Latest news:

The Unofficial Northampton Saints Supporters' Message Board




Ringfencing (again)
Discussion started by lilyg , 29 July, 2020 16:45
Ringfencing (again)
lilyg 29 July, 2020 16:45
Just saw this on Twitter: Promotion to Gallagher Premiership will cease from 2021-22 season until 2025 at the earliest, under proposals for The English Championship. A "promotion and relegation commission" chaired by an independent QC would decide on promotion thereafter. Story in @theipaper @iPaperSport

Re: Ringfencing (again)
shendy 29 July, 2020 17:23
I assume this is the Ed Griffiths proposal for the Championship - it's been on the Sarries board for the last week.
[www.rugbynetwork.net]

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Chris Hoddle 29 July, 2020 17:26
I wonder what would happen if, say a team was found to have broken some rule and were deducted points thus relegated. Would it mean that a team could not be relegated for braking the rules?



http://chrishoddle.smugmug.com/photos/i-TsCHdzK/0/M/i-TsCHdzK-M.gif

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Longers 29 July, 2020 18:11
I shall lose what little interest remains, if this is pushed through.

I am wholly against it, for no better reason than its negative impact on those clubs such as Bedford, Coventry and maybe Ealing (?) .

And anyway, given his history how on earth can anything he says be viewed in any positive light. He's spoilt goods!

Re: Ringfencing (again)
higgy365 29 July, 2020 18:57
I agree with Longers, fundamentally opposed to ring fencing but I fear it will become inevitable and shall come to pass some day sooner or later.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Tim 29 July, 2020 20:09
I think ring fencing should come in now and allow Saracens to stay in the lower league for 5 years.

Serves them right for devaluing the premiership!

Re: Ringfencing (again)
fleetg 29 July, 2020 22:38
Agree with Longers.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Aberavon Wizard 30 July, 2020 08:46
I have little or no interest in anything that the likes of Griffiths and Wray have to say - damaged goods.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Stopsy 30 July, 2020 08:56
You have to credit the RFU with picking the right consultant to deliver a recommendation of what they want. I'm with Longers, also if the idea is so great, implement now and remove any suspicion of Saracens bias.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Jamie_86 30 July, 2020 09:10
Clearly I'm going against the majority but I'm in favour.

Bedford, Ealing etc. don't have the infrastructure to be promoted anyway... so why does it matter. The proposal is that as soon as a club has developed the infrastructure to compete in the top flight, there will be an objective process to admit them.

It protects the clubs like London irish and Worcester who have been consistently going up and down, which is particularly important in the current financial climate.

I appreciate there are challenges around the competitive nature of games at the bottom end of the table with no relegation but I think there are more benefits than negatives to this move in the short to medium term.

I should add, I think in the long term, we should have relegation... but let's get to a point where there are more than 13 competitive teams before we do that.



Church's Stand - Block 20 - Row Q - Seat 700

Come and say hello!

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ajack 30 July, 2020 09:25
You would think that the fact that the best team in the country for a while now (operating legally) and the only club making a profit (prior to Covid) are the last team to join the premiership for the first time and as such make a very strong case for promotion and relegation.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
tedge 30 July, 2020 09:27
Quote:
Jamie_86
Clearly I'm going against the majority but I'm in favour.
Bedford, Ealing etc. don't have the infrastructure to be promoted anyway... so why does it matter. The proposal is that as soon as a club has developed the infrastructure to compete in the top flight, there will be an objective process to admit them.

It protects the clubs like London irish and Worcester who have been consistently going up and down, which is particularly important in the current financial climate.

I appreciate there are challenges around the competitive nature of games at the bottom end of the table with no relegation but I think there are more benefits than negatives to this move in the short to medium term.

I should add, I think in the long term, we should have relegation... but let's get to a point where there are more than 13 competitive teams before we do that.

+1

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Ted 30 July, 2020 09:35
Iím with you Jamie

The league is pretty much ring fenced anyway and the current setup due to the difference between the premiership leads to a pretty boring championship, more often than not the relegated team is going to win the league and we end up with a few clubs yo-yoing between the leagues.

Why canít it be done for next season? Saracens are part of the 13 teams that are members of the PRL, so assuming they win the league, will take their place with the other 12 teams that are part of that group.

Nobody in the championship other than the relegated team meet the minimum premiership criteria, what happened to the last club that tried to meet the criteria? They are now starting agains an amateur club.

But what about Exeter, that was 10 years ago, things have changed now, the salary cap is double what it was then, other costs have inflated and the number of supporters going to games doesnít cover the costs to all but 2 or 3 clubs

The money issue is going to be even bigger for the next few seasons, take Coventry as an example of a championship club, have a look at how many players they have had to release this season.

Iíd put money on that had Saracens not been relegated this season as punishment then it would have been a case of Newcastle coming up and nobody going down.

The money just isnít there at the minute, ring fencing for a few seasons while the clubs get their houses in order makes financial sense, a bit of stability for a few seasons will do the world of good.

Also it opens up the championship and makes a more competitive league as the winner isnít a forgone conclusion, this may help the championship clubs actually grow a supporter base who watch consistently competitive matches

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Stokey 30 July, 2020 09:41
Rather than complete ring fencing, why not just ring-fence the promoted team for a year giving them time to bed in, Settle into the finances and sort a squad able to compete.

Keep promotion and relegation for the remaining teams.

The whole changes to the Championship would be fine if it hadn't come from Griffiths. As mentioned above, this has all the signs of a move to benefit Sarries who are unlikely to have a long term interest in the lower leagues other than for their own self interest.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
plantpot 30 July, 2020 14:59
The other thing that you might of missed from the article is it also talks about scrapping academies, and youngster being at Championships clubs and 6 universities for at least one season and then having a draft to the premiership NFL style

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Brackleysaint 30 July, 2020 18:18
I agree with Jamie's & Ted's comments. I just think it's a waste of time year on year for the club that was relegated the previous season coming straight back up again.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
batty 30 July, 2020 20:59
Having been season ticket holder for about 50 years l will not be paying over £500 a season to watch half if the games being meaningless. I shall pay a third of the price and watch Bedford or just watch local club rugby.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Brackleysaint 30 July, 2020 21:07
I would remain a season ticket holder, at the end of the day it is the elite level of rugby, you don't see many uncompetitive boring games in Super Rugby.
Saints are my team, I will always support them no matter what set up is adopted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30/07/2020 21:09 by Brackleysaint.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Ted 30 July, 2020 21:14
Quote:
batty
Having been season ticket holder for about 50 years l will not be paying over £500 a season to watch half if the games being meaningless. I shall pay a third of the price and watch Bedford or just watch local club rugby.

This season is essentially the same as being ringfenced. Out of all the saints matches, where is the meaningless games?

The only meaningless games will be matches between two clubs that mathematically canít reach the Europe places.

132 matches in a regular season, over the last 3 seasons so 396 matches, would anyone like to take a punt on how many of those were meaningless....

**edited for some of the worst maths ever**



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30/07/2020 21:22 by Saint Ted.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
batty 30 July, 2020 21:38
Explain how it will be.entertaining for the Saints pushing for top 4 playing London Irish 2nd from bottom blooding their youngster and the Saints putting 70- 100 points on them? Is that worth £50 + for the game. Saints can't reduce prices. Can you in all honesty see gates remaining the.same. It is only the.need for the TV money. The sensible thing was to call it a day at round 11 when every team had played each other. I understand why the season has to be played out but every season like this it was better in the amateur times .

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Ted 30 July, 2020 21:47
With the threat of relegation taken away, London Irish rocked up to the gardens this season and won.

Plus you said meaningless games, in your example you say saints pushing for top 4, so not a meaningless game.

It is exceptionally rare that teams in rugby give up, even when not a lot to play for

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Longers 31 July, 2020 08:59
Quote:
Saint Ted
With the threat of relegation taken away, London Irish rocked up to the gardens this season and won.
Plus you said meaningless games, in your example you say saints pushing for top 4, so not a meaningless game.

It is exceptionally rare that teams in rugby give up, even when not a lot to play for

OK SaintTed, you can take that view, and that's ok - for you.

But I am more concerned about the clubs in the lower reaches. National 1/2 or whatever they call it at the time. Coventry are trying to rebuild. Not sure what Bedford are actually trying to do. Ealing have stated their intentions. How do they break into the cartel?

Who the hell is Griffiths to propose we take that ambition away? He is a cheat.

It isn't about "meaningless" games. They are very few and far between. It is all about ambition.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Jamie_86 31 July, 2020 09:26
Quote:
Longers
Quote:
Saint Ted
With the threat of relegation taken away, London Irish rocked up to the gardens this season and won.
Plus you said meaningless games, in your example you say saints pushing for top 4, so not a meaningless game.

It is exceptionally rare that teams in rugby give up, even when not a lot to play for

OK SaintTed, you can take that view, and that's ok - for you.

But I am more concerned about the clubs in the lower reaches. National 1/2 or whatever they call it at the time. Coventry are trying to rebuild. Not sure what Bedford are actually trying to do. Ealing have stated their intentions. How do they break into the cartel?

Who the hell is Griffiths to propose we take that ambition away? He is a cheat.

It isn't about "meaningless" games. They are very few and far between. It is all about ambition.

They "break in" by sustainably building up their infrastructure to a point where they are admitted to the top flight which is what they would have to do anyway. Even if Ealing somehow managed to beat Saracens to top spot next year they wouldn't get promoted if they want to play at Vallis Way. Same for Bedford or any other team in the Championship, noone else currently has the infrastructure.



Church's Stand - Block 20 - Row Q - Seat 700

Come and say hello!

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Ted 31 July, 2020 09:58
Exactly what Jamie has said, all the championship clubs have voted on this if you read up on it.

The minimum criteria for the prem pretty much stops anyone outside of the 13 from joining them.

The new proposals allow the clubs to try and recover from the current financial situation, donít forget the rfu has massively cut funding, even before Covid happened, I think most if not all will be semi-pro while the clubs rebuild.

When a team is consistently showing they will be able to compete in the prem and meets the criteria, the discussion will be had to allow them up.

The current situation is essentially playing for who can come second, whatís the point? New system provides for a competitive league and the chance for promotion when a team is ready and stable enough for them not to have a year in the top flight, which for most of those clubs will cripple them financially and could cause them to go out of business.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
tedge 31 July, 2020 10:16
Quote:
Saint Ted
Exactly what Jamie has said, all the championship clubs have voted on this if you read up on it.
The minimum criteria for the prem pretty much stops anyone outside of the 13 from joining them.

The new proposals allow the clubs to try and recover from the current financial situation, donít forget the rfu has massively cut funding, even before Covid happened, I think most if not all will be semi-pro while the clubs rebuild.

When a team is consistently showing they will be able to compete in the prem and meets the criteria, the discussion will be had to allow them up.

The current situation is essentially playing for who can come second, whatís the point? New system provides for a competitive league and the chance for promotion when a team is ready and stable enough for them not to have a year in the top flight, which for most of those clubs will cripple them financially and could cause them to go out of business.

+1 -

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ancient mariner 31 July, 2020 10:25
If there is no ring-fencing is anyone betting on Saracens not coming back next year, after their time in the Championship?

Next year a Club will go down, and even if it doesn't win the Championship it will be promoted back again, as none of the other Championship Clubs are qualified to Premiership standards.

This will happen until one of the Championship Clubs has adequate facilities and a decent crowd to sustain it in the Premiership. Apart from Ealing's ambition, has it the wherewithal to achieve this in, say, less than 5 years? Are any other Championship Clubs either interested in or capable of being promoted to the Premiership? Demotion for the time being, at least, is just a year on the naughty step for whichever Club comes bottom, as they will surely return the following year - a year in which they will lose a great deal of revenue, which in the current circumstances could be a terminal condition. A pretty pointless merry-go-round in my opinion.

At least the proposal has the option of recognising the point when there is another genuine, qualified, Championship contender for the Premiership, and ring-fencing can be removed. On this basis it is totally fair to the current Championship Clubs. Just because it is a suggestion from a very unpopular to many individual is also no logical reason for not considering it as valid.

I agree with those that say they enjoy rugby, win or lose (although Saints winning is much more enjoyable), and if you are concerned about the lack of excitement because there's no drop awaiting - as someone said above, just list the games in the last few years that were "meaningless". I doubt that any member of the Saints squad of coaches and players would say there was a single worthless game.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Duckonstilts 31 July, 2020 11:28
In my opinion the entry criteria for the Premiership should only be based on results on the pitch. I don't care what you're toilets are like, your community work or number of stewards. I don't care about long term business plans. This is sport.

This level of ring fencing basically stops entry. It would take one club being consistently top but with no reward and another in the prem being consistently bad with relegation only after a number of years.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Jamie_86 31 July, 2020 15:40
Quote:
Duckonstilts
In my opinion the entry criteria for the Premiership should only be based on results on the pitch. I don't care what you're toilets are like, your community work or number of stewards. I don't care about long term business plans. This is sport.
This level of ring fencing basically stops entry. It would take one club being consistently top but with no reward and another in the prem being consistently bad with relegation only after a number of years.

I think the sentiment is admirable but that went away with the amateur era. Yes this is sport but being part of the Premiership is also a commercial proposition with a set of standards and values that everyone should adhere to.

I get where you're coming from and to a certain extent I agree. We just don't live in that world anymore.

I actually also think this proposal protects clubs rather than stifles them. Look what happened to London Welsh when they overstretched themselves to try and compete in the Premiership. They don't exist anymore.

It would be useful to see what objective standards for entry to the Premiership would be so we could scrutinise them but generally speaking, forcing clubs to adhere to a set of criteria which means they can compete and stay solvent seem eminently sensible to me.



Church's Stand - Block 20 - Row Q - Seat 700

Come and say hello!

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Brackleysaint 31 July, 2020 18:05
Quote:
Saint Ted
Exactly what Jamie has said, all the championship clubs have voted on this if you read up on it.
The minimum criteria for the prem pretty much stops anyone outside of the 13 from joining them.

The new proposals allow the clubs to try and recover from the current financial situation, donít forget the rfu has massively cut funding, even before Covid happened, I think most if not all will be semi-pro while the clubs rebuild.

When a team is consistently showing they will be able to compete in the prem and meets the criteria, the discussion will be had to allow them up.

The current situation is essentially playing for who can come second, whatís the point? New system provides for a competitive league and the chance for promotion when a team is ready and stable enough for them not to have a year in the top flight, which for most of those clubs will cripple them financially and could cause them to go out of business.

I for one agree with this.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
shiversaint 01 August, 2020 06:42
The thing I find most bizarre about this, having read the press around how this came about...it seems to almost be a lobbying effort by Mr. Griffiths? And effectively an uninvited proposal?

I do think a solution needs to be found, and ringfencing may well be it, but I certainly do not agree that an individual with a track record like his should have any stake in or serious credibility over the discussion. It will never get implemented in an objective and sensible way if so, let alone coping with the butchering that the RFU old fogeys club will no doubt do.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Ted 01 August, 2020 07:03
He was called in exactly to do this, it wasnít uninvited.

The proposal has the backing of every championship club.

If you changed the name of the author of these proposals to Keith Barwell, Iíd wager that people would be here talking about how good an idea it was.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Aberavon Wizard 01 August, 2020 08:39
I always make a wry smile when I read about Championship clubs stadia not being up to Premiership standards. The bar is set too high by some measure. I believe the minimum capacity is ten thousand but how often do Worcester, Sale, Irish, Newcastle and even Saracens actually get to five figures ? There surely has to be some latitude to a newly promoted club of lesser means so that they do not have to spend what capital they have on facilities rather than on their squad. We know that Bedford are on record as to not wanting to return to the top flight for understandably pragmatic reasons but Ealing, Pirates and Coventry all have loftier ambitions.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Brackleysaint 01 August, 2020 12:34
At the end of the day Premiership Rugby is a franchisor with 13 franchisees. They have built the league what it is now good or bad. It is only fair that if you want to join that you should pay for the privilege. If anyone outside of the current 13 stakeholders who are truly serious about entering the league they must show that commitment by buying a stake, put that as requirement of promotion and let's see who is prepared to do so.
The Griffith proposal has the backing of the RFU because it would remove the need for them to employ community coaches and the overheads that go with them, it looks like RFU are making community staff redundant as we speak.
In turn Premiership Rugby may agree to forgo clubs individual academies as a price worth paying to provide stability for the stakeholders.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ancient mariner 01 August, 2020 12:43
Quote:
Saint Ted
He was called in exactly to do this, it wasnít uninvited.
The proposal has the backing of every championship club.

If you changed the name of the author of these proposals to Keith Barwell, Iíd wager that people would be here talking about how good an idea it was.

+1

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Tim 01 August, 2020 13:05
I am not 100% against ring fencing. I am absolutely against the plan to scrap academies, centralise those early years and then have a draft.

Our sporting culture, and my two professional sports teams are getting back to it which I agree with, is to have a core of local players that bind the club to its supporters. It is also the attitude of Klopp at Liverpool who want to see local lads play for the club.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
shiversaint 01 August, 2020 19:57
Quote:
Saint Ted
He was called in exactly to do this, it wasnít uninvited.
The proposal has the backing of every championship club.

If you changed the name of the author of these proposals to Keith Barwell, Iíd wager that people would be here talking about how good an idea it was.

Interesting, the press doesn't seem to really talk about that bit which is pretty important!

That's good news.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
SaintsDuncan 01 August, 2020 20:54
Isn't part of the promotion criteria that you have to prove you have complied with the premiership cap for the previous two seasons?

Let's ring fence as suggested then...

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Ted 01 August, 2020 23:42
Quote:
shiversaint
Quote:
Saint Ted
He was called in exactly to do this, it wasnít uninvited.
The proposal has the backing of every championship club.

If you changed the name of the author of these proposals to Keith Barwell, Iíd wager that people would be here talking about how good an idea it was.

Interesting, the press doesn't seem to really talk about that bit which is pretty important!

That's good news.

Itís was in the Independent and Telegraph articles, didnít see it anywhere else (I didnít really look anywhere else to be honest)

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Ted 01 August, 2020 23:44
Quote:
SaintsDuncan
Isn't part of the promotion criteria that you have to prove you have complied with the premiership cap for the previous two seasons?
Let's ring fence as suggested then...

Ish, according to the regs they just have to submit to the salary cap manger, doesnít actually say they need to be under. Was a very poorly written reg

Re: Ringfencing (again)
John Tee 02 August, 2020 08:54
Quote:
Longers
I shall lose what little interest remains, if this is pushed through.
I am wholly against it, for no better reason than its negative impact on those clubs such as Bedford, Coventry and maybe Ealing (?) .

.....
plus 1

Re: Ringfencing (again)
SaintsDuncan 02 August, 2020 09:56
Quote:
Saint Ted
Quote:
SaintsDuncan
Isn't part of the promotion criteria that you have to prove you have complied with the premiership cap for the previous two seasons?
Let's ring fence as suggested then...

Ish, according to the regs they just have to submit to the salary cap manger, doesnít actually say they need to be under. Was a very poorly written reg

Really? I'm surprised by that. I thought the reg was there to stop the London Tribe idea

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ancient mariner 03 August, 2020 10:18
[quote Longers]I shall lose what little interest remains, if this is pushed through.

I am wholly against it, for no better reason than its negative impact on those clubs such as Bedford, Coventry and maybe Ealing (?) .

The proposal, I believe, is for a 5 year period and the opportunity for play-offs to take place would then be available. Not sure that Bedford really wants to be in the Premiership again, and while Coventry and Ealing may have ambitions to do so, will they meet the criteria within 5 years?

I would say that this proposal might give aspiring Championship teams the opportunity to plan for their futures more effectively, and in the meantime as I have and others have said earlier, there's really no such thing as a totally, unimportant game in the Premiership as all teams hate to lose.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
tedge 03 August, 2020 10:40
[quote ancient mariner][quote Longers]I shall lose what little interest remains, if this is pushed through.

I am wholly against it, for no better reason than its negative impact on those clubs such as Bedford, Coventry and maybe Ealing (?) .

The proposal, I believe, is for a 5 year period and the opportunity for play-offs to take place would then be available. Not sure that Bedford really wants to be in the Premiership again, and while Coventry and Ealing may have ambitions to do so, will they meet the criteria within 5 years?



I would say that this proposal might give aspiring Championship teams the opportunity to plan for their futures more effectively, and in the meantime as I have and others have said earlier, there's really no such thing as a totally, unimportant game in the Premiership as all teams hate to lose.[/quote]

+1 and by the way but could Coventry really support two Premiership teams ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2020 16:18 by tedge.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
shendy 03 August, 2020 12:51
Don't forget the Pirates in the list of Championship teams who might have Prem aspirations - probably dependent on the stadium, which appears to still be progressing [cornish-pirates.com]

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ancient mariner 03 August, 2020 14:50
Quote:
shendy
Don't forget the Pirates in the list of Championship teams who might have Prem aspirations - probably dependent on the stadium, which appears to still be progressing [cornish-pirates.com]

Good point. I had forgotten the Pirates and they certainly seem to want promotion, but could they be ready in 5 years, stadium ready?

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Maul 04 August, 2020 01:02
Ring-fencing is a great idea if combined with reducing the league to 4-5 teams, central contracts and those clubs revert to RFU ownership. Otherwise it sucks.

Looking at the rugby competitions around the world there is a common thread that the leagues with relegation have good crowds and interest and those without relegation struggle in comparison.

Without relegation, if Saints aren't in the chase for European places or higher then I'll probably switch off until the next season. Where's the interest in watching meaningless games? The product is less exciting and will draw smaller tv audiences which will result in reduced tv revenue. So whilst ring-fencing fixes the risk of a relegated club losing significant money if they do not get promoted straight away from the Championship, it comes at a cost of reduced revenues for to all clubs.

I reckon clubs would be better financially keeping relegation but extending the parachute payment to the relegated club from 1 to 2 years.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Duckonstilts 04 August, 2020 10:00
It is fair to say that there is a huge gulf between those clubs at the bottom of the championship and those at the top. But there is also quite a difference between teams like Newcastle/Worcester and Exeter. I worry that those in the championship are being badly advised here, Or, those who have asperations are too busy looking up at what they could have rather than looking down at the alternative. They already struggle with TV rights, crowds and sponsorship. If they remove the one PRL club a year from the league its possible that the overall package becomes even less interesting to potential investors.

The way we know right now that a team is ready for the step up is that they play better than an existing PRL club, its fairly easy to understand. This proposed change means we have to compare how a club who is playing well in a lower league compares to one playing badly in a higher one. If they need to be good for a number of years but still have no guarantee of promotion? who is going to take that bet?

I know i keep banging on about the same thing but the solution is to embrace the Championship, not kill it.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ancient mariner 04 August, 2020 10:21
Quote:
Saint Maul
Ring-fencing is a great idea if combined with reducing the league to 4-5 teams, central contracts and those clubs revert to RFU ownership. Otherwise it sucks.
Looking at the rugby competitions around the world there is a common thread that the leagues with relegation have good crowds and interest and those without relegation struggle in comparison.

If you are thinking of the Pro14 as an example, I don't think small crowds are anything to do with them being ring-fenced. It's the point made in the first sentence. Who wants to watch a "Midlands Marauders" team playing at the Ricoh or the roundabout, based on players taken from Leicester, Northampton and Wasps, while Franklin's Gardens hosts second second tier teams, which is what happened to the great Welsh and Scottish locally based and supported teams. No wonder the Regions have so little support, if one can't relate to them.

If, on the other hand you look at American Football, which is essentially ring-fenced, they don't seem to have any problem with filling stadia, even though the opposition supporters have to travel thousands of miles sometimes to support there team. Most attending are home supporters for this reason, but there are still sell-out crowds at almost every game, even if there's no chance of making the play-offs.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Duckonstilts 04 August, 2020 11:26
Quote:
ancient mariner
If, on the other hand you look at American Football, which is essentially ring-fenced, they don't seem to have any problem with filling stadia, even though the opposition supporters have to travel thousands of miles sometimes to support there team. Most attending are home supporters for this reason, but there are still sell-out crowds at almost every game, even if there's no chance of making the play-offs.

That is an issue of scale more than anything else. In most cases the size of the cities and the distance between them means you have a much bigger catchment area. You might reduce your supporter base as a percentage of population but if that population increases enough it outweighs this. Also, they dont have the conflicting factor of International Sport to compete with - In the UK, outside of football theres almost as much international sport as there is domestic, and if you only see a couple of live game a year those are a bigger draw. The amount of disposable income is also a factor.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ajack 04 August, 2020 12:20
Quote:
ancient mariner
Quote:
Saint Maul
Ring-fencing is a great idea if combined with reducing the league to 4-5 teams, central contracts and those clubs revert to RFU ownership. Otherwise it sucks.
Looking at the rugby competitions around the world there is a common thread that the leagues with relegation have good crowds and interest and those without relegation struggle in comparison.

If you are thinking of the Pro14 as an example, I don't think small crowds are anything to do with them being ring-fenced. It's the point made in the first sentence. Who wants to watch a "Midlands Marauders" team playing at the Ricoh or the roundabout, based on players taken from Leicester, Northampton and Wasps, while Franklin's Gardens hosts second second tier teams, which is what happened to the great Welsh and Scottish locally based and supported teams. No wonder the Regions have so little support, if one can't relate to them.

If, on the other hand you look at American Football, which is essentially ring-fenced, they don't seem to have any problem with filling stadia, even though the opposition supporters have to travel thousands of miles sometimes to support there team. Most attending are home supporters for this reason, but there are still sell-out crowds at almost every game, even if there's no chance of making the play-offs.

Equally if a franchise in the NFL isn't making enough money they simply move it to somewhere else. Would the Coventry Saints fill a bigger stadium?

Re: Ringfencing (again)
samlee99 04 August, 2020 12:29
Quote:
ajack
Quote:
ancient mariner
Quote:
Saint Maul
Ring-fencing is a great idea if combined with reducing the league to 4-5 teams, central contracts and those clubs revert to RFU ownership. Otherwise it sucks.
Looking at the rugby competitions around the world there is a common thread that the leagues with relegation have good crowds and interest and those without relegation struggle in comparison.

If you are thinking of the Pro14 as an example, I don't think small crowds are anything to do with them being ring-fenced. It's the point made in the first sentence. Who wants to watch a "Midlands Marauders" team playing at the Ricoh or the roundabout, based on players taken from Leicester, Northampton and Wasps, while Franklin's Gardens hosts second second tier teams, which is what happened to the great Welsh and Scottish locally based and supported teams. No wonder the Regions have so little support, if one can't relate to them.

If, on the other hand you look at American Football, which is essentially ring-fenced, they don't seem to have any problem with filling stadia, even though the opposition supporters have to travel thousands of miles sometimes to support there team. Most attending are home supporters for this reason, but there are still sell-out crowds at almost every game, even if there's no chance of making the play-offs.

Equally if a franchise in the NFL isn't making enough money they simply move it to somewhere else. Would the Coventry Saints fill a bigger stadium?

But there's already a franchise playing in Coventry.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ajack 04 August, 2020 12:33
There are also two in NY and used to be two in LA.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
shendy 04 August, 2020 13:02
Franchise moves in the NFL is still pretty rare - an exception, not the norm.
And some of them are because an owner throws their toys out of the pram because a city or state won't build a stadium for them to use - the billionaire owner of the big-bucks team, that is.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ajack 04 August, 2020 15:20
Quote:
shendy
Franchise moves in the NFL is still pretty rare - an exception, not the norm.
And some of them are because an owner throws their toys out of the pram because a city or state won't build a stadium for them to use - the billionaire owner of the big-bucks team, that is.

Twenty times in total from what I can see excluding some early minor merges. Nine times since 1982 so I would think slightly more common than top level rugby teams moving to a different town or city.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Maul 04 August, 2020 15:21
Quote:
ancient mariner
Quote:
Saint Maul
Ring-fencing is a great idea if combined with reducing the league to 4-5 teams, central contracts and those clubs revert to RFU ownership. Otherwise it sucks.
Looking at the rugby competitions around the world there is a common thread that the leagues with relegation have good crowds and interest and those without relegation struggle in comparison.

If you are thinking of the Pro14 as an example, I don't think small crowds are anything to do with them being ring-fenced. It's the point made in the first sentence. Who wants to watch a "Midlands Marauders" team playing at the Ricoh or the roundabout, based on players taken from Leicester, Northampton and Wasps, while Franklin's Gardens hosts second second tier teams, which is what happened to the great Welsh and Scottish locally based and supported teams. No wonder the Regions have so little support, if one can't relate to them

I'm thinking English, French and Japanese leagues attendance is good. Whereas Super Rugby and Top 14 with no relegation attendance is a struggle as a generalisation.

As to team names keep them. Who says they need to change but because the pre-professional era used regional names? Whilst they might be regional in reality it keeps a passionate supporter base.

London - Harlequins - 14k average attendance
South west - Bristol Bears - 15k average
Midlands - Leicester Tigers - 20k average (heresy I know)
North - Sale - 7k average (but recognising the need for a northern regional base)

If these clubs still played in the Heineken Cup there would be plenty of current club fans going to watch. And with only 4 teams instead of 12 squads it becomes affordable.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ancient mariner 04 August, 2020 15:46
My point, St Maul, is that I don't think fencing influences attendance, as much as the lack of a feeling of involvement with a Regional team does.

I am sure that the supporters of the old Welsh Clubs that were, with Cardiff's exception, turned into Dragons and Ospreys mostly hated the idea, and stay away because they are not "their" teams.

I don't remember all that much interest in the amateur days, either, for the East Midlands games, and with the exception of Cornwall who cared who won the competition?

As for team names, I don't think just 'East Midlands" would cut it today, which is why I invented the "Marauders" for merchandising's sake.

Good debate, though, and keeps the mind occupied during the current situation.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Tim 04 August, 2020 15:47
I can't see many going from Saints to the roundabout to watch a Tigers team play.

I certainly wouldn't. I hope Saints would then drop down and I would continue to watch them.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Saint Maul 04 August, 2020 17:14
Quote:
ancient mariner
My point, St Maul, is that I don't think fencing influences attendance, as much as the lack of a feeling of involvement with a Regional team does.
I am sure that the supporters of the old Welsh Clubs that were, with Cardiff's exception, turned into Dragons and Ospreys mostly hated the idea, and stay away because they are not "their" teams.

I don't remember all that much interest in the amateur days, either, for the East Midlands games, and with the exception of Cornwall who cared who won the competition?

As for team names, I don't think just 'East Midlands" would cut it today, which is why I invented the "Marauders" for merchandising's sake.

Good debate, though, and keeps the mind occupied during the current situation.

A good debate like you say. (Sm128)

Time will answer the question on attendance numbers and whether numbers buying BT Sport for the rugby decreases with ring-fencing, given ring-fencing looks increasingly more when than if.

I can only speak for myself when I say I'll lose interest for that season if we a low table, no relegation and nothing to play for. I could foresee fans finding other interests in that space and some choosing not to come back.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
shendy 04 August, 2020 18:43
Quote:
ancient mariner
My point, St Maul, is that I don't think fencing influences attendance, as much as the lack of a feeling of involvement with a Regional team does.
I am sure that the supporters of the old Welsh Clubs that were, with Cardiff's exception, turned into Dragons and Ospreys mostly hated the idea, and stay away because they are not "their" teams.

I don't remember all that much interest in the amateur days, either, for the East Midlands games, and with the exception of Cornwall who cared who won the competition?

As for team names, I don't think just 'East Midlands" would cut it today, which is why I invented the "Marauders" for merchandising's sake.

Good debate, though, and keeps the mind occupied during the current situation.

Scarlets kept their identity as well as Cardiff. Dragons & Ospreys covered Neath/Swansea & Ebbw Vale/Newport - and let's not forget that they also had the long-departed Celtic Warriors (Bridgend/Pontypridd).

There was a time when the divisional competition was quite high profile - including having games against the touring sides.
Cornwall focused on the county championship, a different competition IIRC.

I'm not a great fan of the idea of ring-fencing, but I'd much prefer that to central contracts and regional franchises.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
ancient mariner 05 August, 2020 11:13
Quote:
shendy
Scarlets kept their identity as well as Cardiff. Dragons & Ospreys covered Neath/Swansea & Ebbw Vale/Newport - and let's not forget that they also had the long-departed Celtic Warriors (Bridgend/Pontypridd).

I had forgotten about Scarlets, but weren't Neath/Swansea and Ebbw Vale/Newport a bit like Saints/Leicester, i.e. local rivals for whom the derbies were the highlight of the season? I know how I would feel if a Saints/Tigers franchise was created, and I wonder how the great players in the "Pontypridd Front Row" would have felt about supporting a team called Celtic Warriors, so long gone I had totally forgotten it existed..

The idea of central contracts and regional franchises would be the end of the rugby union I know and love, and I think you are of a similar opinion, shendy. It's just that I am not that bothered by the ring-fencing proposal, with the added review mechanism that can adjust things if there is a qualified aspirant in the wings who would like to join the Premiership. Whether that would be the reintroduction of promotion and relegation, or simply adding another club to the Premiership, spitting into divisions with play-offs, or some other idea - as long as the Clubs remain as they are with solid local support.

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Duckonstilts 05 August, 2020 14:35
If someone came to me and said we would create 2 leagues with 10 teams, all professional with promotion/relegation but then ring fence below that level using some kind of entry criteria with the view to hopefully in 20 years get back to 2 12 team leagues I could get on board. Moving 3 of the current PRL teams down into the next level and only taking the best 7 of those in the championship would make it a much more competitive product. It would allow those teams that spend most of there time at the bottom to suddenly have a better chance of "successful" seasons. We could make up the missing games with a league cup including all 20 so you get to play a few more interesting clubs (perhaps even split that up based on region if keeping costs down smaller teams OR preserving some local derbies was an issue). You then go back to the TV companies selling a bigger product, two sets of league games and a better cup to get more money for everyone.

The biggest failing i see with the proposed scheme (ignoring my dislike for ring fencing in general) is that 13 teams is a bad number... and 14 just adds a whipping boy. If you pick 12 then one team will be very unhappy (if its Saracens though i might just cope ;-) )

Re: Ringfencing (again)
Stopsy 06 August, 2020 13:24
Pontypool front row but your point stands.

I for one would stop supporting Tigers if they are not explicitly against ring fencing, ring fencing is, in my opinion, an anathema to competitive sport and that is what I want to watch.


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?