Pro 14 - General Thread

[Dave Cahill]

If the saffers are joining the Pro12 one would assume they'll be bringing some refs with them too. Does that mean that we'll have to put up with that goober Jaco Peyper as one of the refs?

[artaneboy]

Conference idea is awful. For the multitudes that aren't massive fans, it's too complicated. People just want to know that their team is first or fifth or second last or whatever.

People have no complaints about the champions cup with its 5 groups of 6 teams. This is far easier to understand.

Not to mention I never heard much complaining about the extremely unfair draw for the semi finals in the Heineken cup.

Totally different to a conference system though as a league. The European pool system is more or less knockout rugby from the first match

Ah now, that's just not correct. There's no essential difference in the formats, with the exception that the conference allowed more chance of recovery from a poor start.

I just can't see why there's such opposition to what's a bold move to secure the future of our shaky league.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave Cahill]

Why is it a bold move? Because the only time it's been tried in a multinational league it's failed miserably?

[rooster]

Why is it a bold move? Because the only time it's been tried in a multinational league it's failed miserably?

Correct and the talk of an extra £6 million split in 14 is around 420k then subtract travel costs to SA plus at least 1 home match lost and financially are we actually any better off ?
It's a pretty high risk in my eyes and think they should have stuck with a full league this season at least.

[artaneboy]

Why is it a bold move? Because the only time it's been tried in a multinational league it's failed miserably?

Well if you want to get pedantic- and sometimes we do here, that might be regarded as bold in itself. But more seriously, just because the single other time it has been tried it wasn't successful, doesn't mean that this proposal should go the same way. And more pertinently, the current situation is not likely to be sustainable. We in the Celtic League are 'hind tit' to nearly everyone else. The Welsh can't resist flirting with the Oligarchs in England; the Scots are still shaky and the Italians are not improving at a rate that strengthens the league. It''s really just us in the Irish provinces that are holding it together. That's evidently not sustainable. Changes are needed and eggs- in terms of the format, will have to be broken to make this omelette. Of course it might ease the whining if we knew exactly what was being proposed.

[Dave Cahill]

Or, and this is a mad idea, the Celtic League is actually, money aside, the best league in Europe for, you know, actual rugby thats entertaining and the only real problems are the money and that since it was founded it has had too many format changes.

Stop f%~king around with it and let it develop. The English league is 30 years old this year, with only one significant format change and the Top14 is 125 years old this year. The Celtic League is 16 years old and has had, what 4 or 5, significant changes - how is anything supposed to develop and embed itself with that kind of entropy swirling around it?

A couple of weeks ago a team comprising a whole bunch of Celtic League players (and others developed by the Celtic League) went to the hardest place in the world to play rugby to play the best team in the world and came home with a share of the series. That isn't hind tit stuff

[artaneboy]

Or, and this is a mad idea, the Celtic League is actually, money aside, the best league in Europe for, you know, actual rugby thats entertaining and the only real problems are the money and that since it was founded it has had too many format changes.

Stop f%~king around with it and let it develop. The English league is 30 years old this year, with only one significant format change and the Top14 is 125 years old this year. The Celtic League is 16 years old and has had, what 4 or 5, significant changes - how is anything supposed to develop and embed itself with that kind of entropy swirling around it?

A couple of weeks ago a team comprising a whole bunch of Celtic League players (and others developed by the Celtic League) went to the hardest place in the world to play rugby to play the best team in the world and came home with a share of the series. That isn't hind tit stuff

Classic diversion stuff Dave- Mon chapeau! You know my view of the tyranny of the effects of the Lions concept on our club and our league game. I'm not being drawn into that hall of mirrors again.

The reality is we don't have 30 years- not to mention 125, to allow the Celtic League to mature. As you yourself very frequently point out, money talks. We in the Celtic League- and I'm one of it's defenders on quality, lacks the financial critical mass to compete with the shite that streams from France and England. Shite with sponsors though! We haven't the luxury of waiting for the Celtic League to either explode into sustainability; or more likely implode into destruction.

We NEED to tweak and change it regularly to help it succeed. Including South African teams seems at least worth a try. Looking to include North American or new European countries in a tiered/ divisions league seems equally worthwhile. When both proposals can be attempted without compromising the other, that's a real opportunity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave Cahill]

This Lions tour will be a massive benefit to Irish Rugby and Leinster if we take one lesson from it - rugby players should play rugby, regularly.

What makes you think that changing this will attract sponsors, then changing that will attract sponsors, then having a fiddle with the other will attract sponsors? Business abhors uncertainty. The AP and the Top14 have attracted big sponsorship for a variety of reasons, but one amongst them is that the sponsors know what they're getting. Its a safe bet because, organisationally, its predictable. But lets say that sponsors want constant change - do they want the change that people are blaming for the complete off-field failure of this seasons Super Rugby competition? I would think not. Its a change for changes sake. There is no purpose to it beyond change. As we understand it currently, it makes no difference to competitiveness or attractiveness, it won't release any weekends or free up the internationals for more games, its only end is the change itself

[artaneboy]

This Lions tour will be a massive benefit to Irish Rugby and Leinster if we take one lesson from it - rugby players should play rugby, regularly.

What makes you think that changing this will attract sponsors, then changing that will attract sponsors, then having a fiddle with the other will attract sponsors? Business abhors uncertainty. The AP and the Top14 have attracted big sponsorship for a variety of reasons, but one amongst them is that the sponsors know what they're getting. Its a safe bet because, organisationally, its predictable. But lets say that sponsors want constant change - do they want the change that people are blaming for the complete off-field failure of this seasons Super Rugby competition? I would think not. Its a change for changes sake. There is no purpose to it beyond change. As we understand it currently, it makes no difference to competitiveness or attractiveness, it won't release any weekends or free up the internationals for more games, its only end is the change itself

Yeah, well the Lions has nothing to do with this issue, but as you persist in trying diversion here, I'll nibble. Claims that its of "massive benefit" to Leinster- the club/ province, as contrasted to the individual players are unsubstantiated. The IRFU gets a few millions from it there may be some trickle down to clubs, fair enough, is that enough to justify to me the massive disruption to Ireland and Leinster? No.

On the main theme; straw man alert. No one claimed that change for changes sake was the objective of the reform of the league. No one claimed that change in itself was an essential attractor if sponsors. The point is that we need to change- not for novelty, but to survive and thrive. The Celtic League has major structural weaknesses relative to those leagues if England and France. Dispersed centres, lack of critical mass, multiple media partner inconsistencies, etc. that means it cannot afford the luxury of those competitors to roll along with a suboptimal set up.

There's no guarantee that the proposed changes will work sponsorship-wise. But your idea of 'leaving bad enough alone' certainly won't work. But I'll await the actual news of the proposals before commenting on the actual benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[artaneboy]

This Lions tour will be a massive benefit to Irish Rugby and Leinster if we take one lesson from it - rugby players should play rugby, regularly.

What makes you think that changing this will attract sponsors, then changing that will attract sponsors, then having a fiddle with the other will attract sponsors? Business abhors uncertainty. The AP and the Top14 have attracted big sponsorship for a variety of reasons, but one amongst them is that the sponsors know what they're getting. Its a safe bet because, organisationally, its predictable. But lets say that sponsors want constant change - do they want the change that people are blaming for the complete off-field failure of this seasons Super Rugby competition? I would think not. Its a change for changes sake. There is no purpose to it beyond change. As we understand it currently, it makes no difference to competitiveness or attractiveness, it won't release any weekends or free up the internationals for more games, its only end is the change itself

Yeah, well the Lions has nothing to do with this issue, but as you persist in trying diversion here, I'll nibble. Claims that its of "massive benefit" to Leinster- the club/ province, as contrasted to the individual players are unsubstantiated. The IRFU gets a few millions from it, and there may be some trickle down to clubs, fair enough, is that enough to justify to me the massive disruption to Ireland and Leinster? No.

On the main theme; straw man alert. No one claimed that change for changes sake was the objective of the reform of the league. No one claimed that change in itself was an essential attractor if sponsors. The point is that we need to change- not for novelty, but to survive and thrive. The Celtic League has major structural weaknesses relative to those leagues if England and France. Dispersed centres, lack of critical mass, multiple media partner inconsistencies, etc. that means it cannot afford the luxury of those competitors to roll along with a suboptimal set up.

There's no guarantee that the proposed changes will work sponsorship-wise. But your idea of 'leaving bad enough alone' certainly won't work. But I'll await the actual news of the proposals before commenting on the actual benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TerenureJim]

Possible leak... https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/com ... onference/

Splitting the Irish provinces up will devastate the league, there absolutely must be home and away meaningful Derby games or the league will loose its biggest asset, full houses when Irish sides play each other.

[neill_m]

Possible leak... https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/com ... onference/

Splitting the Irish provinces up will devastate the league, there absolutely must be home and away meaningful Derby games or the league will loose its biggest asset, full houses when Irish sides play each other.

21 game regular season inc 2 extra derbies - no loss of derby games.

[neill_m]

Under the old Pro 12, some of the derbies involved sides nowhere near full strength especially around Christmas/New Year. This was due to the tight turnaround and player management etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dave Cahill]

This Lions tour will be a massive benefit to Irish Rugby and Leinster if we take one lesson from it - rugby players should play rugby, regularly.

What makes you think that changing this will attract sponsors, then changing that will attract sponsors, then having a fiddle with the other will attract sponsors? Business abhors uncertainty. The AP and the Top14 have attracted big sponsorship for a variety of reasons, but one amongst them is that the sponsors know what they're getting. Its a safe bet because, organisationally, its predictable. But lets say that sponsors want constant change - do they want the change that people are blaming for the complete off-field failure of this seasons Super Rugby competition? I would think not. Its a change for changes sake. There is no purpose to it beyond change. As we understand it currently, it makes no difference to competitiveness or attractiveness, it won't release any weekends or free up the internationals for more games, its only end is the change itself

Yeah, well the Lions has nothing to do with this issue, but as you persist in trying diversion here, I'll nibble. Claims that its of "massive benefit" to Leinster- the club/ province, as contrasted to the individual players are unsubstantiated. The IRFU gets a few millions from it there may be some trickle down to clubs, fair enough, is that enough to justify to me the massive disruption to Ireland and Leinster? No.

On the main theme; straw man alert. No one claimed that change for changes sake was the objective of the reform of the league. No one claimed that change in itself was an essential attractor if sponsors. The point is that we need to change- not for novelty, but to survive and thrive. The Celtic League has major structural weaknesses relative to those leagues if England and France. Dispersed centres, lack of critical mass, multiple media partner inconsistencies, etc. that means it cannot afford the luxury of those competitors to roll along with a suboptimal set up.

There's no guarantee that the proposed changes will work sponsorship-wise. But your idea of 'leaving bad enough alone' certainly won't work. But I'll await the actual news of the proposals before commenting on the actual benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What massive disruption? The way that players who went on tour are going to come back when they would come back every year? Except one who didn't of course. What happened him again?

The reason why the lions are a valid part of this discussion is because they are a team made up, majorly, of Pro12 players who went to New Zealand and came home with a share of the series. That shows the quality of the league. The last time a team selected from the Top14 went to New Zealand it lost all three tests including a duck egg. Just because you have an issue with the Lions doesn't mean that the vast majority of rugby fans in this part of the world do also. They don't, they love the Lions and we should be trumpeting the Pro12s part in this tour to demonstrate the quality that is resident in the league.

You say that no one is saying that change for changes sake is good. Well you are because you're advocating a change to a format that the available evidence would suggest would bring no benefit to anyone on any basis, so if that isn't change for changes sake I don't know what is. The part I've highlighted doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny. Why do we need to change to survive and thrive, there simply isn't any evidence that this is the case, we've chopped and changed constantly over the last 15 years and where has it gotten us? There are changes that can be made, certainly, some can be done easily, some are really difficult but they are actual changes, not just syllogisms.

For example, whatever format we go with the year after next (if they bring in the conference system to have have a look at) is ringfenced for a period of 5 years. This is to be accompanied by huge investment in a centralised marketing approach to build the brand based on that stable format emphasising the quality of the rugby, players and league, how accessible it is ("reach out and touch the stars" etc) and how fierce the rivalries are.

To be eligible for selection for the Six Nations or Rugby Championship, players will have to have played a certain minimum, say 66%, of celtic league games since the previous six nations/RC. Exceptions for league certified injuries of course and coaches will have some, few, wildcard picks permitted - but the best players will play in the league regularly. Absolutely no Celtic League games during the Six Nations.

Bring in a minor premiership style trophy for the team that wins the League stage should there be one - the more trophies there are, the more winners there might be, and people love silverware.

The League is to become a technology and broadcast technology leader. The League will offer a range of streaming based services and will run what is fundamentally a Celtic League TV service online.

[Munsterboy]

Dave you can make the league as good to watch and as accessible as you like. The problem is the size of the audience.

Like it or not our TV money is too small. We may get bums on seats and have some lovely talent on display but, without a large, interested TV market to sell it to, we won't get enough cash for broadcasting rights, or through PPV or any other means either.

Nothing we do/have can't be copied/poached by the wealthier leagues if we don't have the money to fend them off. We don't have decades - the funding gap is growing too quickly. We have a few more years to make this thing sustainable and that's why the powers that be are trying so hard to expand to new markets.

[simonokeeffe]

Works in ice hockey

Hopefully therell be less need for risky ventures when BeIn pull out of French rugby and BT out of Prem

SA refs in SA is a terrifying prospect

Playoff standing tables easy enough to show and share

[Dave Cahill]

Dave you can make the league as good to watch and as accessible as you like. The problem is the size of the audience.

Like it or not our TV money is too small. We may get bums on seats and have some lovely talent on display but, without a large, interested TV market to sell it to, we won't get enough cash for broadcasting rights, or through PPV or any other means either.

Nothing we do/have can't be copied/poached by the wealthier leagues if we don't have the money to fend them off. We don't have decades - the funding gap is growing too quickly. We have a few more years to make this thing sustainable and that's why the powers that be are trying so hard to expand to new markets.

I don't have a problem with realistic expansion, like in South Africa. Its the ideal place which is why it was always using europe as a threat come contract negotiation time with the rest of SANZAR. But complaining about Italian teams on one hand then suggesting we bring in clubs from countries whose national team on their best day couldn't beat the Zebre espoirs, or suggesting teams in places that simply can't happen...thats quite a different matter

The size of the audience? The population of the Celtic League is now greater than the populations of England and France combined! We have a huge market to sell it to, we just have to engage them! The problem isn't the league, the problem isn't the format, its not product, price or place, the problem is promotion.

[dropkick]

Promotion is definitely a big problem. Thats where the French and English have a huge advantage. They're all pulling together in the one direction whereas in the pro12 its very much split. In fact while the Top14 and AP are being talked up, we've got a whole Welsh nation to talk down the pro12.


On the money side of things the €500k increase isn't great but lets see what the increase will be in the next year or so when TV rights and sponsorships come up for renewal.
On the playing side of things I think this season could be a good one. I'm expecting the South Africans to be competitive (especially in the first half of season) and Treviso and Edinburgh should be better than last season.

[Oldschool]

The Pro12 teams were/are integral to the success of the European Cup.
The inclusion of the SA teams could be a stalking horse.
Let the Pro12/14 test the waters, establish the viability of SA team involvement in NH rugby.
Then when the time is ripe Aviva 12 becomes Aviva 14.
That for me is a serious risk for the Pro12/14.

[neill_m]

The Pro12 teams were/are integral to the success of the European Cup.
The inclusion of the SA teams could be a stalking horse.
Let the Pro12/14 test the waters, establish the viability of SA team involvement in NH rugby.
Then when the time is ripe Aviva 12 becomes Aviva 14.
That for me is a serious risk for the Pro12/14.

An Aviva 14 would be the 14 clubs who are PR shareholders current AP 12 Bristol and Yorkshire Carnegie. A closed AP is only a matter of time.