English rugby is leading us back to the light (no, really)

I am not too sure what you are getting at Andy but: - Good point about PE need for revenues trumping what is best for rugby. This is the point, it is not a minority equity position with no control, they wield control because they have legal rights to the revenue. They have no obligations regarding the costs of running the competition. - I think the model is that PE has a % of the revenues that will be earned from the competition. That means that they will have a say over any decision that decreases revenues. If teams are to be cut because they are losing money or gone broke they will need to be replaced or PE will demand compensation - Suddenly occurs to me that if the unions are really desperate PE would love to have a minimum revenue clause that guarantees them a certain return - With Japan I suppose it depends on the circumstances. If they badly wanted to join for rugby reasons maybe they would happy to receive nothing. If they were open to joining and negotiation was required then I guess there is a commercial calculation on the future value they bring to pay them upfront. Then it gets really interesting. The PE agreement may be drawn up so that the PE has a right to bring in new teams if there is a commercial advantage. The question will be whether the other teams have the funds to pony up their share. My guess is they won't and PE will negotiate a bigger % share of future revenues. The other interesting thing is the contracting of the players. They will be contracted and paid for by the unions and clubs from their share of the revenue (after PE share taken). However there will be controls over the selection and non-selection of the best players for the PE competition. Player issues were not a problem in Europe because they are owned by the clubs anyway and the clubs' interests are aligned with PE. Six nations is not an issue either because the nations will pick the best team available. Australia and New Zealand have a better system which means the negotiations will be more complicated and the downside greater. Does anyone trust RA to successfully negotiate such agreements without stuffing up the future of the game. Individuals whose only interest is in today, and how it affects (or promotes) them.

Say what you like, but I love watching English Premiership rugby. Tough footy and its on Fox.

Highlander good piece and I agree, the Premiership has come on leaps and bounds this year. We’re seeing some high scoring games in truly horrid weather. English rugby tho has a number of issues. Grass roots rugby hasn’t seen a minutes action since the first lockdown was announced almost a year ago. The championship more than likely will struggle to kick off on March 6 and no certainty on the 6 nations with Covid infections not dropping quick enough and the vaccine not really reducing the death rates as yet. Rugby has tried to alter the rules for grass roots rugby but there’s a real disdain for playing without scrums and mauls, particularly at club land. RFU without the Twickenham revenue has been decimated losing a 100 odd staff. While the premiership is doing well in uncertain times, English rugby is going through the hardest patch in its history.

That's right JCM. Dane models himself on his hero, the great Sean Fitzpatrick, who used to referee all of his own games.

To be fair, Cooney always takes at least five seconds to check his hair in the mirror, so perhaps refs should allow him greater latitude.

They just don't like the French full stop! :silly:

And that's why the yanks can't sell gridiron: too much resting and too little action!

What's that goose on about anyway??? :laughing:

Similarly, worth remembering that the broadcast deal increased significantly each time they increased the number of teams in SR. In the absence of Covid and the like, I wonder whether the next incarnation would have been a smaller competition if NZ had obligations to PE? I also wonder what it might mean for revenue sharing with teams like Japan, who initially would take money out in the hope that they would eventually put money in...would PE be taking their share of revenues first (i.e of what NZ generated), or after everyone else has taken a share (i.e. what SANZAAR or similar returned)?

Nice article mate and it's certainly a big way forward. Now if we can also sort out the off side in defence, entering from the side and forwards off their feet we'll really see some improvements. Interesting for me is that with all the crystal to change the laws of the game, all that is really needed is for the referees to apply them properly. That's actually quite cool to see

I thought he already was

I must be one of the few people who doesn’t find Rugby boring or want to change it. I love the game because it’s played by all shapes and sizes. I love the power , the speed , mobility and the sheer ability of players to compete and come back from errors throughout the 80 minutes. I like all sides and good play. . Every rule change is quickly countered. . Enforce the off side rules and check before awarding tries or penalties. . American football thrives on slow play and time out. They can handle these our commentators can’t. . Forwards particularly need a rest ; hence the dawdling. . Stop telling and signalling to people about how bad Rugby is. . Be positive. Promote the game for what it is . . Stop trying to be RL or VFL. .

Thanks MZ, yes how remiss of me to overlook La Rochelle. They were fabulous in the Heineken Cup a couple of years ago with rampaging prop Danny Priso and others who were largely unheralded (though they had Victor Vito).

Don't know about the Pro 14 but the Premiership is definitely just a revenue share. This is relevant for the AB deal too; the up front payment was reduced because the clubs insisted on a lower % than the starting point but the clubs wanted more money. The 27% share increases to 45% once a benchmark is reached. It is not a super aggressive benchmark but remember the commercial rationale for the unions and clubs (if there is one) is that PE will somehow increase revenue streams by introducing innovative new ideas or finding content distributors that nobody else could do. Like Amazon and Google, so goes the argument. They have given away a lot of the upside if the vale of rugby increases. PE firms will be just hanging over shoulders, not having to bother with operations, politics etc and certainly not lending expertise and discipline into cost control and efficiency where they are really needed. There will be problems if initiatives are required for the good of the game but reduces revenues or foregoes revenue opportunity. For example, it is expected that PE investment in 6N will preclude FTA which is considered to be the main promotional activity for rugby in the UK.

I could have bored you with a long response on the additional contractual requirements of players. Sadly the ether stole my diatribe. Players definitively should be required to have a referee's certificate and referee a certain number of games per year, probably at school or junior level. I don't know why coaches don't demand it. Maybe because they don't know them either?

I think a lot more work should be done around contractual obligations for players (probably equally applies to any of the professional codes although I have to wonder whether the AFL is different) rather than treating them like fragile china. 1. All players should be required to obtain their refereeing certificate and maintain it throughout their professional career and x years beyond. They need to referee a certain number of games per season, at any level. Some of that is a promotional tool, some a hope that they continue to referee and I continue to wonder why coaches tolerate anything less than 100% comprehension of the rules. 2 Community, charitable and sponsorship obligations. A two edged commitment, necessary for the promotion of the game and meeting its obligations to community and sponsors while also being a great self development and networking opportunity for players. My experience is a proportion of players over deliver because it meets their own values and needs and older players appreciate the opportunities as retirement approaches. The rest depends on all of the circumstances and characteristics of the organisation and its people. 3. An amount should be set aside to pay a player some form of wage in the transition to retirement to train, play, coach, referee or perform some other functional rugby role for the first season post retirement 4. Work, education or vocational training should be compulsory throughout a player's career.

The subject of laws has come up a few times recently with Nick's articles on the ruck and also Mzilikazi's on the scrum. We are all guilty to some extent of claiming rugby's laws are too complex, oddly enough based on the opinions of league types who don't even 100% understand their own. I am assuming life remains the same 50 years on, a small minority of players take their time to understand all of the rules, and then the % diminishes as our playing days recede. Each time I go and look at the rules for a ruck, or a scrum or offside I find them not that hard to follow. Like tax law the coaches are like accountants probing for an advantage by doing something not quite covered by the law and therefore not precisely and unequivocally ruled out by the law. Over time arguments start over a new variation on something not covered by the laws either but has become accepted practice over time. Highlander is right to be hopeful that the Home Nations are now concerned about the direction the game is taking. Roarers have been whinging for years but there cannot be change unless those nations' administrations decide to do something about it. Don't forget the involvement of PE in the Premiership. They are entitled to 27% of the revenues and 45% once they reach a benchmark threshold. Their interests are not supported by dull rugby. A two edged sword though, that is the power they wield. Dull rugby supported by non-compliance with the rules of the game becomes a commercial issue. Administrators must drive this from the top and relentlessly support referees. It is a bit ridiculous to pan a referee for allowing offside play when it takes three subsequent slow motion replays from different angles with a white line drawn across a screen to identify it. Yes, it will be tough for fans for half a season of penalty stoppages but they will support it if there is clear direction on why we are doing it and where we want to go. I see a parallel with the Waratahs resurgence in 2013. I stopped paying to be a Waratahs member when winning ugly morphed into losing ugly. Despite the hype of Cheika's arrival and the publicised pre-season fitness training the first game against the Reds in Brisbane was a festival of players out of position, confusion and dropped ball. I then went to all the home games in 2013 because I could see what the Waratahs were trying to achieve. 2014 might be history but what a year it was. Winning in style.

" I’ve taken to watching Toulouse and Clermont in the Top14." What, not La Rochelle, AC ? Well known Irish lad coaching them now. :happy: " Who knew pundits could sound so much better in French. ????". Oui, oui, comme c'est vrai :happy: