Rugby at the olympics. The draw is as follows ....

The Lost Sheep

Marcusm wrote: »

And now we establish the dichotomy, you'd rather have a smaller number of people seeing it but in a convenient place. I'd rather the maximum number of people see it, even if that means they're all in one location.

No I would rather more people in areas all over the country got to see games. Its expensive enough getting up to Dublin for each and every international. Having the odd game in Belfast, Limerick, Cork is great
I would rather we helped expand the game and bringing games across the country helps that. That's what Munster played a pre season game in Waterford this year. That's why Leinster played one in Navan
That's why many countries play their international games across multiple venues - Argentina, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, France...

Marcusm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

No I would rather more people in areas all over the country got to see games. Its expensive enough getting up to Dublin for each and every international. Having the odd game in Belfast, Limerick, Cork is great
I would rather we helped expand the game and bringing games across the country helps that. That's what Munster played a pre season game in Waterford this year. That's why Leinster played one in Navan
That's why many countries play their international games across multiple venues - Argentina, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, France...

There are only 5-6 games a year, very different from the Southern Hemisphere nations. Plus, with the exception of Argentina, none of those country has demographics such as Ireland's where one urban centre contains so much of the population and whose stadia provide double the capacity of the others. New Zealand is the only country with comparable population and size but it is split into two islands necessitating a two centre approach.

The others are much large with less disparity between the size of the population centres. If there were 10 games a year it would make sense to have a game elsewhere but Thomond's capacity at 25kis the largest yet would still have been too small to hold the RWC warm up match against Scotland which I think was the lowest attended Ireland Lansdowne game. I think the IRFU could do more to assist reducing the cost of attending by subsidising mass transport costs, giving clubs a subvention to run a buss for example. However, I cannot agree that it is worthwhile to restrict attendance in the manner you suggest. The Gaelic grounds in Limerick might be an option!

The Lost Sheep

Marcusm wrote: »

There are only 5-6 games a year, very different from the Southern Hemisphere nations. Plus, with the exception of Argentina, none of those country has demographics such as Ireland's where one urban centre contains so much of the population and whose stadia provide double the capacity of the others. New Zealand is the only country with comparable population and size but it is split into two islands necessitating a two centre approach.

The others are much large with less disparity between the size of the population centres. If there were 10 games a year it would make sense to have a game elsewhere but Thomond's capacity at 25kis the largest yet would still have been too small to hold the RWC warm up match against Scotland which I think was the lowest attended Ireland Lansdowne game. I think the IRFU could do more to assist reducing the cost of attending by subsidising mass transport costs, giving clubs a subvention to run a buss for example. However, I cannot agree that it is worthwhile to restrict attendance in the manner you suggest. The Gaelic grounds in Limerick might be an option!

There is only 5-6 games a year but that is the same as any of the Southern Hemisphere sides. 3 home games in rugby championship. 3 in June Internationals and then the extra bledisloe test.
All the countries play games in multiple locations and New Zealand play games in 4/5 venues every year.
Thomond is still an option for games regardless of attendances elsewhere. Its just crazy to have all games in 1 location.

Marcusm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

There is only 5-6 games a year but that is the same as any of the Southern Hemisphere sides. 3 home games in rugby championship. 3 in June Internationals and then the extra bledisloe test.
All the countries play games in multiple locations and New Zealand play games in 4/5 venues every year.
Thomond is still an option for games regardless of attendances elsewhere. Its just crazy to have all games in 1 location.

New Zealand has to play in multiple places because it's two islands. Once you get outside Auckland, the stadiums have very similar capacities. That facilitates multiple locations. Saying that you are happy for others to lose out just because you want to have it in a local stadium is neither logical nor in the best interests of the game. Expanding access is a good idea but restricting capacity would suit only a tiny few. Most of those who would end up going to Thomond for a major game, say against England would be exactly the same as would go to Lansdowne except that it wold be half as many. The hardcore with 10 year tickets and a stranglehold on club tickets would still get first choice. The tickets wouldn't simply be restricted for locals.

You may not be willing to accept it but it'll be easier for a Munsterman to get a ticket in Lansdowne (or better Croke Park) for a big match than it would in Lansdowne.

The naming rights together with the 10 year sales will guarantee this. No one will pay €900 per year for 5 games will be happy to pay it of the games are scattered around.

The Lost Sheep

Marcusm wrote: »

New Zealand has to play in multiple places because it's two islands. Once you get outside Auckland, the stadiums have very similar capacities. That facilitates multiple locations. Saying that you are happy for others to lose out just because you want to have it in a local stadium is neither logical nor in the best interests of the game. Expanding access is a good idea but restricting capacity would suit only a tiny few. Most of those who would end up going to Thomond for a major game, say against England would be exactly the same as would go to Lansdowne except that it wold be half as many. The hardcore with 10 year tickets and a stranglehold on club tickets would still get first choice. The tickets wouldn't simply be restricted for locals.

You may not be willing to accept it but it'll be easier for a Munsterman to get a ticket in Lansdowne (or better Croke Park) for a big match than it would in Lansdowne.

The naming rights together with the 10 year sales will guarantee this. No one will pay €900 per year for 5 games will be happy to pay it of the games are scattered around.

Expanding the game you don't simply play everything in Dublin. Look at Munster and Leinster playing pre season games in Waterford and Navan. Why? Because they want to expand the game in these areas and in their provinces.
I don't even live in Munster. I live, work in Galway.
I want games moved around as its better for the game. I would love to see more games in Belfast.

thomond2006

There is only 5-6 games a year but that is the same as any of the Southern Hemisphere sides. 3 home games in rugby championship. 3 in June Internationals and then the extra bledisloe test.
All the countries play games in multiple locations and New Zealand play games in 4/5 venues every year.
Thomond is still an option for games regardless of attendances elsewhere. Its just crazy to have all games in 1 location.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Expanding the game you don't simply play everything in Dublin. Look at Munster and Leinster playing pre season games in Waterford and Navan. Why? Because they want to expand the game in these areas and in their provinces.
I don't even live in Munster. I live, work in Galway.
I want games moved around as its better for the game. I would love to see more games in Belfast.

Financially I don't think it's justifiable to move internationals when the provinces/union are competing to retain players. With the lack of a Cork-Limerick motorway, Dublin is nearly as accessible to Limerick as Cork is. By all means provinces should be encouraged to move the odd pre-season / B&I game around.

The Lost Sheep

thomond2006 wrote: »

Financially I don't think it's justifiable to move internationals when the provinces/union are competing to retain players. By all means provinces should be encouraged to move the odd pre-season / B&I game around.

But you grow the game by bringing games to more areas. International games are the same or more important than provincial games to help bring people into the sport.
Provinces should be more than encouraged to do so.
Like its a joke that it took until this season for Leinster to play a senior game outside of Dublin. And they should play more A games in Navan, Kilkenny etc

thomond2006

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But you grow the game by bringing games to more areas. International games are the same or more important than provincial games to help bring people into the sport.
Provinces should be more than encouraged to do so.
Like its a joke that it took until this season for Leinster to play a senior game outside of Dublin. And they should play more A games in Navan, Kilkenny etc

You grow the game, but you probably lose money. Money that can be used to retain players. That has to be the priority.

What games, of the 2016-17 calendar, would you move and where?

- Ireland vs New Zealand, Chicago (not really applicable)
- Ireland vs Canada
- Ireland vs New Zealand
- Ireland vs Australia
- Ireland vs England
- Ireland vs France

I agree with you on Leinster. Munster have really led the way on moving games around their province.

molloyjh

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But you grow the game by bringing games to more areas. International games are the same or more important than provincial games to help bring people into the sport.
Provinces should be more than encouraged to do so.
Like its a joke that it took until this season for Leinster to play a senior game outside of Dublin. And they should play more A games in Navan, Kilkenny etc

The problem with moving a game to, say, Thomond though is that while it is handy for people from that area it's very much not handy for anyone else. People travelling from Belfast for example pretty much go via Dublin. It's easier to get from Donegal to Dublin than to Limerick as well.

Dublin, by virtue of being the capital, is the happy medium in terms of travel regardless of everything else. Moving international games around the country might be great for the particular area you're hosting the game in. Unfortunately you'll be hosting it in a smaller venue so less people will get to actually see it. More people will lose out due to location than will gain due to location. And the IRFU will make less money as well. The negatives outweigh the positives.

I get the idea of spreading the game, but the realities of the modern game is that Test rugby is not the place for that.

The Lost Sheep

molloyjh wrote: »

The problem with moving a game to, say, Thomond though is that while it is handy for people from that area it's very much not handy for anyone else. People travelling from Belfast for example pretty much go via Dublin. It's easier to get from Donegal to Dublin than to Limerick as well.

Dublin, by virtue of being the capital, is the happy medium in terms of travel regardless of everything else. Moving international games around the country might be great for the particular area you're hosting the game in. Unfortunately you'll be hosting it in a smaller venue so less people will get to actually see it. More people will lose out due to location than will gain due to location. And the IRFU will make less money as well. The negatives outweigh the positives.

I get the idea of spreading the game, but the realities of the modern game is that Test rugby is not the place for that.

What is then?
You then can make the same argument about moving provincial games etc etc.
Look at the Southern Hemisphere countries and moving games. Moving games can get more people going as they may start with a game if its nearby. If they like the experience they will go again. Its much harder to get someone to go for first time if its significant travel to get to the game

Marcusm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

What is then?
You then can make the same argument about moving provincial games etc etc.
Look at the Southern Hemisphere countries and moving games. Moving games can get more people going as they may start with a game if its nearby. If they like the experience they will go again. Its much harder to get someone to go for first time if its significant travel to get to the game

The monetary issue does not exist for Southern Hemisphere games as generally they have large stadia in each area. Auckland is an outlier in NZ with 50k but as I've said there are geographic issues in each of the SANZAAR counties which we don't have.

I see where you're coming from and while living in London I have attended Loleinster women's matches in Meath. The issue however is that a game in Limerick, Cork or Galway would only be achievable with a GAA sized ground. The provinces have a need to strengthen links o their various locations. The best way for Ireland to increase the number of games around the country is to hOST RWC using the GAA grounds and hope that in future there can be sensible single site development atoned the country. GAA and rugby could very easily ground share and bring benefits to both. Then you could have a 40k seater in Cork, Limerick, Galway/Castlebar to everyone's benefit.