Sky maybe after Rabo TV Deal, Ulster (or just awec) says NOO!

its_phil

OldRio wrote: »

I have not got a clue what your point is?

OldRio wrote: »

Absolutely not. The rich have got richer and your average fan is priced out of going.

Your claiming that Sky has made football expensive to go to, but then Leinster tickets are only €7 cheaper than the biggest team in world sport. So it is hardly Sky Sports fault that the "average fan is priced out of going" to a football game when Leinster are on RTE and charging €60.

thomond2006

Do Leinster really charge €60 for a Rabo ticket???

Podge_irl

Not that I was aware of. I thought the ends were 20,grandstand 30 and Anglesea 40, though I could be wrong. Or else only a small number of tickets on the half way line in the Anglesea are 60.

.ak

thomond2006 wrote: »

Do Leinster really charge €60 for a Rabo ticket???

Only at the Oyster bar.

its_phil

thomond2006 wrote: »

Do Leinster really charge €60 for a Rabo ticket???

That is their best seat vs United's best seat for non-members

http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/tickets/ticket_prices.php#.UVymipNJOsY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/22/premier-league-ticket-prices-2012-13

Teferi

thomond2006 wrote: »

Do Leinster really charge €60 for a Rabo ticket???

The highest price is 50quid right in the middle of the Anglesea. The rest are 30 or 40 and the North/South are around 20.

OldRio

Phil
People buy the cheapest ticket if they are hard up not the most expensive.
Arsenal and Chelsea tickets are through the roof.

Sky money goes to the clubs.
Which pays for foreign players on obscene wages.
Shortfall in cash means ticket prices have increased.

Your point about Man U and Leinster would be fine apart from the average attendances. A bit of a difference.

themont85

Podge_irl wrote: »

You're right, it is a makey up competition (though, so is the SXV). But unfortuantely that was all that was available to us given the circumstances. I don't see how having it on Sky changes that. The only thing that will help is time. Its already a lot better than it was.

Sky aren't leprachauns who **** gold. Comparisons to the Premier League or even the Aviva Premiership are way off the mark. We're talking about a competition where the total population of the three main markets is less than 15m. If Sky do secure the rights I don't envisage a sudden, massive influx of cash into the league because they're not going to be paying significantly more than what RTÉ/BBC would be willing to pay. Why would they?

Super Rugby is a great competition in terms of standard and also is very well run, looks very professional. I do agree and certainly it is contrived in terms of what it has become (pretty much the domestic league for the three countries). When it started out that wasn't the intention in fairness though, it was to provide a Heineken Cup style tournament for the best provinces and state teams out there, it has evolved into something else now though and is the bread and butter.

The Rabo is our domestic scene but from the outset you never got a sense that the IRFU cared about it as a standalone comp. It was effectively a way to keep the lads match fit between Internationals and Heineken Cup games. After a few years I thought it was gaining its own little niche but the Italian inclusion just baffled me for the long term prospects of the competition. The IRFU have further eroded it by making the Christmas derbys a joke in recent years, I used to love the Stephen's Day/New Years games but now they're mainly a second string affair, I refuse to fork out money for that. I'd rather watch the AIL or a Schools match to be perfectly honest.

Podge_irl

Well I certainly won't argue that the IRFU have not always been that helpful with regards the league. Having top of the table clashes and derbies with shadow sides wouldn't please Sky too much (and nor does it please me).

themont85

OldRio wrote: »

Phil
People buy the cheapest ticket if they are hard up not the most expensive.
Arsenal and Chelsea tickets are through the roof.

Sky money goes to the clubs.
Which pays for foreign players on obscene wages.
Shortfall in cash means ticket prices have increased.

Your point about Man U and Leinster would be fine apart from the average attendances. A bit of a difference.

The Taylor Report made the "average punter" being priced out inevitable. Though I don't really believe that to be true, it is greatly exaggerated through nostalgia.

its_phil

OldRio wrote: »

Sky money goes to the clubs. This will go directly to our union, which funds grassroots, clubs etc too
Which pays for foreign players on obscene wages. NIQ restrictions in Ireland and I don't care about wages/salaries
Shortfall in cash means ticket prices have increased.

Your point about Man U and Leinster would be fine apart from the average attendances. A bit of a difference.

United are close to selling out every game in Old Trafford, so surely they would be entitled to charge more. I just don't see how Sky affects ticket prices in Irish rugby? I don't think it affected the AP, but I'm not refrencing anything just presuming.

Rugby will never explode like football, it just doesn't have the reach (or maybe I don't see it) to get to players earning that type of massive massive money. Talking to one of the guys in the academy during the weekend and his agent said the average Rabo player makes €60,000. There wouldn't be any harm in players earning a bit more especially when you consider a rugby career can end a lot quicker than a football one.

OldRio

Phil
The points I made were about the influence Sky have had on soccer ticket prices.
That is all.

its_phil

OldRio wrote: »

Phil
The points I made were about the influence Sky have had on soccer ticket prices.
That is all.

Then explain to me what is so bad about Sky and the Rabodirect outside of FTA? How are they going to destroy our league outside of, in your opinion, ticket prices?

The AP has survived for a long time on Sky and it isn't any real different is it?

themont85

OldRio wrote: »

Phil
The points I made were about the influence Sky have had on soccer ticket prices.
That is all.

Sky's impact on ticket prices is completely overblown.

Why have the IRFU and FAI upped their prices massively? A NEW STADIUM. In the wake of the Taylor report clubs all over England had to build expensive new stadiums or upgrade theirs. These new all seater stadiums also generally had less capacity. Less capacity plus a huge debt to pay off means higher prices.

Coburger

The IRFU have further eroded it by making the Christmas derbys a joke in recent years, I used to love the Stephen's Day/New Years games but now they're mainly a second string affair, I refuse to fork out money for that. I'd rather watch the AIL or a Schools match to be perfectly honest.[/QUOTE]

The Rabo will only really get interesting when teams put out their best teams and stop using the Rabo as a warm up for Heineken Cup games.

IMHO, I hope the English clubs pressure the Rabo clubs into having to get their Heineken Cup places on their playing ability. Having the top 6 to get into the H Cup will be great as far as I can see. None of this having Zebre and Connacht in the competition if they really don't deserve their place.

JustinDee

themont85 wrote: »

Sky's impact on ticket prices is completely overblown.
Why have the IRFU and FAI upped their prices massively? A NEW STADIUM. In the wake of the Taylor report clubs all over England had to build expensive new stadiums or upgrade theirs. These new all seater stadiums also generally had less capacity. Less capacity plus a huge debt to pay off means higher prices.

What timeframe are you using here?
Compare the prices between the games at Croke Park and Aviva Stadium, for example.
Post 2010, when error was admitted over packaging and pricing structure, ticket prices now tend to range from €25 restricted view (which is generally pitch level or behind a buttress support with still plenty of scope) to €90 for category 1 in Upper (same price for NZ game at Croke Park, for example) and Lower stands. Premium tickets were €100 (as with Croke Park games)-€110.

On the subject of stadia, a new stadium was absolutely necessary. Lansdowne Road stadium was falling to pieces and way behind the standard required. A stadium share with Croke Park was not on the cards, with the temporary arrangement (play but once your stadium is done, vacate) granted there being already a massive feat. The arguments for a stadium out on the N7 away from city centre simply don't wash, and have been discussed ad nauseum in stadium thread(s) here by the same folk. To buy another nearby site would have bankrupted the union given the property market at the time, and in hindsight, a great decision to avoid. A bigger stadium than 51,700 at the Aviva Stadium is not viable either as has also been discussed to death.

OldRio

themont85 wrote: »

Sky's impact on ticket prices is completely overblown.

Why have the IRFU and FAI upped their prices massively? A NEW STADIUM. In the wake of the Taylor report clubs all over England had to build expensive new stadiums or upgrade theirs. These new all seater stadiums also generally had less capacity. Less capacity plus a huge debt to pay off means higher prices.

Income is mainly spent on wages not new stadium.

"The proportion of income that Premier League clubs spend on wages hit a new high in the 2010-11 season, says a Deloitte report into football finance."

70% on average of income in spent on wages.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18248540

OldRio

themont85 wrote: »

The Taylor Report made the "average punter" being priced out inevitable. Though I don't really believe that to be true, it is greatly exaggerated through nostalgia.

Nostalgia ?
11.7% increase this year on average. One year.
Soccer fans in England have a better understanding of the situation than yourself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jan/17/high-ticket-prices-premier-league

RandolphEsq

OldRio wrote: »

Income is mainly spent on wages not new stadium.

"The proportion of income that Premier League clubs spend on wages hit a new high in the 2010-11 season, says a Deloitte report into football finance."

70% on average of income in spent on wages.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18248540

The English game has been killed with the injection of huge money, but it does not necessarily follow that more money equals the downfall of the game.

The clubs were the architects of the game's own downfall. Rabo clubs can take note of what happened in football to ensure the game does not go the same way.

But I do not think the money will be huge at all. The potential to grow rugby is minimal compared to football, therefore the money won't spiral into the realms of fantasy like in football.

Macy0161

iirc The Taylor Report said that prices shouldn't rise. Putting everything that's happened in English Football down to the Taylor Report or Sky is too simplistic. It was kind of the perfect storm that lead to the growth of money in football, and it's highly debatable whether it was all for the good.

For the Rabo clubs/ unions, it's going to be a major gamble whatever they decide assuming Sky come in with more money. A lot will depend on the coverage guaranteed, weighing up whether (potentially) better coverage makes up for a loss of exposure/ less access for the floating fan etc. I personally think that for the IRFU/ Provinces, the exposure of the current deal is better long term, than just a bit more money and less coverage, but it really depends on the figures.

When you still see talk of the welsh clubs possibly leaving/ joining the English league still being mentioned (as it was in todays Telegraph article about Europe), and ongoing issues between the regions and the WRFU, there's probably bigger concerns at the moment to be honest, with a year of the current deal to run!

TheGoldenAges

Anyone have a link to that Telegraph article?

Macy0161

TheGoldenAges wrote: »

Anyone have a link to that Telegraph article?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9970583/Heineken-Cup-talks-in-deadlock-as-top-English-clubs-consider-alternative-competitions.html

bilston

Macy0161 wrote: »

iirc The Taylor Report said that prices shouldn't rise. Putting everything that's happened in English Football down to the Taylor Report or Sky is too simplistic. It was kind of the perfect storm that lead to the growth of money in football, and it's highly debatable whether it was all for the good.

For the Rabo clubs/ unions, it's going to be a major gamble whatever they decide assuming Sky come in with more money. A lot will depend on the coverage guaranteed, weighing up whether (potentially) better coverage makes up for a loss of exposure/ less access for the floating fan etc. I personally think that for the IRFU/ Provinces, the exposure of the current deal is better long term, than just a bit more money and less coverage, but it really depends on the figures.

When you still see talk of the welsh clubs possibly leaving/ joining the English league still being mentioned (as it was in todays Telegraph article about Europe), and ongoing issues between the regions and the WRFU, there's probably bigger concerns at the moment to be honest, with a year of the current deal to run!

Yes but the TV deal may have a crucial part to play in keeping the Welsh in the league although I agree with the general feeling that the English don't want them. However if the HEC goes out the window then perhaps the English will see the Welsh joining the AP as a more attractive prospect.

I still believe that the best way forward is a British and Irish league, I've always thought that. Obviously you'd need to agree on a structure but it could be a real money spinner while protecting the HEC. We'd probably need to persuade the French to take Treviso and Zebre but then Zebre in particular would be in danger of relegation so that might be bad news for Italy.

OldRio

bilston wrote: »

Yes but the TV deal may have a crucial part to play in keeping the Welsh in the league although I agree with the general feeling that the English don't want them. However if the HEC goes out the window then perhaps the English will see the Welsh joining the AP as a more attractive prospect.

I still believe that the best way forward is a British and Irish league, I've always thought that. Obviously you'd need to agree on a structure but it could be a real money spinner while protecting the HEC. We'd probably need to persuade the French to take Treviso and Zebre but then Zebre in particular would be in danger of relegation so that might be bad news for Italy.

The English clubs would never vote for that. Turkeys voting for Christmas.

irishbucsfan

Yeah a British and Irish league would make little sense for English sides

bilston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah a British and Irish league would make little sense for English sides

Why?

Deano7788

bilston wrote: »

Why?

You wouldn't be able to fit all 12 English teams into it so some of them would in effect be "relegated". They'd never agree to that when they have a perfectly functioning league as it is.

Podge_irl

Even if they did accept it they'd want to keep relegation/promotion which the rest of us probably wouldn't want! It's a non runner. I prefer the separate leagues with the European competition. Keeps things fresh.

bilston

Podge_irl wrote: »

Even if they did accept it they'd want to keep relegation/promotion which the rest of us probably wouldn't want! It's a non runner. I prefer the separate leagues with the European competition. Keeps things fresh.

That's fine, but if the Welsh leave (unlikely) do you really think the Pro 12, or Pro 8 as it will become would be fit for purpose.

bilston

Deano7788 wrote: »

You wouldn't be able to fit all 12 English teams into it so some of them would in effect be "relegated". They'd never agree to that when they have a perfectly functioning league as it is.

A conference system could work. Two groups of 12, top four from each group go through to a league of 8, league winners are champions. No promotion or relegation though.