General Rugby Discussion

irishbucsfan

Clearlier wrote: »

Yeah, I'm pushing the analogy too far. The main issue is that there's very little opportunity for players involved in the lions to have a pre-season. Would it be too complicated to compensate clubs ala the world cup and insist that they not be available to play for the first 3 weeks of the season (to cover the 3 extra weeks that the lions tour compared to national team summer tests)?

Just to add that IMO the lions need the longer tour to be competitive. Without it, I think that they stop being competitive and over time they become an anachronism.

I'd imagine the Lions could compensate the clubs, and I'd imagine that's exactly what the clubs have in mind. Whether it is financially worth it for the Lions is a different question, I'm not sure how much they make currently.

Clearlier

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'd imagine the Lions could compensate the clubs, and I'd imagine that's exactly what the clubs have in mind. Whether it is financially worth it for the Lions is a different question, I'm not sure how much they make currently.

Money grabbing McCafferty again :-)

If the lions are going to use the clubs players then it's reasonable that they should compensate the clubs for that.

In respect of costs, reports are that the RFU paid out £14 million to the clubs for the world cup but as you pointed out the lions tour happens in the summer and thus doesn't generate anything near that level of disruption that the world cup does. There's no need to delay the start of the season, the time period is shorter and the number of players about a quarter of the number affected by the RWC. The lions are reported to have generated a profit of £4 million in 2009, were expected to increase that in 2013 although I can't find records of any accounts and should do better again next year. I think that they could probably afford it.

irishbucsfan

Clearlier wrote: »

Money grabbing McCafferty again :-)

If the lions are going to use the clubs players then it's reasonable that they should compensate the clubs for that.

In respect of costs, reports are that the RFU paid out £14 million to the clubs for the world cup but as you pointed out the lions tour happens in the summer and thus doesn't generate anything near that level of disruption that the world cup does. There's no need to delay the start of the season, the time period is shorter and the number of players about a quarter of the number affected by the RWC. The lions are reported to have generated a profit of £4 million in 2009, were expected to increase that in 2013 although I can't find records of any accounts and should do better again next year. I think that they could probably afford it.

The RFU paid 14 million in cash but also the profits from a November International in Twickenham, which would have bumped that up by quite a large number. There was actually a clear breakdown as well, I think it was 6 million to compensate for the players availability.

The figure would be in the millions for sure if you want to make players unavailable for 3 games, and the Lions only makes ~5 million in the first place. During the last tour Roger Lewis (at the time WRU CEO) was complaining that it wasn't profitable enough for the home nations, so if you end up paying millions to the clubs then it further impacts the viability of the tour.

Deano7788

Do the Unions not currently get compensated for each player selected? Would/could any of that be passed onto the clubs?

irishbucsfan

Deano7788 wrote: »

Do the Unions not currently get compensated for each player selected? Would/could any of that be passed onto the clubs?

Yeah they do, that may already be passed onto the clubs in some form I'm not sure.

Clearlier

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The RFU paid 14 million in cash but also the profits from a November International in Twickenham, which would have bumped that up by quite a large number. There was actually a clear breakdown as well, I think it was 6 million to compensate for the players availability.

The figure would be in the millions for sure if you want to make players unavailable for 3 games, and the Lions only makes ~5 million in the first place. During the last tour Roger Lewis (at the time WRU CEO) was complaining that it wasn't profitable enough for the home nations, so if you end up paying millions to the clubs then it further impacts the viability of the tour.

A quick google finds the BBC saying that it was £13 million with £7 million for there not being any AP rugby. That leaves £6 millions to cover a time period about twice as long with about 4 times as many players. That crude calculation would have it at about £750k for the RFU. I think that the number goes into mid 6 figures and not really near 7 for the RFU.

BTW - I'm assuming here that the RFU haven't got the lions tour included in their player release agreement but I would expect this to be incorporated into that and any compensation paid via that. Players from French clubs would be tricky and require a separate agreement although IIRC they pretty much weren't eligible for the lions last time out and I can see the same happening again.

As a footnote the IRB might not be happy with the precedent set of paying for the release of players for representative rugby - the lions tour would need to be viewed as exceptional which in my view it is.

Winters

End of season tours, Union and Lions, have been taking place well before the English leagues were formalised. Under World Rugby Regulation 9, clubs are obliged to facilitate release during the calendar year without compensation and the Lions tour falls in the June test window. No doubt the Lions would love to have all the players earlier but all the preceding games are all playoff games. Even if you were to play compensation no player would like to miss their domestic end of season. Nathan Hines being the exception maybe..

I would be intrigued to know how the minutes per player compares on a Lions tour to the club season seeing as there is so much rotation and the Lions touring party is so large. 10 games is a bit mad though..

McCafferty is just looking after his clients, the private club owners. Just wait for the French owners reactions when "their" employees are called up. PRL are trying to get on board the pending "Global season" talks as much as possible in order to maximise their influence on the scheduling and economies of the game. Something the RFU should be doing for them like all the other unions and federations.

The global season talks should be about prioritising the International game. Only if the end of the NH season tests (June window) is moved, reduced or removed will future Lions tours be affected. Ideally I would like the end of season tours to continue directly after the 6 Nations block with the domestic or European (or both) being completed before the 6 Nations. Think of what the NH coaches could do with 3 months of uninterrupted access...

Interesting read - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/24/global-rugby-union-season-talks-stall-2019-fixture-list

irishbucsfan

Winters wrote: »

End of season tours, Union and Lions, have taking place well before the English leagues were formalised. Under World Rugby Regulation 9, clubs are obliged to facilitate release during the calendar year without compensation and the Lions tour falls in the June test window. No doubt the Lions would love to have all the players earlier but all the preceding games are all playoff games. Even if you were to play compensation no player would like to miss their domestic end of season. Nathan Hines being the exception maybe..

The Lions tour does not actually technically fall in the 3-weekend June test window. It's a seperate window that's specifically set aside for the Lions under regulation 9, from June 1st to mid-July.

I agree that it would be ideal to combine the 6 Nations and June windows. If they had a window that ran from the beginning of May to the end of July it would avoid all this, but they'd still face issues I guess with the 6 Nations running into the Lions tour.

Winters

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Lions tour does not actually technically fall in the 3-weekend June test window. It's a seperate window that's specifically set aside for the Lions under regulation 9, from June 1st to mid-July.

I agree that it would be ideal to combine the 6 Nations and June windows. If they had a window that ran from the beginning of May to the end of July it would avoid all this, but they'd still face issues I guess with the 6 Nations running into the Lions tour.

Would you keep the SH tours in November?

Why would you choose beginning of May to end of July rather than say the beginning of April to end of June?

molloyjh

Winters wrote: »

End of season tours, Union and Lions, have been taking place well before the English leagues were formalised. Under World Rugby Regulation 9, clubs are obliged to facilitate release during the calendar year without compensation and the Lions tour falls in the June test window. No doubt the Lions would love to have all the players earlier but all the preceding games are all playoff games. Even if you were to play compensation no player would like to miss their domestic end of season. Nathan Hines being the exception maybe..

I would be intrigued to know how the minutes per player compares on a Lions tour to the club season seeing as there is so much rotation and the Lions touring party is so large. 10 games is a bit mad though..

McCafferty is just looking after his clients, the private club owners. Just wait for the French owners reactions when "their" employees are called up. PRL are trying to get on board the pending "Global season" talks as much as possible in order to maximise their influence on the scheduling and economies of the game. Something the RFU should be doing for them like all the other unions and federations.

The global season talks should be about prioritising the International game. Only if the end of the NH season tests (June window) is moved, reduced or removed will future Lions tours be affected. Ideally I would like the end of season tours to continue directly after the 6 Nations block with the domestic or European (or both) being completed before the 6 Nations. Think of what the NH coaches could do with 3 months of uninterrupted access...

Interesting read - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/24/global-rugby-union-season-talks-stall-2019-fixture-list

The global calendar simply has to happen. And the main benefit to that is that the international game will be what it will have to be built around. The only thing is that the club season at the moment is 33 weeks long (or 37 weeks in France). Starting the first week in September the club season would go to the middle of April without any breaks. And there would need to be rest weeks in there. That only leaves 10 weeks for the international windows minus any rest weeks. Which is clearly not enough.

So there needs to either be overlap with the club game or a reduction in the number of games in one or the other calendar. Possibly both. Are the Unions or the clubs actually going to agree on a decrease in games in either schedule though? Not a chance.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Lions tour does not actually technically fall in the 3-weekend June test window. It's a seperate window that's specifically set aside for the Lions under regulation 9, from June 1st to mid-July.

I agree that it would be ideal to combine the 6 Nations and June windows. If they had a window that ran from the beginning of May to the end of July it would avoid all this, but they'd still face issues I guess with the 6 Nations running into the Lions tour.

Whatever about the Lions, having an international window that runs to the end of July would be worse than what we have unless the club game didn't start until October. Unless the clubs would be happy to not have their players available for the month of September.

irishbucsfan

Winters wrote: »

Would you keep the SH tours in November?

Why would you choose beginning of May to end of July rather than say the beginning of April to end of June?

I'm not sure how the November internationals would work out. I'm not sure if everyone would prefer to keep a touring period in NH winter and just keep doing it the way it's done currently or else push it aside.

I read somewhere else that the SH nations wanted to move those tests back as part of the adjustment so that their club season wouldn't need to be adjusted so heavily.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

The global calendar simply has to happen. And the main benefit to that is that the international game will be what it will have to be built around. The only thing is that the club season at the moment is 33 weeks long (or 37 weeks in France). Starting the first week in September the club season would go to the middle of April without any breaks. And there would need to be rest weeks in there. That only leaves 10 weeks for the international windows minus any rest weeks. Which is clearly not enough.

So there needs to either be overlap with the club game or a reduction in the number of games in one or the other calendar. Possibly both. Are the Unions or the clubs actually going to agree on a decrease in games in either schedule though? Not a chance.

There doesn't need to be rest weeks in the club's calendar. It's their business how they schedule the games and manage their players and the length required for games would be reduced without breaks in the middle. Combine that with mid-week games which have proven viable and there's actually a ton of space available in the calendar for clubs to play however many games they think they need to schedule.

There is plenty of time to fit both calendars. And it's completely up to clubs how they do it, and they've shown they're more than capable of adjusting. There isn't even really a concern about whether it would work amongst the leadership of the unions, the concern is just that old fashioned committees (like the Irish and English unions) are completely resistant to the idea of change despite the obvious necessity for it and the potential benefits.

Adbrowne

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There doesn't need to be rest weeks in the club's calendar. It's their business how they schedule the games and manage their players and the length required for games would be reduced without breaks in the middle. Combine that with mid-week games which have proven viable and there's actually a ton of space available in the calendar for clubs to play however many games they think they need to schedule.

There is plenty of time to fit both calendars. And it's completely up to clubs how they do it, and they've shown they're more than capable of adjusting. There isn't even really a concern about whether it would work amongst the leadership of the unions, the concern is just that old fashioned committees (like the Irish and English unions) are completely resistant to the idea of change despite the obvious necessity for it and the potential benefits.

Currently NH international windows are in 3 separate blocks. I dont think cutting that to one is viable so the only real option is to cut it to 2 cutting the stop start nature of club game in NH a bit. No matter what way it works there is going to be overlap somewhere unless all leagues are cut numerically to 10 teams which isnt going to happen.

Leave 6n as it and have tours down south in July and then they come up here in august, allowing RC to be played after that giving super rugby a straight run

The club game needs to fit in around a new calendar, much the same as it does now, its just moving the international fixtures to when then fit the rest in around it. Its a bit rich listening to McCafferty when the AP play the anglo-welsh cup on top of the league/europe.

irishbucsfan

Adbrowne wrote: »

Currently NH international windows are in 3 separate blocks. I dont think cutting that to one is viable so the only real option is to cut it to 2 cutting the stop start nature of club game in NH a bit. No matter what way it works there is going to be overlap somewhere unless all leagues are cut numerically to 10 teams which isnt going to happen.

Leave 6n as it and have tours down south in July and then they come up here in august, allowing RC to be played after that giving super rugby a straight run

The club game needs to fit in around a new calendar, much the same as it does now, its just moving the international fixtures to when then fit the rest in around it. Its a bit rich listening to McCafferty when the AP play the anglo-welsh cup on top of the league/europe.

No, they don't need to cut to 10 teams. We're not adding games to the calendar by changing it around. People are creating an arithmetic problem where none exists.

September through April is 35 weeks. May through July is 13 weeks. That's plenty of time for both sets of fixtures even allowing for August to be protected.

Adbrowne

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, they don't need to cut to 10 teams. We're not adding games to the calendar by changing it around. People are creating an arithmetic problem where none exists.

September through April is 35 weeks. May through July is 13 weeks. That's plenty of time for both sets of fixtures even allowing for August to be protected.

Ok Im missing something here then. Ireland have 11 internationals most normal years [12 this year]. Where are the breaks going to be in the international windows, like the 6n is 2/break/1/break/2. Are we looking at running the 6n in the space of 30 days [5 weekends running] as opposed to the regular 42-44 days as it stands?

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, they don't need to cut to 10 teams. We're not adding games to the calendar by changing it around. People are creating an arithmetic problem where none exists.

September through April is 35 weeks. May through July is 13 weeks. That's plenty of time for both sets of fixtures even allowing for August to be protected.

You're basically advocating cramming 11 tests across 2 hemispheres into 13 weeks while having no prep time ahead of it at all. And then on top of that asking that those internationals playing in all of that to either forego any kind of break/holiday to go straight back into pre-season or to go into the start of the new season with no pre-season.

Right now there's a certain amount of overlap. For example Round 15 of the 2014/15 AP season was played the same weekend that the 3rd round of the 6 Nations was played. If you move the international window so that it doesn't conflict with the club window then there is an arithmetic problem.

Look at it this way. Players get around 9 weeks of rest and pre-season in the year so all games must fit into the remaining 43 weeks of the year.

Competition|Required Weeks
Autumn Internationals:|

3

6 Nations:|

5

June Tour:|

3

Regular League Season (12 team league):|

22

European Pools:|

6

League Knock Outs (no QF):|

2

European Knock Outs:|

3

Total

44

And that all assumes absolutely no rest weeks at all, no international camps/prep, no time allowed for travelling between hemispheres etc. It doesn't work. There aren't enough weeks in the year. There is an arithmetic problem.

Adbrowne

molloyjh wrote: »

You're basically advocating cramming 11 tests across 2 hemispheres into 13 weeks while having no prep time ahead of it at all. And then on top of that asking that those internationals playing in all of that to either forego any kind of break/holiday to go straight back into pre-season or to go into the start of the new season with no pre-season.

Right now there's a certain amount of overlap. For example Round 15 of the 2014/15 AP season was played the same weekend that the 3rd round of the 6 Nations was played. If you move the international window so that it doesn't conflict with the club window then there is an arithmetic problem.

Look at it this way. Players get around 9 weeks of rest and pre-season in the year so all games must fit into the remaining 43 weeks of the year.

Competition|Required Weeks
Autumn Internationals:|

3

6 Nations:|

5

June Tour:|

3

Regular League Season (12 team league):|

22

European Pools:|

6

League Knock Outs (no QF):|

2

European Knock Outs:|

3

Total

44

And that all assumes absolutely no rest weeks at all, no international camps/prep, no time allowed for travelling between hemispheres etc. It doesn't work. There aren't enough weeks in the year. There is an arithmetic problem.

Thats what I was thinking too time wise. Rejig the calendar any which way but there is still going to be overlap somewhere.

molloyjh

Adbrowne wrote: »

Thats what I was thinking too time wise. Rejig the calendar any which way but there is still going to be overlap somewhere.

Exactly. There has to be. After all there is overlap now. We don't have a number of phantom weekends that everyone missed before today that aren't already being used for rugby. So there has to be overlap in future unless they reduce the number of games somewhere.

Adbrowne

molloyjh wrote: »

Exactly. There has to be. After all there is overlap now. We don't have a number of phantom weekends that everyone missed before today that aren't already being used for rugby. So there has to be overlap in future unless they reduce the number of games somewhere.

If the internationals were played in 13 weeks [using this years schedule it would go

1 Wales [h]
2 France [a]
3 England [a]
4 Scotland [h]
5 Italy [h]
6 Recovery and travel to SA
7 SA [a]
8 SA [a]
9 SA [a]
10 NZ [Chicago]
11 Canada [h]
12 NZ [h]
13 Aus [h]

Only Heaslip would still be standing up under his own steam after that.

former total

molloyjh wrote: »

So there needs to either be overlap with the club game or a reduction in the number of games in one or the other calendar. Possibly both. Are the Unions or the clubs actually going to agree on a decrease in games in either schedule though? Not a chance.

Well this is it. Everyone has their TV deals, their sponsorship etc predicated on X games per season. Tell Aviva that instead of 7-10 games per year, their stadium is now going to host 5 and see how they like it. Tell Bank of Ireland that their logo is only going to feature in 24 Leinster games instead of 30. Tell... well, you see where I'm going with this.

Even if all the clubs and unions agree to cut their matches, the negotiations don't end there. They're only beginning.

It's a noble idea but pro sport usually only gets bigger. All that TV air time won't fill itself.

irishbucsfan

molloyjh wrote: »

Exactly. There has to be. After all there is overlap now. We don't have a number of phantom weekends that everyone missed before today that aren't already being used for rugby. So there has to be overlap in future unless they reduce the number of games somewhere.

Right, but you're the one who is assuming no overlap.

If they want to keep the AIs and the same number of games there'll be overlap, that's fine. They can also start the season earlier and agree not to include internationals. They can also play midweek games as has been done in France. These people are not devoid of imagination.

irishbucsfan

Adbrowne wrote: »

If the internationals were played in 13 weeks [using this years schedule it would go

1 Wales [h]
2 France [a]
3 England [a]
4 Scotland [h]
5 Italy [h]
6 Recovery and travel to SA
7 SA [a]
8 SA [a]
9 SA [a]
10 NZ [Chicago]
11 Canada [h]
12 NZ [h]
13 Aus [h]

Only Heaslip would still be standing up under his own steam after that.

You're including Ireland's 4 autumn internationals in those 13 weeks when in actuality they wouldn't be there at all.

irishbucsfan

former total wrote: »

Well this is it. Everyone has their TV deals, their sponsorship etc predicated on X games per season. Tell Aviva that instead of 7-10 games per year, their stadium is now going to host 5 and see how they like it. Tell Bank of Ireland that their logo is only going to feature in 24 Leinster games instead of 30. Tell... well, you see where I'm going with this.

Even if all the clubs and unions agree to cut their matches, the negotiations don't end there. They're only beginning.

It's a noble idea but pro sport usually only gets bigger. All that TV air time won't fill itself.

The number of games isn't going to be reduced. Unless the various player's unions become a lot more powerful than they are currently then it suits nobody with any power to reduce the number of games being played.

Adbrowne

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're including Ireland's 4 autumn internationals in those 13 weeks when in actuality they wouldn't be there at all.

You said earlier that ......
"September through April is 35 weeks. May through July is 13 weeks"

Pro 12/AP have 24 rounds, europe has 9. Thats 33 in total. Where are the AI to be played then or are we looking at 6n plus summer tour in a 13 week section alone? That solves nothing

former total

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The number of games isn't going to be reduced. Unless the various player's unions become a lot more powerful than they are currently then it suits nobody with any power to reduce the number of games being played.

If the players get wage cuts as a result, are the unions going to be clamouring for this either?

irishbucsfan

Adbrowne wrote: »

You said earlier that ......
"September through April is 35 weeks. May through July is 13 weeks"

Pro 12/AP have 24 rounds, europe has 9. Thats 33 in total. Where are the AI to be played then or are we looking at 6n plus summer tour in a 13 week section alone? That solves nothing

I don't think they will move the AIs, I think they suit everyone where they are currently and if they moved them up against the summer internationals I think it'd more likely negatively affect their value.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Right, but you're the one who is assuming no overlap.

You really need to read my posts properly. I've said all along that there will have to either be overlap or a reduction in games. And I went on to say that I don't see there being a reduction in games.

You're the one who spoke about scheduling the club game from Sept-April and the internationals games from May-July. Forgive me if I assumed that meant no overlap, but it clearly suggests just that.

I see now you're saying that the November Internationals wouldn't move, and that would probably work, but it'd be interesting to see how it would all fit with the SHs requirements as well.

Winters

One of the benefits of the current fragmented season structure is that where there are overlaps between the international and domestic fixtures is that the club games are not European games, playoff games or competition finals.

How an overlap could be incorporated into the planned global season is going to be one tricky conversation.

Adbrowne

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think they will move the AIs, I think they suit everyone where they are currently and if they moved them up against the summer internationals I think it'd more likely negatively affect their value.

When you said earlier May through July is 13 weeks are you envisaging the 6n and summer tours (8 games) taking place im that gap and then the 33 week regular season (pro12 + europe) as well as the 3/4 AIs taking place in the other 35 week spell you outlined?

So the overlap will be the AIs and regular season pro12 in november?