Aviva Premiership: something exciting happens

[Oldschool]

Matt O'Connor sacked by Leicester.

One wonders if this will be the only head coach, in England, to be sacked given the perilous financial state that most of the clubs are in.

[hugonaut]

Matt O'Connor sacked by Leicester.

Wow. One game into the season. That's a bad look for all involved.

Matt O'Connor is not a bad guy at all, and to give him his due he has had legitimate success at a high level as a coach – a Pro12 title as a head coach with us in 2013-14 and a Premiership title as the senior assistant coach with Leicester in 2012-13 [he was nominally the head coach there, but it always looked like Cockerill was the man in charge]. You have to take those championships into account when you assess him as a coach.

However, I think the last 3-4 years have conclusively shown that he struggles badly as the head of the playing organisation. It seems to me that – whatever about his abilities as an assistant coach, which are difficult to assess without first-hand knowledge – he really struggles to run a team at the top level. In my opinion, a professional head coach's job is to:
1] get wins first, in any manner
[see Cheika in the 2009-10 Magners League, when we topped the regular season log, despite scoring only 27 tries and conceding 29 in 18 games];
2] get optimal performances from your players
[through psychological motivation or technical coaching or both - see Declan Kidney in both his Munster stints, Pat Lam in his 2015-16 season with Connacht, Erasmus in his first season with Munster];
3] build a coherent and effective gameplan
[I'd point to Cheika again in the 2007-08 ML, when he built a team – seemingly in the face of Leinster tradition and expectation – around a dominant front five of Ollie, Birch, Stan, Mal and Leo, all five of whom where voted into the ML dream team, the only time that has happened in the 10 year history of that award]
4] deepen the squad from within by selecting and encouraging young, home-grown players.
[Pat Lam again in Connacht in 2015-16].

There are coaches who manage all of those things: Schmidt, Pivac, Townsend, Lancaster/Cullen in recent years in the ML/Pro12/14.

But not every head coach can win a title. Some guys just don't have the talent in their squad compared to the competition. I'd consider that Cockerill ticked all of the above with Edinburgh last season, despite the fact that they got knocked out of the Pro14 in the first playoff stage. They'd won 6 of 22 games in the league in 2016-17, and he coached them to 15 wins from 21 the following season. That's a phenomenal turnaround, a far bigger swing than Lam oversaw from 2014-15 [10 wins from 22] to 2015-16 [15 wins from 22].

[Peg Leg]

Matt O'Connor sacked by Leicester.

Wow. One game into the season. That's a bad look for all involved.

Matt O'Connor is not a bad guy at all, and to give him his due he has had legitimate success at a high level as a coach – a Pro12 title as a head coach with us in 2013-14 and a Premiership title as the senior assistant coach with Leicester in 2012-13 [he was nominally the head coach there, but it always looked like Cockerill was the man in charge]. You have to take those championships into account when you assess him as a coach.

However, I think the last 3-4 years have conclusively shown that he struggles badly as the head of the playing organisation. It seems to me that – whatever about his abilities as an assistant coach, which are difficult to assess without first-hand knowledge – he really struggles to run a team at the top level. In my opinion, a professional head coach's job is to:
1] get wins first, in any manner
[see Cheika in the 2009-10 Magners League, when we topped the regular season log, despite scoring only 27 tries and conceding 29 in 18 games];
2] get optimal performances from your players
[through psychological motivation or technical coaching or both - see Declan Kidney in both his Munster stints, Pat Lam in his 2015-16 season with Connacht, Erasmus in his first season with Munster];
3] build a coherent and effective gameplan
[I'd point to Cheika again in the 2007-08 ML, when he built a team – seemingly in the face of Leinster tradition and expectation – around a dominant front five of Ollie, Birch, Stan, Mal and Leo, all five of whom where voted into the ML dream team, the only time that has happened in the 10 year history of that award]
4] deepen the squad from within by selecting and encouraging young, home-grown players.
[Pat Lam again in Connacht in 2015-16].

There are coaches who manage all of those things: Schmidt, Pivac, Townsend, Lancaster/Cullen in recent years in the ML/Pro12/14.

But not every head coach can win a title. Some guys just don't have the talent in their squad compared to the competition. I'd consider that Cockerill ticked all of the above with Edinburgh last season, despite the fact that they got knocked out of the Pro14 in the first playoff stage. They'd won 6 of 22 games in the league in 2016-17, and he coached them to 15 wins from 21 the following season. That's a phenomenal turnaround, a far bigger swing than Lam oversaw from 2014-15 [10 wins from 22] to 2015-16 [15 wins from 22].

Great post thx

[LeRouxIsPHat]

The whole thing is a joke. I saw Louw was playing for Bath on Friday (so an even faster turnaround) and fell off one tackle very poorly deep in his 22 and just seemed wrecked as he tried to get back and make amends. He would have flown from SA to Argentina a couple of weeks ago and then from Argentina (and the game was in Mendoza so presumably he had to get connecting flights both ways) back to the UK which I would imagine meant he had to fly to London and then on to Bath somehow from there. I'm guessing he's gone to Australia now but whether he has or not that's crazy stuff, he must be in a right state.

Its his (and other players in similar situations) own choice though. They decided they wanted the money European club rugby had to offer, so they can't be surprised that they are expected to play club rugby in Europe by the people that actually pay their wages. Theres nothing stopping them either retiring from international rugby or going home full time to partake of the benefits of their home unions player management.

I wasn't blaming Bath, SA, or Louw, was just saying that the situation in general is ridiculous.

There's been a real lack of long term/joined up thinking when it comes to so many competitions IMO...so if I WAS to blame anyone then I'd probably blame World Rugby. Some things probably shouldn't have happened until the global calendar came into effect, but even when it does I'd imagine there'll be changes after that e.g. A US team entering the Pro14.

[Ruckedtobits]

Matt O'Connor sacked by Leicester.

Wow. One game into the season. That's a bad look for all involved.

Matt O'Connor is not a bad guy at all, and to give him his due he has had legitimate success at a high level as a coach – a Pro12 title as a head coach with us in 2013-14 and a Premiership title as the senior assistant coach with Leicester in 2012-13 [he was nominally the head coach there, but it always looked like Cockerill was the man in charge]. You have to take those championships into account when you assess him as a coach.

However, I think the last 3-4 years have conclusively shown that he struggles badly as the head of the playing organisation. It seems to me that – whatever about his abilities as an assistant coach, which are difficult to assess without first-hand knowledge – he really struggles to run a team at the top level. In my opinion, a professional head coach's job is to:
1] get wins first, in any manner
[see Cheika in the 2009-10 Magners League, when we topped the regular season log, despite scoring only 27 tries and conceding 29 in 18 games];
2] get optimal performances from your players
[through psychological motivation or technical coaching or both - see Declan Kidney in both his Munster stints, Pat Lam in his 2015-16 season with Connacht, Erasmus in his first season with Munster];
3] build a coherent and effective gameplan
[I'd point to Cheika again in the 2007-08 ML, when he built a team – seemingly in the face of Leinster tradition and expectation – around a dominant front five of Ollie, Birch, Stan, Mal and Leo, all five of whom where voted into the ML dream team, the only time that has happened in the 10 year history of that award]
4] deepen the squad from within by selecting and encouraging young, home-grown players.
[Pat Lam again in Connacht in 2015-16].

There are coaches who manage all of those things: Schmidt, Pivac, Townsend, Lancaster/Cullen in recent years in the ML/Pro12/14.

But not every head coach can win a title. Some guys just don't have the talent in their squad compared to the competition. I'd consider that Cockerill ticked all of the above with Edinburgh last season, despite the fact that they got knocked out of the Pro14 in the first playoff stage. They'd won 6 of 22 games in the league in 2016-17, and he coached them to 15 wins from 21 the following season. That's a phenomenal turnaround, a far bigger swing than Lam oversaw from 2014-15 [10 wins from 22] to 2015-16 [15 wins from 22].

Excellent post. Oh for the weeks of regular incisive content from The Demented Mole.

[TrapperChamonix]

The whole thing is a joke. I saw Louw was playing for Bath on Friday (so an even faster turnaround) and fell off one tackle very poorly deep in his 22 and just seemed wrecked as he tried to get back and make amends. He would have flown from SA to Argentina a couple of weeks ago and then from Argentina (and the game was in Mendoza so presumably he had to get connecting flights both ways) back to the UK which I would imagine meant he had to fly to London and then on to Bath somehow from there. I'm guessing he's gone to Australia now but whether he has or not that's crazy stuff, he must be in a right state.

Its his (and other players in similar situations) own choice though. They decided they wanted the money European club rugby had to offer, so they can't be surprised that they are expected to play club rugby in Europe by the people that actually pay their wages. Theres nothing stopping them either retiring from international rugby or going home full time to partake of the benefits of their home unions player management.

I wasn't blaming Bath, SA, or Louw, was just saying that the situation in general is ridiculous.

There's been a real lack of long term/joined up thinking when it comes to so many competitions IMO...so if I WAS to blame anyone then I'd probably blame World Rugby. Some things probably shouldn't have happened until the global calendar came into effect, but even when it does I'd imagine there'll be changes after that e.g. A US team entering the Pro14.

If there is a break in The championship (or 6 Nations or what ever tournament) designed to afford the players time to recuperate then that's what they should be allowed to do. Players have a right to represent their countries irrespective of what the EPL thinks and irrespective of what they are being paid. The clubs know this when then sign them. Making them come back and play in those off weeks is WRONG. It increases their risk of injury both in the week they play for their club and certainly it increases their risk of injury when returning to play for their country (against more rested players). I'd be fascinated to know if these were coaching decisions or whether the coaches were instructed to play them. If it was the coaches, then shame on them for not looking out for their players best interest.
I'm delighted that The Tigers lost (I take no pleasure in Matt O'Connor loosing his job) and indeed Bath.

[offshorerules]

Should the name of this thread be changed? Now that would be exiting!

[blockhead]

Austin Healey
‏Verified account @IamAustinHealey
Stuart Lancaster for Tigers?

Tomas McGarvey
‏ @RugbyBarrister

Are you mad? Leave Leinster?

Austin Healey
‏Verified account @IamAustinHealey
Replying to @RugbyBarrister

Why not it’s a bigger club and a great challenge

[LeRouxIsPHat]

If there is a break in The championship (or 6 Nations or what ever tournament) designed to afford the players time to recuperate then that's what they should be allowed to do. Players have a right to represent their countries irrespective of what the EPL thinks and irrespective of what they are being paid. The clubs know this when then sign them. Making them come back and play in those off weeks is WRONG. It increases their risk of injury both in the week they play for their club and certainly it increases their risk of injury when returning to play for their country (against more rested players). I'd be fascinated to know if these were coaching decisions or whether the coaches were instructed to play them. If it was the coaches, then shame on them for not looking out for their players best interest.
I'm delighted that The Tigers lost (I take no pleasure in Matt O'Connor loosing his job) and indeed Bath.

I may be wrong but I don't think the idea that these guys would be able to play for their countries was flagged before they all signed. Certainly Toomua didn't fit with the Giteau rule so it looked like he'd ended his international career.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I'm surprised there's not more noise about Crowley when jobs like that come up. Clearly a very good coach and seems like a good guy, would love to have seen him go to Connacht or Ulster over the summer. Not sure what his contract situation is and he's no spring chicken, but he'd be very high on my wish list no matter which club I was running.

[Ruckedtobits]

I'm surprised there's not more noise about Crowley when jobs like that come up. Clearly a very good coach and seems like a good guy, would love to have seen him go to Connacht or Ulster over the summer. Not sure what his contract situation is and he's no spring chicken, but he'd be very high on my wish list no matter which club I was running.

+1.

Did a great job in Canada and continuing on in Treviso. A real Coach with a good personality. Develops a good, pragmatic Game Plan and then works on Academy players and younger guys to enable future development. Ideal appointment for top Italian team and great for their National Team.

He and Bradley are astute appointments and both have Italians sprinkled through their Coaching Squads. However, not convinced that either would have the top-end coaching expertise to bring home a trophy. There's a big gap between being competitive and winning.

[TerenureJim]

Austin Healey
‏Verified account @IamAustinHealey
Stuart Lancaster for Tigers?

Tomas McGarvey
‏ @RugbyBarrister

Are you mad? Leave Leinster?

Austin Healey
‏Verified account @IamAustinHealey
Replying to @RugbyBarrister

Why not it’s a bigger club and a great challenge

By what metric is it a bigger club? I mean I guess on one level it is a club as opposed to a province so if you don't count Leinster as a club then is it bigger by default?

Also if you consider Healy's ego into the equation then yep it is bigger.

[blockhead]

Premiership Rugby in £275m takeover talks after CVC approach

By Chris Jones

BBC Radio 5 live rugby union reporter

Premiership Rugby owners will hold a board meeting next week to discuss a potential £275m takeover of the league.

The deal, first revealed by The Times, would be the biggest of its kind in club rugby history.

The approach has come from former F1 owners CVC Capital Partners, which is looking for a 51% share.

The prospective deal would mean a windfall for the 12 Premiership clubs, many of whom have endured severe financial losses recently.

Worcester Warriors lost £8m and Harlequins £6m in the past accounting year, while only Exeter Chiefs made a profit.

However, there are concerns that a deal of this kind could drive a further wedge between the club game and the Rugby Football Union.

Financial equity firm CVC would also be unwilling to make such a play without seeing a sizeable return for its investment.

It is understood the clubs have long sought a means to raise extra capital in order to take the league to the next level.

But CVC's valuation of the league at about £550m falls short of the clubs' expectations.

Club sources have also indicated the approach is one of a handful of options, with nothing imminent at this stage.

"Financial sustainability is one of things we focus on continually," Premiership Rugby chief executive Mark McCaffery said in May.

This could be bad news for the Pro14.

[rooster]

Premiership Rugby in £275m takeover talks after CVC approach

By Chris Jones

BBC Radio 5 live rugby union reporter

Premiership Rugby owners will hold a board meeting next week to discuss a potential £275m takeover of the league.

The deal, first revealed by The Times, would be the biggest of its kind in club rugby history.

The approach has come from former F1 owners CVC Capital Partners, which is looking for a 51% share.

The prospective deal would mean a windfall for the 12 Premiership clubs, many of whom have endured severe financial losses recently.

Worcester Warriors lost £8m and Harlequins £6m in the past accounting year, while only Exeter Chiefs made a profit.

However, there are concerns that a deal of this kind could drive a further wedge between the club game and the Rugby Football Union.

Financial equity firm CVC would also be unwilling to make such a play without seeing a sizeable return for its investment.

It is understood the clubs have long sought a means to raise extra capital in order to take the league to the next level.

But CVC's valuation of the league at about £550m falls short of the clubs' expectations.

Club sources have also indicated the approach is one of a handful of options, with nothing imminent at this stage.

"Financial sustainability is one of things we focus on continually," Premiership Rugby chief executive Mark McCaffery said in May.

This could be bad news for the Pro14.

Would depend on how much they pay per year, a one off payment wouldn't even clear some of the club debts

[Dave Cahill]

And each club would be selling 51% of their stake in the premiership - its actually a pretty poor deal for the clubs because once thats gone, its gone - so they'll be losing 51% of any future income on television deals etc and when CVC sell on, which is their MO, they won't get anything from that sale either.

Owen Slot in the London Times has a good piece on it

[TrapperChamonix]

I may be wrong but I don't think the idea that these guys would be able to play for their countries was flagged before they all signed. Certainly Toomua didn't fit with the Giteau rule so it looked like he'd ended his international career.

You are correct regarding Toomua, but Polotta-Noa does fit with the Giteau rule and Lowe has being playing for SA for some time while at Bath. AFAIK (I'm open to correction) you are not allowed to make contract stipulations that players don't play for their countries. I think this was mainly aimed at protecting the Fijian and Samoan players but maybe I'm way off here.

[tomthefan]

If the clubs remain independent entities then the £275 million is for 51% of ..what?

And each club would be selling 51% of their stake in the premiership - its actually a pretty poor deal for the clubs because once thats gone, its gone - so they'll be losing 51% of any future income on television deals etc and when CVC sell on, which is their MO, they won't get anything from that sale either.

couldn't the clubs just set up a new league, the same way the english first division clubs did way back?

[Ruckedtobits]

I may be wrong but I don't think the idea that these guys would be able to play for their countries was flagged before they all signed. Certainly Toomua didn't fit with the Giteau rule so it looked like he'd ended his international career.

You are correct regarding Toomua, but Polotta-Noa does fit with the Giteau rule and Lowe has being playing for SA for some time while at Bath. AFAIK (I'm open to correction) you are not allowed to make contract stipulations that players don't play for their countries. I think this was mainly aimed at protecting the Fijian and Samoan players but maybe I'm way off here.

You're absolutely correct, within the formal World Rugby "windows" which include The Championship. Contracts which include release clauses from International rugby availability are illegal, unless accompanied by an Appendix which specifies that the player has formally retired from International rugby.

[Dave Cahill]

couldn't the clubs just set up a new league, the same way the english first division clubs did way back?

In a way, thats what has already happened.

In England, the FA are the games governing body and administer the sport from the England team all the way down to your local pub team, but the professional club game was run by the Football League. The old first division clubs felt that they were being held back commercially by this system as the professional club game was run in such a way that Aldershot, for example, had the same amount of say as Liverpool or Leeds. So they 'broke away' from the Football League and set up a new competition under the auspices of the FA - the games governing body. The structure of professional club football didn't change at all - 4 divisions, promotion and relegation etc, but the new Premier League was unshackled in terms of finance and administration from, and independent of, the rest of the professional game.

In English rugby, the RFU run the game and the professional club game. The top level of the game is already under the auspices of the games governing body and already have, in the form of PRL, their own 'management' company. There isn't actually anywhere for them to breakaway to without actually leaving the RFU entirely which would mean that they wouldn't have access to the game in the rest of the country or the world and they would, in essence, have to create a new sport like the Northern Union had to.

If the clubs remain independent entities then the £275 million is for 51% of ..what?

A good question! It's basically taking a once off up front payment for their television deal and whatever centralised revenue the premiership generates. Its not a lot of money for this and as "homestore and more" would say, once its gone, its gone. If CVC decide to sell on, as they did with F1, the clubs will get nothing out of it and won't have much of a say.

[Grumpy Old Man]

And each club would be selling 51% of their stake in the premiership - its actually a pretty poor deal for the clubs because once thats gone, its gone - so they'll be losing 51% of any future income on television deals etc and when CVC sell on, which is their MO, they won't get anything from that sale either.

Owen Slot in the London Times has a good piece on it

The Premiership is in talks over whether to agree a game-changing, historic deal for rugby by selling controlling ownership of the league to a private equity firm for about £275 million.

The deal is regarded by insiders as potentially the biggest step-change in club rugby since the game went professional 23 years ago, and is being compared to when football’s Premier League was formed in 1992.

The executive committee of Premier Rugby Ltd (PRL) has been in negotiations for about a year with CVC Capital Partners, the private equity company based in Luxembourg which made about £8 billion from its decade-long ownership of Formula One.

PRL is owned by 13 member clubs: the 12 sides in the Premiership and London Irish. The 13 club owners will have a special meeting on Tuesday when the executive committee will present the deal with CVC.

It is unlikely that a deal will be agreed and signed immediately but the meeting could give the green light for the completion of the deal. Club sources indicated yesterday that their valuation of the Premiership is higher than CVC’s offer. It is understood that, if the CVC deal is not approved, PRL has other equivalent investment to consider from outside of private equity.


The RFU cannot stop the deal and thus prevent a new, outside influence from becoming one of the key stakeholders in English rugby. The RFU can veto new owners of the individual clubs, although it has no right of veto to ownership of its league.

The concern for English rugby is whether CVC will flex its muscle regarding its key assets. There is already a contest between club and country for control and ownership of the England players. If the deal with CVC were to go through, it would only be in the following years that any disagreement over how much time the players would be released for British & Irish Lions tours, for instance, or extra England camps, would be apparent.

It is understood that CVC would want to be a quiet partner within the game. However, it will be ruthless on commercial rights. It should be expected that it would drive a harder bargain with the RFU over the cost of player release for international windows.

The clubs have struggled in recent seasons to make the business of rugby work; collectively they lose about £30 million a year, on average £2.3 million each. It is hard to see many of them rejecting a windfall that would deliver about £17 million overnight to every club. The clubs could wipe out almost all of their debt. They see the deal as an opportunity to invest by building new stands and facilities.

Recent tranches of income received by the clubs, mainly from the sales of television rights, have gone largely to the players, which served to inflate player wages. However, there is an understanding among the PRL owners that the CVC money would not go the same way; the deal will not instigate another sharp rise of the salary cap.

The majority of the clubs are understood to be in favour of the deal. The significant opponent is believed to be Bath, who are controlled by the most influential of the owners, Bruce Craig.

CVC, it is understood, regards the Premiership to have been severely undercommercialised in the past decade. CVC’s model with F1 was based largely on selling TV rights globally. This is a pool in which PRL has only dipped its toes. CVC shares a strong relationship with Sky, the broadcaster of F1, who is likely to return to the negotiating table for TV rights of club rugby.

There will be concern, too, for CVC’s exit strategy. It will only be interested in leaving with a large return on its investment, as it did with F1 in January last year. Another potential problem for the clubs is that when CVC sells on its 51 per cent controlling stake, they could find themselves under any ownership. The Times understands that the fine-tuning of the terms for exit from the deal have yet to be completed, though first rights may go to the 13 clubs.

The deal could provide a significant windfall for English rugby, but there is huge potential for an escalation of the antipathy between clubs and the RFU.

Sports’ domestic TV rights:

Premiership Rugby (BT Sport) - £45 million per year
Premier League football (Sky, BT Sport, Amazon) - £1.5 billion per year
English cricket including internationals (Sky, BBC) - £220 million per year
Super League rugby league (Sky) - £40 million per year
NFL American football US TV rights - £5.5billion per year