English Player Exhaustion

[Banquo]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

exactly, and when the rich owners (see Duckworth and Barwell) get bored, run out of cash, or sadly pass away, what then...but I think Puja's point is that RFU money is secured by the deal, so no reason they'd want to change. Unless the RFU plays dirty or bribes.

we've been having this debate for years; club fans point to 'growth in attendance', plan to break even etc etc. Yet without RFU money, the total expenses of running pro clubs look unsustainable without RFU money.

Does anyone know if/what the 'halo' effect of England being any good has on the club game/revenue...

[Digby]

The first para is 'on the money' though. Your point is about negotiation stance.

If either the RFU or the clubs take their money and go home the other side has a problem, on which basis I don't see sense in on side saying the other needs to change, they need a model that's symbiotic, or maybe even probiotic given all else these days seems to be probiotic

as I said, its a negotiation position. But with the clubs bleeding money still- an assumption- you'd think there was incentive on both sides to come to new deal.

I still think we need to know what the next TV deals are going to look like before we can take a view on what might come next. The lower the increase the more the clubs might have to deal, though even then sporting clubs around the world in many different sports continue to run whilst seemingly losing money every year.

[Digby]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

exactly, and when the rich owners (see Duckworth and Barwell) get bored, run out of cash, or sadly pass away, what then...but I think Puja's point is that RFU money is secured by the deal, so no reason they'd want to change. Unless the RFU plays dirty or bribes.

we've been having this debate for years; club fans point to 'growth in attendance', plan to break even etc etc. Yet without RFU money, the total expenses of running pro clubs look unsustainable without RFU money.

Does anyone know if/what the 'halo' effect of England being any good has on the club game/revenue...

And without club money the RFU can'tjust step in an run the game as is. I'll again note they need each other, and it's missing half the point to only say the clubs need the RFU money.

[fivepointer]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

Do the attendance figures support the prospect of clubs ever being able to stand alone?

Average AP attendance this season is 12,895

Last 4 seasons - 16/17 15,065 15/16 13,611 14/15 13,370 13/14 12,754

I dont see any prospect of this figure coming close to 20,000, though there will be a boost from European or AWC games to overall attendances.

The figures in the Championship are probably no more than 4-5,000

it seems to me that the game has limited capacity for spectator growth. Is the pro games as well supported as its likely to be i wonder?

[Oakboy]

If he's doing it to improve for the rwc and not to win 6n games, then the results of those games don't make a difference. He wasn't trying all out to win them.

Smaller league or conferences is worse than pay reduction for less games i feel. Since it also means less income for the clubs.

Raggs, why do you say he was not trying flat out to win the 6N games? That is a concept I simply fail to understand. Surely, all competitive matches are there for the sole purpose of winning them unless there were clear developmental aims eg. bed in new SH. In contrast to that there was Wigglesworth.

From my understanding a typical pre-season is training the players hard, to raise their level of conditioning to as high a point as possible, once the season starts, you cannot keep training at that intensity, since the players will be fatigued in games, the objective once the season starts, is simply to maintain that fitness.

Reports suggest that Eddie was training the players like it was a pre-season, with the objective of increasing their conditioning, rather than maintaining and peaking for each individual game. The idea being he's raising their conditioning over a far larger period of time, with the end objective of the world cup, this would tie in with what the head of sports science at the RFU said, when asked if the desired improvement in the England players fitness would come from the pre-rwc camp, or over the next 18 months, and he replied it would be a continuous thing over the next 18 months. The only way that happens if the players are worked extremely hard every time Eddie gets his hands on them.

Eddie was brought in with 1 objective, the world cup. He's also already won a grand slam, so that trophy is already sat on the mantelpiece, the only thing missing from his head coach resume, is the world cup I believe.

I'm sure Eddie and his team were analysing opposition, and trying to win those games, but not at the expense of improving conditioning for the rwc, and potentially placing other restrictions on his squad selection, to try and emulate world cup conditions (hence Lawes at 6, when we had multiple backrow injuries, rather than bringing in someone new).

Good explanation. Thank you. Do you think Eddie needs an attack coach?

[Banquo]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

exactly, and when the rich owners (see Duckworth and Barwell) get bored, run out of cash, or sadly pass away, what then...but I think Puja's point is that RFU money is secured by the deal, so no reason they'd want to change. Unless the RFU plays dirty or bribes.

we've been having this debate for years; club fans point to 'growth in attendance', plan to break even etc etc. Yet without RFU money, the total expenses of running pro clubs look unsustainable without RFU money.

Does anyone know if/what the 'halo' effect of England being any good has on the club game/revenue...

And without club money the RFU can'tjust step in an run the game as is. I'll again note they need each other, and it's missing half the point to only say the clubs need the RFU money.

I've not missed the point at all- its a negotiation, for the third time. Without each other, as it stands, there would be no national team; course the RFU could withdraw funding, and go for a fire sale and buy up say 8 clubs and turn them into franchises. And/or PRL break away and try and join another league/standalone.

I'm only half joking. But the key question is sustaining a pro club game.

[Raggs]

Raggs, why do you say he was not trying flat out to win the 6N games? That is a concept I simply fail to understand. Surely, all competitive matches are there for the sole purpose of winning them unless there were clear developmental aims eg. bed in new SH. In contrast to that there was Wigglesworth.

From my understanding a typical pre-season is training the players hard, to raise their level of conditioning to as high a point as possible, once the season starts, you cannot keep training at that intensity, since the players will be fatigued in games, the objective once the season starts, is simply to maintain that fitness.

Reports suggest that Eddie was training the players like it was a pre-season, with the objective of increasing their conditioning, rather than maintaining and peaking for each individual game. The idea being he's raising their conditioning over a far larger period of time, with the end objective of the world cup, this would tie in with what the head of sports science at the RFU said, when asked if the desired improvement in the England players fitness would come from the pre-rwc camp, or over the next 18 months, and he replied it would be a continuous thing over the next 18 months. The only way that happens if the players are worked extremely hard every time Eddie gets his hands on them.

Eddie was brought in with 1 objective, the world cup. He's also already won a grand slam, so that trophy is already sat on the mantelpiece, the only thing missing from his head coach resume, is the world cup I believe.

I'm sure Eddie and his team were analysing opposition, and trying to win those games, but not at the expense of improving conditioning for the rwc, and potentially placing other restrictions on his squad selection, to try and emulate world cup conditions (hence Lawes at 6, when we had multiple backrow injuries, rather than bringing in someone new).

Good explanation. Thank you. Do you think Eddie needs an attack coach?

I don't think we can judge that on the 6N, but I equally don't think having a dedicated quality attack coach would be a bad thing. Maybe they could look at our lineup against Ireland, and ask why Ford is never seemingly allowed to play with 2 proper centres, whilst Farrell is.

[Mellsblue]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

The figures in the Championship are probably no more than 4-5,000

Bedford have the second highest attendance with 2,500ish. Most clubs average in the hundreds.

[Banquo]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

The figures in the Championship are probably no more than 4-5,000

Bedford have the second highest attendance with 2,500ish. Most clubs average in the hundreds.

what's their wage bill? Out of interest, do they pay a portion of their loan players salaries?

[Mellsblue]

The figures in the Championship are probably no more than 4-5,000

Bedford have the second highest attendance with 2,500ish. Most clubs average in the hundreds.

what's their wage bill? Out of interest, do they pay a portion of their loan players salaries?

We don’t get that info. It’s a very closed shop. Geoff Irvine runs it as his personal fiefdom, as is his want as he cover approx £80k a year in losses.....that was the latest figure I heard about two seasons ago.
Things have changed this year as we have few DR players - I think we’ve only had two from Sarries this year - and two on loan from Saints - Onojaife Snr all season and Hutchinson since early Feb - the rest of the squad are ours. Most I believe are fulltime with the odd part timer.
A lot of that extra wage bill is covered by an improved commercial operation, higher attendances as we’re back to winning more than we lose and more investment (if you call giving away money an investment) from more of the local wealthy.
To cut a long story short....I’ve no idea of the wage bill but the club doesn’t break even.

[Digby]

exactly, and when the rich owners (see Duckworth and Barwell) get bored, run out of cash, or sadly pass away, what then...but I think Puja's point is that RFU money is secured by the deal, so no reason they'd want to change. Unless the RFU plays dirty or bribes.

we've been having this debate for years; club fans point to 'growth in attendance', plan to break even etc etc. Yet without RFU money, the total expenses of running pro clubs look unsustainable without RFU money.

Does anyone know if/what the 'halo' effect of England being any good has on the club game/revenue...

And without club money the RFU can'tjust step in an run the game as is. I'll again note they need each other, and it's missing half the point to only say the clubs need the RFU money.

I've not missed the point at all- its a negotiation, for the third time. Without each other, as it stands, there would be no national team; course the RFU could withdraw funding, and go for a fire sale and buy up say 8 clubs and turn them into franchises. And/or PRL break away and try and join another league/standalone.

I'm only half joking. But the key question is sustaining a pro club game.

I don't really get putting the stress on saying 'Yet without RFU money, the total expenses of running pro clubs look unsustainable without RFU money.' that being the case

[Banquo]

And without club money the RFU can'tjust step in an run the game as is. I'll again note they need each other, and it's missing half the point to only say the clubs need the RFU money.

I've not missed the point at all- its a negotiation, for the third time. Without each other, as it stands, there would be no national team; course the RFU could withdraw funding, and go for a fire sale and buy up say 8 clubs and turn them into franchises. And/or PRL break away and try and join another league/standalone.

I'm only half joking. But the key question is sustaining a pro club game.

I don't really get putting the stress on saying 'Yet without RFU money, the total expenses of running pro clubs look unsustainable without RFU money.' that being the case

It was linked to what club fans say about their own clubs and sustainability- some don't seem to get they are not truly standalone businesses. I think you are just being pedantic tbh, though admittedly I didn't need to say RFU money twice

[Digby]

you are just being pedantic tbh

I'm not aiming for pedantry, even if it's a trait I admire. I'm just naturally a person people don't like

[Banquo]

you are just being pedantic tbh

I'm not aiming for pedantry, even if it's a trait I admire. I'm just naturally a person people don't like

i wouldn't say that.

[Puja]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

But those payments are guaranteed for the next 6 seasons through the current agreement. So if you want to use thise as leverage, then you've got a long time to wait until the next renegotiation.

Puja

[Banquo]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

But those payments are guaranteed for the next 6 seasons through the current agreement. So if you want to use thise as leverage, then you've got a long time to wait until the next renegotiation.

Puja

given that the RFU think the status quo is fine- and they are utterly wrong- its moot, but agreements are regularly amended before end dates.

[Puja]

They're breaking even or coming close, once you include the rather large payments that the RFU gives them... take away the RFU payments and I doubt any even come close to breaking even.

But those payments are guaranteed for the next 6 seasons through the current agreement. So if you want to use thise as leverage, then you've got a long time to wait until the next renegotiation.

Puja

given that the RFU think the status quo is fine- and they are utterly wrong- its moot, but agreements are regularly amended before end dates.

Oh absolutely, but PRL won't want to amend it unless the RFU brings a new bribe to the table. Why would they - they're happy.

Puja

[Rich]

...the little Englander club fans may scream, the little Englander club owners might simply ask "What's in it for us?"...

And the answer would be : Notrhing


The club owners are flogging their players to make a few $$$


The same is happening in France - club owners spend way more money and produce good teams but the French team has been rubbish for years now.

[Digby]

...the little Englander club fans may scream, the little Englander club owners might simply ask "What's in it for us?"...

And the answer would be : Notrhing


The club owners are flogging their players to make a few $$$


The same is happening in France - club owners spend way more money and produce good teams but the French team has been rubbish for years now.

Whereas England don't flog the players, not in training nor playing lots of games. Also England don't play games for money and are actually famous for having free entry at Twickenham

[Rich]

Also there's still no real explanation as to why the game should run still more in the interests of the national team

What ?

The England team is the ONLY reason the English leagues exist.

The England team needs to be supported 100$ by everyone in the game - anyone who does not share this idea needs to be driven out of English rugby.


The club owners are not a group on benevolent sugar-daddies - they're a group of self centered egoists who will happily break all their players in order to read their name in the sports pages of the national newspapers.

[Digby]

You want a cleansing of those not as morally virtuous as yourself? Would this make you the Pol Pot of rugby perhaps?

Also it's a daft point. If tomorrow all test games were banned it's not going to stop Tigers, Chiefs, Bath, Glaws... fans going along to watch their side. The test game is important, but it's hardly the be all and end all

[Rich]

...whereas England don't flog the players, not in training nor playing lots of games. Also England don't play games for money and are actually famous for having free entry at Twickenham

No the England team does not "flog" their players in training


Training is one thing, over playing the players is the issue. The England team does NOT play too many games, in fact it could easily play more.
Test rugby makes money that supports the game.



Over playing means more fatigue and injuries.
What needs to happen is a dramatic reduction in domestic games that are basically of little or no interest.

[Rich]

You want a cleansing of those not as morally virtuous as yourself? Would this make you the Pol Pot of rugby perhaps?

Also it's a daft point. If tomorrow all test games were banned it's not going to stop Tigers, Chiefs, Bath, Glaws... fans going along to watch their side. The test game is important, but it's hardly the be all and end all

Who says I'm as morally virtuous as you ?

If I owned say London Wasps, it wouldn't be in my interests to support the national team.


The test game isn't just important - it's the ONLY thing that is.

The best model right now is Ireland.
Ireland has club rugby but it's their 4 provincial teams that provide Ireland with top quality players.
It's also very well supported.

Ireland's provincial teams are stronger than England's club teams and always will be.

[Rich]

The same thing needs to happen to English cricket BTW

18 first class counties making hardly any money if any at all. They're supported by the money that the England national teams bring in.
They too need to be reduced to about 6 regional franchises.

So the England cricket team plays an exhausting 5 test series in Australia where it gets hammered (as always) ... plays some white ball competitions then is sent off the New Zealand to go and play another test series

Earlier today the England team were bowled out for 58



Whereas the England rugby team could and probably should play more games, the England cricket team cannot. English domestic cricket and English domestic rugby needs "Christmas" to come and take away a significant number of "turkeys"

[Raggs]

...the little Englander club fans may scream, the little Englander club owners might simply ask "What's in it for us?"...

And the answer would be : Notrhing


The club owners are flogging their players to make a few $$$


The same is happening in France - club owners spend way more money and produce good teams but the French team has been rubbish for years now.

The players can offer exactly what Billy V is presumably negotiating for now, less money for less playing.