Whither Rugby? - Stadia in this Century
By BrianC
June 9 2004
Visiting supporters to rugby clubs which play their games in traditional soccer stadia are sometimes heard complaining about 'Playing games in a soulless football ground rather than a proper rugby ground.' But is this, perhaps, the inevitable way forward?
June 9 2004
Visiting supporters to rugby clubs which play their games in traditional soccer stadia are sometimes heard complaining about 'Playing games in a soulless football ground rather than a proper rugby ground.' But is this, perhaps, the inevitable way forward?
Traditionally, UK and Irish stadia are owned by the club that built them, and plays in them. This is not the case in most of Europe, where stadia tend to be owned by local municipalities and are leased out to clubs. The best-known example of this in Europe is the Italian city of Milan, where the arch-rivals AC and Inter both play at the same San Siro stadium. Toulouse Rugby think nothing of switching large home games from their home stadium of Sept Derniers to the town’s Soccer Stadium. Both grounds are owned by the municipality.
Given the UK tradition of central and local government being rather 'hands off' when it comes to sporting venues, a similar municipal ownership situation is unlikely to develop here. There seems however to be an emerging trend, where private businesses develop stadia then lease them to sports clubs. The two most obvious examples that spring to mind are the Madejski in Reading and the Kassam in Oxford.
In both these cases the names Madejski and Kassam are inextricably linked with the soccer clubs that are based in those cities and which play at these stadia. However, although the ultimate owner may be the same, the ownerships of the stadia and the clubs are kept totally separate.
If John Madejski were to cut all his links with Reading FC tomorrow, the relationship between club and stadium would remain unchanged. Essentially the Madejski stadium is a successful business in its own right. It has two principal customers, Reading FC and London Irish RFC, plus a number of smaller ones, such as the IRB who most recently hired the stadium for the Parker Pen Challenge Shield final.
The Kassam stadium is attempting to do the same but with less success. Oxford FC are the principal tenants. They pick up the odd European or cup rugby game but their attempts thus far to lure a Zurich Premiership team have failed. The most recent of these was at the tail end of last season when Bristol, had they survived, would probably have moved there.
One further model that is worth considering is that at Headingley, in Leeds. Headingley stadium is the holding company. It has four major revenue streams, rugby (league and union), cricket (test and county), catering and retail. Given the financial constraints it certainly appears that the trend in stadium development and ownership is moving away from small stadia owned and occupied by a single club to models similar to those at Reading, Oxford and Leeds.
The great problem for many clubs in our sport, even the relatively wealthy ones, is that their grounds are too small. Even if they had the funds to develop them fully, their maximum available capacity will simply not allow them to compete with what will, I firmly believe, become a small number of elite clubs.
In the seven year period covered by this research four of the twelve teams have moved grounds. It is my conjecture that a similar number will relocate in the next seven. As I see it, the crunch will come first at Bath. They should have moved at least five years ago. They will shortly be followed by Harlequins. By the end of the current decade Gloucester and Northampton may well have moved as well.
One further observation. It seems to be quite some time since I have heard the term 'Primacy of tenure' mentioned in RFU/EPR edicts. Perhaps they are now coming to realise that whilst it would be a nice thing to ask for, it is increasingly impractical in today’s market.
In the next article of the 'Whither Rugby?’ series we ask if crowd growth will be sustained.
Given the UK tradition of central and local government being rather 'hands off' when it comes to sporting venues, a similar municipal ownership situation is unlikely to develop here. There seems however to be an emerging trend, where private businesses develop stadia then lease them to sports clubs. The two most obvious examples that spring to mind are the Madejski in Reading and the Kassam in Oxford.
In both these cases the names Madejski and Kassam are inextricably linked with the soccer clubs that are based in those cities and which play at these stadia. However, although the ultimate owner may be the same, the ownerships of the stadia and the clubs are kept totally separate.
If John Madejski were to cut all his links with Reading FC tomorrow, the relationship between club and stadium would remain unchanged. Essentially the Madejski stadium is a successful business in its own right. It has two principal customers, Reading FC and London Irish RFC, plus a number of smaller ones, such as the IRB who most recently hired the stadium for the Parker Pen Challenge Shield final.
The Kassam stadium is attempting to do the same but with less success. Oxford FC are the principal tenants. They pick up the odd European or cup rugby game but their attempts thus far to lure a Zurich Premiership team have failed. The most recent of these was at the tail end of last season when Bristol, had they survived, would probably have moved there.
One further model that is worth considering is that at Headingley, in Leeds. Headingley stadium is the holding company. It has four major revenue streams, rugby (league and union), cricket (test and county), catering and retail. Given the financial constraints it certainly appears that the trend in stadium development and ownership is moving away from small stadia owned and occupied by a single club to models similar to those at Reading, Oxford and Leeds.
The great problem for many clubs in our sport, even the relatively wealthy ones, is that their grounds are too small. Even if they had the funds to develop them fully, their maximum available capacity will simply not allow them to compete with what will, I firmly believe, become a small number of elite clubs.
In the seven year period covered by this research four of the twelve teams have moved grounds. It is my conjecture that a similar number will relocate in the next seven. As I see it, the crunch will come first at Bath. They should have moved at least five years ago. They will shortly be followed by Harlequins. By the end of the current decade Gloucester and Northampton may well have moved as well.
One further observation. It seems to be quite some time since I have heard the term 'Primacy of tenure' mentioned in RFU/EPR edicts. Perhaps they are now coming to realise that whilst it would be a nice thing to ask for, it is increasingly impractical in today’s market.
In the next article of the 'Whither Rugby?’ series we ask if crowd growth will be sustained.
Bookmark or share this story with:
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon