rugbyunion
Latest News:

Welcome to the Newcastle Falcons Fans Forum

This forum is for all Falcons' fans, and is independent of the both the club and the supporters association. If you have something to say about Newcastle Falcons this is the place to say it. However please keep it clean and non abusive, and respect the other users of this board!

While the editors of this site monitor the board, they are not responsible for the content of the postings. Any concerns, complaints etc... should be emailed to Sportnetwork. If you want to spam, please go elsewhere - any spamming will be deleted.

Next match

Next two matches

Saturday 21st October v Bordeaux-Begles at Stade Chaban-Delmas, 5.30pm (UK time)

Sunday 29th October v Leicester Tigers at Kingston Park, 3.00pm

Last result: Newcastle Falcons 32-27 Dragons


Hogan on Franchising
Falc Dancer (IP Logged)
22 May, 2017 21:08
Interview with Mick about rugby on the north and franchising
A good read
From the rugby paper -

[www.therugbypaper.co.uk]

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Bedlington Lad (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 07:19
He's quite right in my opinion, but I fear the suits lack his ability and far-sightedness

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
steve1888 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 10:01
Agree on moving games , why does the 7s even need to be at Twickenham? You'd have a much better atmosphere at a smaller stadium. Same goes for games v Barbarians , they could switch easily.

They did have England v Argentina at Old Trafford and when I was involved with the supporters club we took a coach load to it and was a great day out.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Garym (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 10:36
So we end up with ring facing by another name and its then down to the highest bidder, so Wasps when its time for their next move, decided to take over Newcastle. Not sure what the answer is, but I don't think franchising is the way to go.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Cantabrian (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 10:48
Completely agree with Mick. Some of my earliest rugby memories were going with my dad to White City Manchester to watch Wilson Whineray's All Blacks play the North and another time in the mud at Otley.
Those days are gone but they created the northern players,fans and rugby stalwarts of the future of the future.

If the RFU administrators are not careful, top level English rugby union won't be played north of Leicester and all internationals will be efeectively the South of England v XXX.

It can be done,look how Connacht has progressed in the far west of Ireland. The suits at HQ need to get a motor home and head north for a while.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Bedlington Lad (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 10:51
Quote:
Cantabrian
Completely agree with Mick. Some of my earliest rugby memories were going with my dad to White City Manchester to watch Wilson Whineray's All Blacks play the North and another time in the mud at Otley.
Those days are gone but they created the northern players,fans and rugby stalwarts of the future of the future.

If the RFU administrators are not careful, top level English rugby union won't be played north of Leicester and all internationals will be efeectively the South of England v XXX.

It can be done,look how Connacht has progressed in the far west of Ireland. The suits at HQ need to get a motor home and head north for a while.
(Sm152)

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
trummy200 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 13:11
That just about sums up how the powers that be think - although on most things anything north of Watford becomes foreign.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Monkey1 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 17:49
Somebody from London who works in London, lives in London, sends his children to school in London (private schools so he has a nationwide choice) and firmly states that anything that is worth anything is in London, accused northerners of being too parochial.

I couldn't be bothered to point out the irony of his comment.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Kwa444 (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 18:22
Very true, Monkey.

I would say on franchising that it all sounds great until the RFU start amalgamizing clubs and Falcons end up in West Hartlepool, Darlington or closer to North Yorkshire.

That is the main issue with it and often gets pointed out.

The other problem is that usually Midlands clubs go apoplectic about the concept....

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
dick g (IP Logged)
23 May, 2017 19:05
Quote:
Garym
So we end up with ring facing by another name and its then down to the highest bidder, so Wasps when its time for their next move, decided to take over Newcastle. Not sure what the answer is, but I don't think franchising is the way to go.

A bit of arguing ad absurdum , I think. If some sort of franchising system was introduced, it could include restrictions on takeovers and ownership. And surely another club would only be interested in taking over a highly profitable concern?Are we ever likely to be such an attractive prospect? In our dreams.

And I know what happened to the original Gateshead Thunder franchise. Such a thing can be quite easily prevented

I have made my points on the advantages of ring-fencing so often that I won't bore people by repeating them for the umpteenth time.

I am ready for the attacks on my credibility.......

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
cumbrian_falcon (IP Logged)
24 May, 2017 13:39
given they messed this up with the womens game and lichfield what would stop them from saying the game will never grow in the north east and offer our spot to Cornwall.

Personally think the best solution is bringing Leeds and Bristol into a 14 team ring fenced league which is reviewed every three years.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Monkey1 (IP Logged)
24 May, 2017 14:18
Quote:
cumbrian_falcon
Personally think the best solution is bringing Leeds and Bristol into a 14 team ring fenced league which is reviewed every three years.

What is the argument for expanding the Premiership to 14 teams? It would make the season longer & split the pot between 14 teams instead of 12. Why not stick with the 12 teams who have comprised the Premiership pretty consistently for a long time? A bit tough on Bristol, but there is already a Premiership standard team just down the road in Bath, and Leeds/Carnegie, whatever they are called don't look anything like able to compete at the top level.

I'm not saying either club should be cast asunder, I would just like to see a sensible justification for adding more teams, and if so why it should be those two?

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Leipziger (IP Logged)
24 May, 2017 18:17
Quote:
cumbrian_falcon
given they messed this up with the womens game and lichfield what would stop them from saying the game will never grow in the north east and offer our spot to Cornwall.
Personally think the best solution is bringing Leeds and Bristol into a 14 team ring fenced league which is reviewed every three years.

On your first point Cumbrian, that would be my worry, especially if Leeds were given a franchise and grew strongly. Don't forget, as Dave Thompson revealed the other year, the powers-that-be already tried to get rid of us once.

On the second point - that would bring about the same thing, and if Leeds and Sale were strong, what's to stop the powers-that-be saying "That's enough for the north" and giving our spot to Cornwall?

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Exiled Falcon (IP Logged)
24 May, 2017 18:22
Agree with a few of the things he said but not too sure about the frightening wages down South. Bearing in mind the cost of property etc down South players need a huge premium on their wages to make it worthwhile. Obviously sme clubs will be cash rich but not in all cases. My worry is basically there aren't enough people in the North who want to pay to watch Union, ours and Sale's attendances say as much and I'm sure Blaydon's match day crowd was beyond pitiful.

Fran Cotton used to bang on about this bang in the day and things are even worse now.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
dick g (IP Logged)
24 May, 2017 18:34
OK. Despite what I said earlier, I can't resist joining in. A 14 or even 16, Premiership could be divided into two Conferences with a system of play-offs and a Grand Final to decide the Premiership title. Add a decent cup tourament and this could maintain the clubs' incomes.

The problem at the moment is the quality gap between the Premiership and Championship and the quality gap within the Championship itself.

I have argued previously that the parachute payment currently given to a relegated Premiership side should become the prize for success in the Championship.

An ambitious and successful Championship side could use the dosh to improve squad and facilities and then apply to join the Premiership. Thus would lead to an organic growth.

I will go away now...........

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
cumbrian_falcon (IP Logged)
25 May, 2017 08:38
Quote:
Monkey1
Quote:
cumbrian_falcon
Personally think the best solution is bringing Leeds and Bristol into a 14 team ring fenced league which is reviewed every three years.

What is the argument for expanding the Premiership to 14 teams? It would make the season longer & split the pot between 14 teams instead of 12. Why not stick with the 12 teams who have comprised the Premiership pretty consistently for a long time? A bit tough on Bristol, but there is already a Premiership standard team just down the road in Bath, and Leeds/Carnegie, whatever they are called don't look anything like able to compete at the top level.

I'm not saying either club should be cast asunder, I would just like to see a sensible justification for adding more teams, and if so why it should be those two?

Personally I would scrap the LV cup which would free up enough weekends for the games.

On the second point I beleive Leeds and Bristol are the only two outside the premiership who hold premiership shares so would get round the legal stuff also probably the only two who would meet the criteria. Could go to 15 teams and bring in cornish pirates then every side would get two rest weekends.

to be honest I have no idea what the best solution is just throwing ideas out there.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Kwa444 (IP Logged)
25 May, 2017 19:29
Yep agreed on franchising and ring fencing.

Of course the AP will be ringfenced at 12 teams the next time we go down..... particularly if it is Bristol who we have swapped with.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
dick g (IP Logged)
26 May, 2017 07:54
Quote:
Kwa444
Yep agreed on franchising and ring fencing.
Of course the AP will be ringfenced at 12 teams the next time we go down..... particularly if it is Bristol who we have swapped with.

We aren't going anywhere but up.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Kwa444 (IP Logged)
26 May, 2017 12:11
I sincerely hope so....

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
SK 88 (IP Logged)
30 May, 2017 21:24
Quote:
"Hogan"
A Rugby Paper survey reveals that in season 2002-3 there were 15 northern clubs in the Premiership and Nationals One and Two, including famous names like Orrell, Waterloo, Manchester and the now defunct Wakefield, with the same number in the south.
However, next season will see just nine northern clubs operating among Englandís top 40 elite, with Old Elthamiansí recent promotion to National One at the expense of Blaydon meaning the number of southern based teams is set to rise to 21.

The Midlands remains unchanged from 2003, when there were ten clubs as now.

Going from 2011 census:

Population of North c. 14m
Population of London & SE c. 23m
Population of Midlands c. 10m
Population of South West c.5m

"The South" has a population of 28m compared to "The North" having 14m. It can't be massively surprising to anyone that the south has, roughly, twice as many clubs when it has, roughly, twice as many people.

Especially when there are 4 feeder leagues into the national leagues and two of them are southern!

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Monkey1 (IP Logged)
31 May, 2017 08:34
You seem to miss the point SK that rugby in The North, whatever that actually means, is in decline compared to other areas.

There are many more factors involved than just a simplistic correlation against population. Take distances between clubs for example. If you simply allocate the number of clubs in proportion to the local population, then a densely populated area will have plenty of clubs within easy travelling distances, but the poor sods in sparsely populated regions will have to travel a hundred miles or more to their 'local' club, and that is clearly nonsense.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
SK 88 (IP Logged)
31 May, 2017 13:25
But if that decline is simply due to being previously over represented and the leagues reverting to the distribution you would expect it is not such a problem. I agree there are many factors that determine what level a club will be at and the location of clubs in any particular group. But population is a fairly important one!

I was under the impression this article, and therefore thread, was about the national leagues (as that was the 40 clubs mentioned in the article) rather than local clubs.

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Yorkie (IP Logged)
01 June, 2017 09:59
If ring fencing had existed in the past/when first called for, we would have different champions this season.

As well as population density as SK88 points out, it is also about competing sports for the public's sporting viewing pennies. In the North West, there's Rugby played with 2 men light. Plus football. In the North East/Yorkshire you have the same 2 strong sports. If you didn't have Newcastle United, Sunderland and Middlesbrough all pretty close together then would you get larger gates?

For me, up to you guys to create more interest in yourselves and Union within, say, 100 mile radius. Agree playing games away from Twickers would be good but the cabbage patch generates so much money (and they do have a large Port budget to fund you know!).



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg

 
Re: Hogan on Franchising
Too far away (IP Logged)
01 June, 2017 10:53
I haven't listened to it yet but Hogan is being interviewed on the Rugby Dungeon podcast, could be a good one to catch.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?