General Rugby Discussion

Clearlier wrote: »

Don't Leinster charter their own planes too? I don't know what the rate is for that but 25k travelling costs seems optimistic.

Say 35 people, a night in a hotel. 12.5k per trip seems about right, thats 360eu pp, fixtures are organised in advance. I dont see how it could be dearer than that, even if it is, say 400eu pp, bringing it up to 14k a trip, its still not prohibitive, I mean, what are we paying Kirchner lol.

Clearlier wrote: »

I'd be surprised if they stayed overnight unless it was a late night fixture. A hotel stay would add considerably to the cost.

FWIW I don't see that the cost of trips to Italy would be enormously greater than trips to Wales or Scotland. At the very most an extra 10k to reflect the extra flying costs and a hotel stay. My guess is that it's much less than that though. Certainly I see the pro 12 as milking the Italians and I don't think that it's good for the sport.

I think they certainly were milking the Italians, without a shadow of a doubt, and I'd imagine they still are to a lesser extent now that the payment amount has been cut in half.

However there is absolutely a large cost to the Celtic nations for including the Italian teams and trying to calculate the cost of a trip to Italy is pretty naive, the cost of including the Italians in the league extends far beyond the logistics of sending a group of player to Italy.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think they certainly were milking the Italians, without a shadow of a doubt, and I'd imagine they still are to a lesser extent now that the payment amount has been cut in half.

However there is absolutely a large cost to the Celtic nations for including the Italian teams and trying to calculate the cost of a trip to Italy is pretty naive, the cost of including the Italians in the league extends far beyond the logistics of sending a group of player to Italy.

FWIW I was comparing the cost of playing an Italian team compared to playing another Welsh or Scottish team. I'd be surprised if TV revenues were much different and I guess for home fixtures you'd get a smaller crowd and you could argue the toss on that one in the form of lost revenue but fundamentally I don't see that the cost of including Italian teams is much greater than more Welsh/Scottish sides would or am I missing something?

not sure if this is the right place - anyway - getting a coffee yesterday , did a second take and it was Johnny Sexton - didn't realise he's so big , met a few of the other leinster backs , and thought they were quite small (including BOD) - wished him well for WC - sound guy, enjoying life back in Dublin.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well first the Welsh/Scottish teams are actually able to produce TV deals of their own, so they pay their own way, and they are also competitive which adds to the value of the league. The Italian teams do neither of those things.

However in terms of costs it's not about comparing an Italian team with a Welsh/Scottish team. It's about comparing an 18 game season with a 22 game season. Those extra 4 games don't add a huge amount of value but the cost of staging any of the games is pretty linear. The extra cost of insurance, the extra staff costs, especially the added costs of larger squads needed to handle attrition. That is where the extra cost is coming from that needs to be covered. (I'm not saying that cost is 1.5m btw, however I wouldn't be surprised if it was close).

You're making a mistake IMO in thinking that the issue is a 22 game season verus an 18 game one. That's what was the case after the Celtic league moved from 2 groups to 1 overall league. The two Italian teams were essentially delayed replacements for the Border Reivers and Celtic Warriors.

As for revenues - are attendances really that much down for matches against Italian teams? Official figures (grab a pinch of salt obviously) suggest that they're not dragging down the averages by very much at all. I don't think that the TV deal is here or there given that AFAIK the Italians don't take a share (open to correction).

From a competitiveness point of view there's no doubt that Zebre/Aironi have been particularly uncompetitive but Treviso have finished as high as 7th and it's only 5 years since they finished just ahead of Glasgow who are the current champions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that if the Pro 12 stopped charging them to play in the league that they might be able to put that money to use in a way which would make them a little more competitive.

There's a huge potential market in Italy. We should be looking to help build the market.

Clearlier wrote: »

You're making a mistake IMO in thinking that the issue is a 22 game season verus an 18 game one. That's what was the case after the Celtic league moved from 2 groups to 1 overall league. The two Italian teams were essentially delayed replacements for the Border Reivers and Celtic Warriors.

Those teams are ENTIRELY irrelevant and you've really ignored my main point which is what the costs are. Increased costs from playing those extra games.

It's very simple. The league was a 10 team league with a certain value to the participants. The Italians joined and the costs were increased. The payment was what they agreed to make up for that. Was the payment fair? I don't think it was. But they did agree to it. It completely blows a hole in the side of arguments made by some people about the Pro 12 helping Italian teams, but apart from that it was a voluntary transaction.

As for "we" should be helping to increase the market in Italy. We in this case are private clubs, so absolutely not. We shouldn't be forcing clubs to do that if they don't make the choice to do so on their own, the Italians get plenty of money from the 6 Nations and from World Rugby, it's not the job of Edinburgh or Ospreys to subsidise Treviso, especially given the dodgy stories coming out of Italian rugby the past few years. If they removed this fee it wouldnt help Trevsio/Zebre anyway.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Those teams are ENTIRELY irrelevant and you've really ignored my main point which is what the costs are. Increased costs from playing those extra games.

It's very simple. The league was a 10 team league with a certain value to the participants. The Italians joined and the costs were increased. The payment was what they agreed to make up for that. Was the payment fair? I don't think it was. But they did agree to it. It completely blows a hole in the side of arguments made by some people about the Pro 12 helping Italian teams, but apart from that it was a voluntary transaction.

As for "we" should be helping to increase the market in Italy. We in this case are private clubs, so absolutely not. We shouldn't be forcing clubs to do that if they don't make the choice to do so on their own, the Italians get plenty of money from the 6 Nations and from World Rugby, it's not the job of Edinburgh or Ospreys to subsidise Treviso, especially given the dodgy stories coming out of Italian rugby the past few years. If they removed this fee it wouldnt help Trevsio/Zebre anyway.

If you just want to look at costs rather than the overall financial picture that's fine but that wasn't clear to me and isn't an interesting discussion IMO.

Of course there are extra costs involved in playing the two Italian teams compared to not playing them. I thought that I acknowledged that but perhaps I could have been clearer. There are also extra costs involved in playing the Scottish teams compared to not playing them too.

You mentioned TV money and the Italians not paying their way so I thought when looking at costs you were looking at it compared to revenues as well hence why I brought the warriors and reivers into it. Without their demise the Italians would not have been invited in. 12 teams was viewed as the ideal number and part of the decision making around the (re)construction of the regions and districts in Wales and Scotland. That's why the Warriors and Reivers are relevant to any discussion about the financials of including two Italian teams in the league.

We agree on the payment details I think. It is a choice by FIR - it's not particularly fair.

As was clear in the ERC megathread we're probably always going to disagree on the role of the clubs with the sport of rugby however in the case of the Pro 12 unless I'm mistaken it is still run by the unions so when I was implying that one of the goals it should have is to promote the sport I was thinking unions rather than individual clubs.

That's a mighty backline. Hopefully the pack can provide them with good ball.

I expect Leone Nakarawa to have a mighty RWC. Fair play to Glasgow for managing to get him for another two years.

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No tens or front row of note in that fiji squad.

Matavesi was a good signing for Ospreys last year, but he played at 12.

bilston wrote: »

Munster look stronger in the backs with Blydenhall hopefully fit and Saili joining. But then they are losing POC which will inevitably hurt them for all sorts of reasons. Actually Munster are losing quite a lot of players when you think about it. (13 according to wikipedia for what it's worth).

Hard to know whether we're stronger this season. Hopefully having TOL will help us, as we collapsed any time we didn't have Murray last year. Still nowhere near his level but hopefully an improvement.

Losing JJ is a big loss but he wasn't utilised properly last year, hopefully Bleyendaal will be good though. Saili is definitely a boost. The loss of POC is absolutely massive, such a massive player, Ryan & Foley are both internationals and good players but not the same class and again depth is starting to be a problem. Even Butler & Dougall leaving leaves us with a little less depth in the back row but our first-choice players are still quite strong.