sides in each League that DO get into the Top Six in any given year have been given an easier ride by the Challenge Cup operators of the pervious year.  Those Challenge Cup sides would have been saving their best players and efforts for that Challenge Cup, and not trying hard enough in their own League as a result.    

I thought the whole idea about the New Way in Europe was to make the efforts in each League (Top14/AP/Pro12) be the determining factor in getting to the Premium European Competition - Meritocracy; Places given for Honest Efforts made in League.

Back to the future we go.  

In the new scenario, you'd get into the Champions Cup by prioritising European Competition over and above your own League?  
The taunt thrown at Irish Provinces for a decade.  

You'd also have a side IN the Champions Cup that, by the new definition of the Champions Cup itself, wasn't up to the standards required for that Cup.  
You'd then also have the concept of some Big Championship side having a perceived Easier Pool than their Rivals, with the inclusion of that Challenge Cup side in their group.

Back to the future of the old ERC

There is a halfway house that would be a Challenge Cup incentive and still be affected by League position.
Basically the winner of the Challenge Cup should get a bye in the last Champions Cup playoffs if they haven't already qualified.

So if Edinburgh were to win it they would get a bye to the last play-off against the winner of the first play-off between (currently) Montpellier v Sale.

If Gloucester were to win it they would get a bye to the last play-off game against the winner of (currently) Scarlets v Montpelier.

If Exeter had still been in the Challenge Cup and they won it but had already qualified by virtue of League position, then the seventh placed English side would get the play-off bye.

The principle is that the Challenge Cup victor is justifiably better than the bottom half of the League contenders. They wouldn't usurp any bona fide qualifier just get a one game bye to the last play-off and still have to beat another League's team to qualify on merit.

SecretFly wrote:

So a team that wins the Challenge Cup gets a place in the Champions Cup the following year?

Back to the future

Seem outwardly meritocratic'.  But the only problem is that it means teams in the Challenge Cup put all their best eggs into the Challenge Cup in order to get into the Champions Cup, without having the requirement to try hard in their own League to reach the Top Six!  

So, in theory, the sides in each League that DO get into the Top Six in any given year have been given an easier ride by the Challenge Cup operators of the pervious year.  Those Challenge Cup sides would have been saving their best players and efforts for that Challenge Cup, and not trying hard enough in their own League as a result.    

I thought the whole idea about the New Way in Europe was to make the efforts in each League (Top14/AP/Pro12) be the determining factor in getting to the Premium European Competition - Meritocracy; Places given for Honest Efforts made in League.

Back to the future we go.  

In the new scenario, you'd get into the Champions Cup by prioritising European Competition over and above your own League?  
The taunt thrown at Irish Provinces for a decade.  

You'd also have a side IN the Champions Cup that, by the new definition of the Champions Cup itself, wasn't up to the standards required for that Cup.  
You'd then also have the concept of some Big Championship side having a perceived Easier Pool than their Rivals, with the inclusion of that Challenge Cup side in their group.

Back to the future of the old ERC

I would prefer to have the Challenge cup's winner than one of these Italian teams. You should scrap the "at least one team by nation" rule instead. But it's allways complicated when dealing with you. And in my opinion we should make 4 pool of 4: 5 french, 5 english and 5 "celtics" teams + challenge winner. That would be awesome. The others teams in Challenge cup.

What is your problem with one Italian team (out of 20)? Even Champions League gives one please to each country and they have 16 teams in the knock-out stages (who would all come from probably 4 leagues (Spain, England, Italy & Germany).

The Challenge Cup is a waste of space because it doesn't have a sponsor and not much TV coverage.

If you reduce the number of teams to just 16 you will lose sponsorship & tv money (not so many games to broadcast) not to mention the gate money that clubs who are not the Top 16 in Europe will miss out on because no one will be bothered with the Challenge Cup.

Also, am I the only one who couldn't give a fiddlers who the opposition field when they come to play my team. Wanting to see Sam Warburton or Stuart Hogg playing in Thomond Park wouldn't be a deciding reason as to whether I would go to a match or not.

Sin é wrote:What is your problem with one Italian team (out of 20)? Even Champions League gives one please to each country and they have 16 teams in the knock-out stages (who would all come from probably 4 leagues (Spain, England, Italy & Germany).

The Challenge Cup is a waste of space because it doesn't have a sponsor and not much TV coverage.

If you reduce the number of teams to just 16 you will lose sponsorship & tv money (not so many games to broadcast) not to mention the gate money that clubs who are not the Top 16 in Europe will miss out on because no one will be bothered with the Challenge Cup.

They don't deserve to play in the Champions Cup. They're the 2 worse team in your league, 12 points behind Cardiff. They didn't make any serious progress durin all these years. And as I want a strong competition, that can't be the case with these teams in it. We lack dates in our season, but we're wasting our time with them. It's totally stupid.
You believe we will lose money if we reduce to 16 teams, I'm not so sure. Better teams, better games, more people watching them. And finally more sponsor.
And for the Challenge I would have 16 teams either. 4 french, 4 english, 4 "celtic teams" and 4 teams from the rest of europe.

shuren34 wrote:

Sin é wrote:What is your problem with one Italian team (out of 20)? Even Champions League gives one please to each country and they have 16 teams in the knock-out stages (who would all come from probably 4 leagues (Spain, England, Italy & Germany).

The Challenge Cup is a waste of space because it doesn't have a sponsor and not much TV coverage.

If you reduce the number of teams to just 16 you will lose sponsorship & tv money (not so many games to broadcast) not to mention the gate money that clubs who are not the Top 16 in Europe will miss out on because no one will be bothered with the Challenge Cup.

They don't deserve to play in the Champions Cup. They're the 2 worse team in your league, 12 points behind Cardiff. They didn't make any serious progress durin all these years. And as I want a strong competition, that can't be the case with these teams in it. We lack dates in our season, but we're wasting our time with them. It's totally stupid.
You believe we will lose money if we reduce to 16 teams, I'm not so sure. Better teams, better games, more people watching them. And finally more sponsor.
And for the Challenge I would have 16 teams either. 4 french, 4 english, 4 "celtic teams" and 4 teams from the rest of europe.

Three years ago, Treviso was 7th in the League, just 1 behind Munster and above Connacht, Cardiff, Dragons and Edinburgh. Then we had this total reorganisation of European which meant that many of their players moved to England and France for contract stability. They have had some good victories at home in the Heineken Cup. Zebre is a new team which is being fed from the Italian Academy. I suspect that in 3 or 4 years they will be very much in contention.

Hopefully they will settle now again and will get better. Italy has to rebuild again trying to keep their better players at home. It will make that a lot easier if there is at least one team where they can get the top end of rugby.

There won't be more people watching (unless you call people watching the game repeatedly). The Sky & BT need to fill airtime - too many repeats don't attract customers.

I must say, the knockouts are getting a bit boring now (and repetitive). The same teams for the last couple of years running making it through.

So the idea is to reduce the teams to widen the appeal...
The logical extension of that is to further restrict the competition to just Toulon and Clermont every year!

Let's face it the rest of the teams aren't in the same league so why waste precious fixtures on mis-matches? They could play a series of games in different countries so that all the other nations could appreciate the awe-inspiring rugby on show. They could spread the games over far more networks or even show the first half on say Sky and the second on BT Sports. That should spread the appeal of the game and reel the sponsors in.

Sin é wrote:

I must say, the knockouts are getting a bit boring now (and repetitive). The same teams for the last couple of years running making it through.

I don't find them boring.  Ok that's maybe because I'm french.
More seriously since the Leinster's era I find them more repetitive. Maybe I'm wrong but I think the years in the 2000's beginning were more competitive.  We had Toulouse, Stade Français, Biarritz, Munster, Leicester, Wasps as strong teams. They were goog teams but you hadn't the impression the game was win before it was play.

The Great Aukster wrote:So the idea is to reduce the teams to widen the appeal...
The logical extension of that is to further restrict the competition to just Toulon and Clermont every year!

Let's face it the rest of the teams aren't in the same league so why waste precious fixtures on mis-matches? They could play a series of games in different countries so that all the other nations could appreciate the awe-inspiring rugby on show. They could spread the games over far more networks or even show the first half on say Sky and the second on BT Sports. That should spread the appeal of the game and reel the sponsors in.

Isn't it like the new world championship some presidents are dreaming?

Need to lock this thread soon or risk losing it.

Anyone interested in setting up a continuation thread or have we sufficiently kicked the arse out of the subject matter?

George Carlin wrote: have we sufficiently kicked the arse out of the subject matter?

No, there's a way to run on this yet.

I still haven't heard a sufficient proposal on how we are going to make up the £30m shortfall.

£30 million shortfall.

That's 12 teams, 12 shares.  That's 2.5 million per team extra.  Nobody knows where that can come from?


Well, with our combined population I'd say it means 1000 bucks minimum per season ticket.  So how about it, why don't the Fans themselves contribute more?  Why do Fans get away with claiming to be poor when all around me I hear them talking about going to this match, flying out to that match, having had lovely memories of travelling with many Lions tours, having popped up at a World Cup or three...

None of you are as dirt poor as you pretend to be.  And yet I've heard so many moans on these pages over the years about the price of tickets, and twelve drinks being a fortune when you want to drink yourself silly like any decent rugby supporter  

Why should TV companies and sponsors pay for all of the sport you want to go to and enjoy?  Pay up folks!  If we want £40 million coming in to Pro12 each year - cough up the loose notes in your pockets and pay more for the privilege.

SecretFly wrote:£30 million shortfall.

That's 12 teams, 12 shares.  That's 2.5 million per team extra.  Nobody knows where that can come from?


Well, with our combined population I'd say it means 1000 bucks minimum per season ticket.  So how about it, why don't the Fans themselves contribute more?  Why do Fans get away with claiming to be poor when all around me I hear them talking about going to this match, flying out to that match, having had lovely memories of travelling with many Lions tours, having popped up at a World Cup or three...

None of you are as dirt poor as you pretend to be.  And yet I've heard so many moans on these pages over the years about the price of tickets, and twelve drinks being a fortune when you want to drink yourself silly like any decent rugby supporter  

Why should TV companies and sponsors pay for all of the sport you want to go to and enjoy?  Pay up folks!  If we want £40 million coming in to Pro12 each year - cough up the loose notes in your pockets and pay more for the privilege.

Is this a serious post?

It's semi-serious Chunky, yes.  

Over the years, I've heard a lot of 'poverty' thrown up about the price of tickets and the drinks you'd absolutely need to have to enjoy the games proper  ...

Fans are getting off too easily.  If you want the sport getting more money.  Fans need to Show up more and Pay more....without whining about it.

If they don't want to show up or pay more (their right to refuse both BTW) then why should broadcasting companies and Sponsors cough up the big shortfalls?  "Oh, nobody wants to go to your games or pay much in ticket price for them, but we're expected to pay through the nose to finance them anyway?"

 That's fan logic of paying for a carton of milk for less than it took to produce it.

SecretFly wrote:It's semi-serious Chunky, yes.  

Over the years, I've heard a lot of 'poverty' thrown up about the price of tickets and the drinks you'd absolutely need to have to enjoy the games proper  ...

Fans are getting off too easily.  If you want the sport getting more money.  Fans need to Show up more and Pay more....without whining about it.

If they don't want to show up or pay more (their right to refuse both BTW) then why should broadcasting companies and Sponsors cough up the big shortfalls?  "Oh, nobody wants to go to your games or pay much in ticket price for them, but we're expected to pay through the nose to finance them anyway?"

 That's fan logic of paying for a carton of milk for less than it took to produce it.

Ok. Maybe a new thread?

This one's about the ability to attract the biggest income stream for Northern Hem teams. Tickets and merch pale into significance.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's semi-serious Chunky, yes.  

Over the years, I've heard a lot of 'poverty' thrown up about the price of tickets and the drinks you'd absolutely need to have to enjoy the games proper  ...

Fans are getting off too easily.  If you want the sport getting more money.  Fans need to Show up more and Pay more....without whining about it.

If they don't want to show up or pay more (their right to refuse both BTW) then why should broadcasting companies and Sponsors cough up the big shortfalls?  "Oh, nobody wants to go to your games or pay much in ticket price for them, but we're expected to pay through the nose to finance them anyway?"

 That's fan logic of paying for a carton of milk for less than it took to produce it.

Ok. Maybe a new thread?

This one's about the ability to attract the biggest income stream for Northern Hem teams. Tickets and merch pale into significance.

How much more do you think would be generated per year if on each and every weekend each Pro12 game was a sell out?  Nothing?  No extra money would have come in in that year?  Insignificant?   How much more per year would come in if each and every one of those sell out games had ticket buyers cough up more for their tickets?  Nothing again?

You're caught in the headlights of the marketing.  Rugby is viable because of what it can generate from Broadcasting Companies and Sponsors - even if nobody shows up at the actual grounds - that's the marketing angle in vogue right now.  

This is the new big push for market share - ignore the crowds, look at the deals. We must be important if we can get the deals!

Blame the League organisers then for not cutting much bigger deals with the Broadcasters and Sponsors - even though the sponsors look at semi-empty stadia.

You're caught in the headlights of what you see abroad in Top14 and AP.  "Oh we should be able to mimic that!"  Even though - yet again - we get back to the truth that you know we can't mimic it and that's exactly why you keep asking the question.  The question is rhetorical.  It's meant to elicit a sigh of defeat from those trying to answer it.

BTW, even the Big Boys and the ERCC will increasingly find it hard to make the illusion work.  The big Toulon v Leinster game was only a little over half full.  And they're already worried about the Big Final being a half full event too.

The money is rushing in now but it's a distinctly Broadcasting Battle between big broadcasters for their own long term market dominance forecasts - it's not really reflected in any increase in poplarity for the rugby game itself.  That bubble can't last.  It's an illusion.

You're just so wrong.

Chunky Norwich wrote:You're just so wrong.

So was Kerry Packer.