NPR

Ok English chaps, you are the head honcho of English rugby and you have a magic wand. You can have any structure you like for English rugby - well, the top professional bit anyway, I don't think any amount of tinkering is going to change much for Old Septictankians in Dorset & Wilts 5. You have a blank sheet to work with, fully compliant multi-millionaires ready to own any clubs, and you can even build some new stadiums if necessary. What would you do? How would you structure it? Would you sharpen the tip of the pyramid or widen it?

Its a total fantasy but I would love to see a resurrection of those old representative sides like London & south east, south west, midlands etc. 4 rep teams play each other once each.

I really miss the amateur days when the structure of rugby was less regimented and more make it up as you go along. It seemed more fun. Anyway, not sure my post answered the question.

I'd blow all the money on a new map that actually had Northampton on it.

Hugo wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:25 pm Its a total fantasy but I would love to see a resurrection of those old representative sides like London & south east, south west, midlands etc. 4 rep teams play each other once each.

I really miss the amateur days when the structure of rugby was less regimented and more make it up as you go along. It seemed more fun. Anyway, not sure my post answered the question.

No, I agree. I loved those divisional matches as well, especially when they played touring sides. 4 club sides per division, 16 franchises, 16 academies?

Oxbow wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:29 pm I'd blow all the money on a new map that actually had Northampton on it.

I'd settle for a map with towns and cities in the right place. It's a shocker of an effort.

No Wales. I'm on board. Even if rising sea levels seem to have made Bristol a seaside resort.

To be honest, if I had a blank sheet of paper I'd probably keep sugar daddy ownership out of the game. That's where I'd start.

Extended contract for Eddie Jones.

Something along these lines:

inactionman wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:44 pm No Wales. I'm on board. Even if rising sea levels seem to have made Bristol a seaside resort.

To be honest, if I had a blank sheet of paper I'd probably keep sugar daddy ownership out of the game. That's where I'd start.

From the outsider's perspective, that's my preference. Centralised Union controlling the game and genuine downflow support for clubs.

Guy Smiley wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:25 pm

inactionman wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:44 pm No Wales. I'm on board. Even if rising sea levels seem to have made Bristol a seaside resort.

To be honest, if I had a blank sheet of paper I'd probably keep sugar daddy ownership out of the game. That's where I'd start.

From the outsider's perspective, that's my preference. Centralised Union controlling the game and genuine downflow support for clubs.

Downflow of what though?

The RFU nearly went bust refurbishing a stand ffs, they have the commercial acumen of a drunk gambling addict on a stag weekend in Vegas. I know the club owners are seen as the bad guys all the time but none of them have taken a penny out of the game. In 26 years of pro rugby they have probably pumped well over £250m into rugby - and that's just the English clubs. The French owners have spent at least double that. That money has worked its way all around the world - especially to the PI players who would struggle to put out professional test sides without the NH clubs.

I know the RFU were hopeless when the game went pro but even if they'd have been switched on, they'd have still needed the clubs to come with them in one form or another.

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:56 pm

Guy Smiley wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:25 pm

inactionman wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:44 pm No Wales. I'm on board. Even if rising sea levels seem to have made Bristol a seaside resort.

To be honest, if I had a blank sheet of paper I'd probably keep sugar daddy ownership out of the game. That's where I'd start.

From the outsider's perspective, that's my preference. Centralised Union controlling the game and genuine downflow support for clubs.

Downflow of what though?

The RFU nearly went bust refurbishing a stand ffs, they have the commercial acumen of a drunk gambling addict on a stag weekend in Vegas. I know the club owners are seen as the bad guys all the time but none of them have taken a penny out of the game. In 26 years of pro rugby they have probably pumped well over £250m into rugby - and that's just the English clubs. The French owners have spent at least double that. That money has worked its way all around the world - especially to the PI players who would struggle to put out professional test sides without the NH clubs.

I know the RFU were hopeless when the game went pro but even if they'd have been switched on, they'd have still needed the clubs to come with them in one form or another.

You suggested a blank sheet and anything we wanted, including cash. I just went with that.

I disagree with you regarding the positive impact club owners have had. Your domestic leagues may be performing in your eyes but they decimate the lower tier nations, especially the PI teams who had been able to field excellent teams before the impact of professional recruiting took hold. Considering the player numbers you have, the English national side has underperformed for years as you should dominate the game based on participation rates. It's only recently that we've seen anything suggesting a turnaround in that regard... and it's down to better systems being implemented. I think there's a place for private equity and I think that should be secondary to the controlling Union's interests.

Guy Smiley wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 11:15 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:56 pm

Guy Smiley wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:25 pm

From the outsider's perspective, that's my preference. Centralised Union controlling the game and genuine downflow support for clubs.

Downflow of what though?

The RFU nearly went bust refurbishing a stand ffs, they have the commercial acumen of a drunk gambling addict on a stag weekend in Vegas. I know the club owners are seen as the bad guys all the time but none of them have taken a penny out of the game. In 26 years of pro rugby they have probably pumped well over £250m into rugby - and that's just the English clubs. The French owners have spent at least double that. That money has worked its way all around the world - especially to the PI players who would struggle to put out professional test sides without the NH clubs.

I know the RFU were hopeless when the game went pro but even if they'd have been switched on, they'd have still needed the clubs to come with them in one form or another.

You suggested a blank sheet and anything we wanted, including cash. I just went with that.

I disagree with you regarding the positive impact club owners have had. Your domestic leagues may be performing in your eyes but they decimate the lower tier nations, especially the PI teams who had been able to field excellent teams before the impact of professional recruiting took hold. Considering the player numbers you have, the English national side has underperformed for years as you should dominate the game based on participation rates. It's only recently that we've seen anything suggesting a turnaround in that regard... and it's down to better systems being implemented. I think there's a place for private equity and I think that should be secondary to the controlling Union's interests.

Yeah fair enough on the blank sheet.

I can't agree on the PI teams though - amateur/semipro PI players playing test matches against full-time pros would be a slaughter.

• 8 Super teams, regionally spread out and completely ring-fenced (play each opponent three times, seeded for a knock-out finals - max matches: 24)

• No academies tied to them (waste of money), let proper clubs with full age-grade systems develop youth

• Clubs in the divisions below act as 'farm teams' to the 'Super' teams, regionally restricted - can sign from anywhere, but you get rights to players in your region (or others must pay a larger fee?)

Basically, NFL + MLB structures

Top clubs part of a B&I League

Niegs wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:14 am

• 8 Super teams, regionally spread out and completely ring-fenced (play each opponent three times, seeded for a knock-out finals - max matches: 24)

• No academies tied to them (waste of money), let proper clubs with full age-grade systems develop youth

• Clubs in the divisions below act as 'farm teams' to the 'Super' teams, regionally restricted - can sign from anywhere, but you get rights to players in your region (or others must pay a larger fee?)

Basically, NFL + MLB structures

I do admire the NFL model, and the draft system and have often wondered what bits of it could be taken and used as part of the English rugby system. A regular season with play-offs and a final, ringfenced, collective bargaining with equitable revenue distribution and a mechanism to raise standards from bottom to top (the draft). The Premiership as a 'product' is criminally under-marketed. There are some genuinely interesting stories and threads that run through the league that would make great TV before a ball has even been kicked or passed. It has history and traditional rivalries and many of the components that help sell something that's 'real' as opposed to some contrived leagues that are pitching in the same commercial market.

Fonz wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:16 am Top clubs part of a B&I League

You're a bad man.

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 11:40 am

Niegs wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:14 am

• 8 Super teams, regionally spread out and completely ring-fenced (play each opponent three times, seeded for a knock-out finals - max matches: 24)

• No academies tied to them (waste of money), let proper clubs with full age-grade systems develop youth

• Clubs in the divisions below act as 'farm teams' to the 'Super' teams, regionally restricted - can sign from anywhere, but you get rights to players in your region (or others must pay a larger fee?)

Basically, NFL + MLB structures

I do admire the NFL model, and the draft system and have often wondered what bits of it could be taken and used as part of the English rugby system. A regular season with play-offs and a final, ringfenced, collective bargaining with equitable revenue distribution and a mechanism to raise standards from bottom to top (the draft). The Premiership as a 'product' is criminally under-marketed. There are some genuinely interesting stories and threads that run through the league that would make great TV before a ball has even been kicked or passed. It has history and traditional rivalries and many of the components that help sell something that's 'real' as opposed to some contrived leagues that are pitching in the same commercial market.

As much as I'm not a reality TV watcher, if they genuinely want to expand their market, then rugby could do what I hear F1 has (Survive to Drive?). Ladies, especially, eat up that stuff and the much sought after US market LOVES posh English accents. Combine that with the muscly handsomeness you don't find in your Cumberbatches and Redmaynes and, bango... (Prem Rugby can just cut me a modest five figure cheque for the idea).

I'd keep the clubs and rule out franchises and ring fencing. I'd probably keep the academies but shift the thinking so they're less of a be all and end all for kids coming through the system and the top tier is more open to those learning the ropes outside of the academy systems

The biggest thing imo is shifting the coaching mentality across English rugby, that might is right. For the kids there should be much more emphasis on skills, and much more emphasis of playing for fun (I don't mean the daft thinking nobody is allowed to lose a game, indeed learning to lose is important in and of itself) both generally and ball in play attacking style. And in doing so broaden the number of people given the chance to participate, allowing rugby better access to athletic talent

Better facilities right down the levels so less people play (and train) on a muddy bog. And much more time given over to sports for kids, say 2 hours a day for every person of school age, loads more touch rugby, basketball, handball as part of that increase in sports generally, and much more and much better coaching with actual sensible amounts of time for the more technical parts of full rugby, tackling, rucking etc, for those who want to progress in the contact part of the sport

Much less gym work, much less gym at a young age. Better player management around head injuries but also just allowing players to develop such they can play 20+ senior games a year without daft long term risks

I'd like to see us manage two self-sustaining pro divisions.
Maybe 10 teams in the Prem, 8 in a Championship. All teams must be fully professional, 1 up 1 down automatically with a playoff between the second top/bottom teams, meaning no one is trapped. A knock out competition involving all the sides every year. This would leave the top sides having c.20 games a season, excluding Europe, reducing player fatigue.

National team-wise:
1) proper fans are being price gouged. £80 for a South Upper ticket is mad, and the amount that somehow make their way to the touts is criminal in both senses of the word. I know the RFU needs to make revenue so I'm not suggesting anything too radical, I'd like to see a section of the ground at a much more affordable price (£40 sits in my head as fair). This ought to be available to some sort of Supporters' Association, maybe via ballot. The atmosphere lacks something at HQ and I think it's to do with dissipation of proper fans among day trippers. Lord knows there's enough of us that care deeply.
2) central contracts. The players have too much expected of them by club and country and need proper breaks.
3) There is absolutely no excuse for England to be anything but the fittest team in the world.

Academies to be banned from not selecting kids because they're too small. Just encourages meathead rugby and kids to ruin themselves in the gym. No one should have any hope of entering the professional game without being able to catch and pass on the run.

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:56 pm

Guy Smiley wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:25 pm

inactionman wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:44 pm No Wales. I'm on board. Even if rising sea levels seem to have made Bristol a seaside resort.

To be honest, if I had a blank sheet of paper I'd probably keep sugar daddy ownership out of the game. That's where I'd start.

From the outsider's perspective, that's my preference. Centralised Union controlling the game and genuine downflow support for clubs.

Downflow of what though?

The RFU nearly went bust refurbishing a stand ffs, they have the commercial acumen of a drunk gambling addict on a stag weekend in Vegas. I know the club owners are seen as the bad guys all the time but none of them have taken a penny out of the game. In 26 years of pro rugby they have probably pumped well over £250m into rugby - and that's just the English clubs. The French owners have spent at least double that. That money has worked its way all around the world - especially to the PI players who would struggle to put out professional test sides without the NH clubs.

I know the RFU were hopeless when the game went pro but even if they'd have been switched on, they'd have still needed the clubs to come with them in one form or another.

Union run countries have won 8 world cups. Countries using the sugar daddy model have won 1 world cup.

Goal so wide open I can't even be bothered to tap it in.

Uncle fester wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:48 pm

Union run countries have won 8 world cups. Countries using the sugar daddy model have won 1 world cup.

Some people want a subservient model, others not so much. There are positives of course to a subservient model wherein everyone obliges those at the top, but if you don't want the clubs to be so acquiescent and you're accepting there are some trade offs then fine, indeed happy days

sockwithaticket wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:42 pm

Fonz wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:16 am Top clubs part of a B&I League

You're a bad man.

In all honesty, if done right I think it could be absolutely amazing, and would easily be the premier sub-international competition in the sport.

But I've had this conversation enough times to know you're all, at best, on the fence about the whole prospect of a B&I League. (Welsh aside, of course.)

Uncle fester wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:48 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:56 pm

Guy Smiley wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:25 pm

From the outsider's perspective, that's my preference. Centralised Union controlling the game and genuine downflow support for clubs.

Downflow of what though?

The RFU nearly went bust refurbishing a stand ffs, they have the commercial acumen of a drunk gambling addict on a stag weekend in Vegas. I know the club owners are seen as the bad guys all the time but none of them have taken a penny out of the game. In 26 years of pro rugby they have probably pumped well over £250m into rugby - and that's just the English clubs. The French owners have spent at least double that. That money has worked its way all around the world - especially to the PI players who would struggle to put out professional test sides without the NH clubs.

I know the RFU were hopeless when the game went pro but even if they'd have been switched on, they'd have still needed the clubs to come with them in one form or another.

Union run countries have won 8 world cups. Countries using the sugar daddy model have won 1 world cup.

Well, that might have more to do with them being better at rugby.

Fonz wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:19 pm

Uncle fester wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:48 pm

Kawazaki wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 10:56 pm



Downflow of what though?

The RFU nearly went bust refurbishing a stand ffs, they have the commercial acumen of a drunk gambling addict on a stag weekend in Vegas. I know the club owners are seen as the bad guys all the time but none of them have taken a penny out of the game. In 26 years of pro rugby they have probably pumped well over £250m into rugby - and that's just the English clubs. The French owners have spent at least double that. That money has worked its way all around the world - especially to the PI players who would struggle to put out professional test sides without the NH clubs.

I know the RFU were hopeless when the game went pro but even if they'd have been switched on, they'd have still needed the clubs to come with them in one form or another.

Union run countries have won 8 world cups. Countries using the sugar daddy model have won 1 world cup.

Well, that might have more to do with them being better at rugby.

Exactly, Ireland have the strictest Union controlled teams in the world. And they're utter shite at RWCs.

And most of the Saffas who won the last one play for the spivs.

Kawazaki wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:49 pm

Fonz wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 7:19 pm

Uncle fester wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 4:48 pm

Union run countries have won 8 world cups. Countries using the sugar daddy model have won 1 world cup.

Well, that might have more to do with them being better at rugby.

Exactly, Ireland have the strictest Union controlled teams in the world. And they're utter shite at RWCs.

And most of the Saffas who won the last one play for the spivs.

None of that discredits the model. SA rugby is torn between the devil of allowing OS based players to rep and not, currently.

Ireland may have had problems with execution for whatever reason but they are currently enjoying the fruits of the labour regarding their development systems.

Ireland also nicely divides into four in ways that fans can get behind. These sort of things would be very artificial in England. You've got to work with what you've got.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:27 am Ireland also nicely divides into four in ways that fans can get behind. These sort of things would be very artificial in England. You've got to work with what you've got.

I'm not so sure that's true. Northerners like being Northern and I'm fairly certain that people from the Southwest are similarly proud. Midlands and London/Southeast types are probably less emotionally attached to where they were born.

Four professional club sides per region would have been optimum, ideally spread across the region.
For example, The North Vikings could have teams (franchises) in Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and York; the Southwest Pirates in Truro, Exeter, Bristol and Bournemouth; the Midlands Maulers in Leicester, Birmingham, Peterborough and Nottingham; the London Colonials in Twickenham, Brighton, Cambridge and Canterbury.

Christ, when you type it out and read it back to yourself, it really does look like contrived shit doesn't it? You can see why the new Welsh teams don't resonate with the fans.

Kawazaki wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:56 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:27 am Ireland also nicely divides into four in ways that fans can get behind. These sort of things would be very artificial in England. You've got to work with what you've got.

I'm not so sure that's true. Northerners like being Northern and I'm fairly certain that people from the Southwest are similarly proud. Midlands and London/Southeast types are probably less emotionally attached to where they were born.

Four professional club sides per region would have been optimum, ideally spread across the region.
For example, The North Vikings could have teams (franchises) in Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and York; the Southwest Pirates in Truro, Exeter, Bristol and Bournemouth; the Midlands Maulers in Leicester, Birmingham, Peterborough and Nottingham; the London Colonials in Twickenham, Brighton, Cambridge and Canterbury.

Christ, when you type it out and read it back to yourself, it really does look like contrived shit doesn't it? You can see why the new Welsh teams don't resonate with the fans.

Yeah exactly my thoughts. The Hundred demonstrated this. England is too taken with local petty rivalries for this stuff to work - see places like West Brom insisting that they're not part of Birmingham, the nightmare of working out how to name the Leeds and Manchester Hundred teams etc.

This is before we get to locating the teams where rugby is popular, which you cannot wish away. Rugby broadly succeeds in smaller cities with shit football teams. Leicester is a bit of an exception but their football team traditionally wasn't up to much, London is very big and it has taken a hell of a lot of work for Quins to build a successful fanbase, Sarries and Irish remains a work in progress on that score.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:05 am

Kawazaki wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:56 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:27 am Ireland also nicely divides into four in ways that fans can get behind. These sort of things would be very artificial in England. You've got to work with what you've got.

I'm not so sure that's true. Northerners like being Northern and I'm fairly certain that people from the Southwest are similarly proud. Midlands and London/Southeast types are probably less emotionally attached to where they were born.

Four professional club sides per region would have been optimum, ideally spread across the region.
For example, The North Vikings could have teams (franchises) in Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and York; the Southwest Pirates in Truro, Exeter, Bristol and Bournemouth; the Midlands Maulers in Leicester, Birmingham, Peterborough and Nottingham; the London Colonials in Twickenham, Brighton, Cambridge and Canterbury.

Christ, when you type it out and read it back to yourself, it really does look like contrived shit doesn't it? You can see why the new Welsh teams don't resonate with the fans.

Yeah exactly my thoughts. The Hundred demonstrated this. England is too taken with local petty rivalries for this stuff to work - see places like West Brom insisting that they're not part of Birmingham, the nightmare of working out how to name the Leeds and Manchester Hundred teams etc.

This is before we get to locating the teams where rugby is popular, which you cannot wish away. Rugby broadly succeeds in smaller cities with shit football teams. Leicester is a bit of an exception but their football team traditionally wasn't up to much, London is very big and it has taken a hell of a lot of work for Quins to build a successful fanbase, Sarries and Irish remains a work in progress on that score.

There is a certain irony that, in England at least, we actually might have the best system for England now. Can you imagine the RFU trying to crowbar something based on the old divisions as the professional model? It would have bankrupted them before we'd even reached the 1999 RWC.

Kawazaki wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:56 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:27 am Ireland also nicely divides into four in ways that fans can get behind. These sort of things would be very artificial in England. You've got to work with what you've got.

I'm not so sure that's true. Northerners like being Northern and I'm fairly certain that people from the Southwest are similarly proud. Midlands and London/Southeast types are probably less emotionally attached to where they were born.

Four professional club sides per region would have been optimum, ideally spread across the region.
For example, The North Vikings could have teams (franchises) in Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and York; the Southwest Pirates in Truro, Exeter, Bristol and Bournemouth; the Midlands Maulers in Leicester, Birmingham, Peterborough and Nottingham; the London Colonials in Twickenham, Brighton, Cambridge and Canterbury.

Christ, when you type it out and read it back to yourself, it really does look like contrived shit doesn't it? You can see why the new Welsh teams don't resonate with the fans.

If it had happened in 95 it would probably have worked, because there wasn't a massive affiliation to clubs on the part of fans. Nowadays it'd kill the sport stone dead except at international level.

I'm trying to find the proposals Brian Moore and others made to the RFU in 95 as I think they were along these lines, but for a European League.

Brazil wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:21 am

If it had happened in 95 it would probably have worked, because there wasn't a massive affiliation to clubs on the part of fans.

That doesn't remotely square with my experience of going to games as a kid (young teen). Although granted I think I'd only been to Bath, Leicester, Gloucester and Quins of the current prem clubs before the game went pro

On attendances this is the data from the Prem website. 97-98 is the first season on there, not sure where I'd find earlier:
1997-1998 season

Leicester Tigers 141,446
Saracens 102,335
Gloucester Rugby 83,473
Bath Rugby 80,100
Northampton Saints 71,661
NEC Harlequins 64,930
London Wasps 64,179
Newcastle Falcons 55,251
London Irish 40,900
Sale Sharks 39,800
Richmond 39,718
Bristol Shoguns 39,653

2018-19 season (last completed season with fans fully in)

Leicester Tigers 228,865
Harlequins 212,435
Bath Rugby 201,977
Bristol Bears 179,827
Wasps 177,761
Northampton Saints 169,369
Gloucester Rugby 158,158
Exeter Chiefs 144,446
Saracens 143,845
Newcastle Falcons 100,826
Worcester Warriors 91,162
Sale Sharks 72,443

Tells it's own story - another structure was probably possible back then.

Any sport makes its mark from tradition. Where there are regions e.g. in Ireland, there was a great tradition of provincial rivlary not just in rugby but in other sports as well. Scotland hung its at on old provincial rivlaries and the 1872 Cup gives it a bit of patina (in amongst the massive shitshow of professionalism north of the border). Heartlands are where you get big crowds and passion - Northampton, Bath, Leicester, Gloucester. That's what the sugardaddies don't realise. And it's why many of them fail.

Brazil wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:21 am

Kawazaki wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:56 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:27 am Ireland also nicely divides into four in ways that fans can get behind. These sort of things would be very artificial in England. You've got to work with what you've got.

I'm not so sure that's true. Northerners like being Northern and I'm fairly certain that people from the Southwest are similarly proud. Midlands and London/Southeast types are probably less emotionally attached to where they were born.

Four professional club sides per region would have been optimum, ideally spread across the region.
For example, The North Vikings could have teams (franchises) in Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and York; the Southwest Pirates in Truro, Exeter, Bristol and Bournemouth; the Midlands Maulers in Leicester, Birmingham, Peterborough and Nottingham; the London Colonials in Twickenham, Brighton, Cambridge and Canterbury.

Christ, when you type it out and read it back to yourself, it really does look like contrived shit doesn't it? You can see why the new Welsh teams don't resonate with the fans.

If it had happened in 95 it would probably have worked, because there wasn't a massive affiliation to clubs on the part of fans. Nowadays it'd kill the sport stone dead except at international level.

I'm trying to find the proposals Brian Moore and others made to the RFU in 95 as I think they were along these lines, but for a European League.

A 32 team European league on an NFL style model would work. Two conferences, each has four divisions of four teams. Play your own division home and away, the rest of your conference once and a division from the other conference on a rotating basis. 8 or 12 team knockout at the end of the season. Could probably support 5 per division to make it 40 teams but the schedule becomes more difficult.

One of the things I think very few sports administrators understand is how to balance regular opponents and rare opponents. The NFL does this pretty well IMO, you have your divisional opponents who you play home and away each year (and can meet again in the playoffs) driving intense divisional rivalries. Then you have the rare meetings of certain teams e.g. Vegas Raiders only play the Green Bay Packers once every four years, unless they meet in a Superbowl. You need a balance between intense rivalry and special occasion - some of the spivs trying to reorganise the Heineken every year have forgotten the value of big rare one off clashes.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:52 pm On attendances this is the data from the Prem website. 97-98 is the first season on there, not sure where I'd find earlier:
1997-1998 season

Leicester Tigers 141,446
Saracens 102,335
Gloucester Rugby 83,473
Bath Rugby 80,100
Northampton Saints 71,661
NEC Harlequins 64,930
London Wasps 64,179
Newcastle Falcons 55,251
London Irish 40,900
Sale Sharks 39,800
Richmond 39,718
Bristol Shoguns 39,653

2018-19 season (last completed season with fans fully in)

Leicester Tigers 228,865
Harlequins 212,435
Bath Rugby 201,977
Bristol Bears 179,827
Wasps 177,761
Northampton Saints 169,369
Gloucester Rugby 158,158
Exeter Chiefs 144,446
Saracens 143,845
Newcastle Falcons 100,826
Worcester Warriors 91,162
Sale Sharks 72,443

Tells it's own story - another structure was probably possible back then.

Those figures are based on aggregate total attendance from 11 home league games?

Biffer wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:10 pm
A 32 team European league on an NFL style model would work. Two conferences, each has four divisions of four teams. Play your own division home and away, the rest of your conference once and a division from the other conference on a rotating basis. 8 or 12 team knockout at the end of the season. Could probably support 5 per division to make it 40 teams but the schedule becomes more difficult.

One of the things I think very few sports administrators understand is how to balance regular opponents and rare opponents. The NFL does this pretty well IMO, you have your divisional opponents who you play home and away each year (and can meet again in the playoffs) driving intense divisional rivalries. Then you have the rare meetings of certain teams e.g. Vegas Raiders only play the Green Bay Packers once every four years, unless they meet in a Superbowl. You need a balance between intense rivalry and special occasion - some of the spivs trying to reorganise the Heineken every year have forgotten the value of big rare one off clashes.

I can see how that works for the Scottish, Welsh and Irish teams. Presumably they get an equal share of all the money generated by the England and French clubs.

Nice.

Kawazaki wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 2:15 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:52 pm On attendances this is the data from the Prem website. 97-98 is the first season on there, not sure where I'd find earlier:
1997-1998 season

Leicester Tigers 141,446
Saracens 102,335
Gloucester Rugby 83,473
Bath Rugby 80,100
Northampton Saints 71,661
NEC Harlequins 64,930
London Wasps 64,179
Newcastle Falcons 55,251
London Irish 40,900
Sale Sharks 39,800
Richmond 39,718
Bristol Shoguns 39,653

2018-19 season (last completed season with fans fully in)

Leicester Tigers 228,865
Harlequins 212,435
Bath Rugby 201,977
Bristol Bears 179,827
Wasps 177,761
Northampton Saints 169,369
Gloucester Rugby 158,158
Exeter Chiefs 144,446
Saracens 143,845
Newcastle Falcons 100,826
Worcester Warriors 91,162
Sale Sharks 72,443

Tells it's own story - another structure was probably possible back then.

Those figures are based on aggregate total attendance from 11 home league games?

Yep. Sarries' figures for 97/98 will be an outlier as there was famously two sell outs at VR that year - vs (I think) Leicester and then Newcastle for what looked like a title decider. Never again repeated.

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 11:05 am

Kawazaki wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 10:56 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 7:27 am Ireland also nicely divides into four in ways that fans can get behind. These sort of things would be very artificial in England. You've got to work with what you've got.

I'm not so sure that's true. Northerners like being Northern and I'm fairly certain that people from the Southwest are similarly proud. Midlands and London/Southeast types are probably less emotionally attached to where they were born.

Four professional club sides per region would have been optimum, ideally spread across the region.
For example, The North Vikings could have teams (franchises) in Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and York; the Southwest Pirates in Truro, Exeter, Bristol and Bournemouth; the Midlands Maulers in Leicester, Birmingham, Peterborough and Nottingham; the London Colonials in Twickenham, Brighton, Cambridge and Canterbury.

Christ, when you type it out and read it back to yourself, it really does look like contrived shit doesn't it? You can see why the new Welsh teams don't resonate with the fans.

Yeah exactly my thoughts. The Hundred demonstrated this. England is too taken with local petty rivalries for this stuff to work - see places like West Brom insisting that they're not part of Birmingham, the nightmare of working out how to name the Leeds and Manchester Hundred teams etc.

This is before we get to locating the teams where rugby is popular, which you cannot wish away. Rugby broadly succeeds in smaller cities with shit football teams. Leicester is a bit of an exception but their football team traditionally wasn't up to much, London is very big and it has taken a hell of a lot of work for Quins to build a successful fanbase, Sarries and Irish remains a work in progress on that score.

I was wondering recently, are there any places in England where a pro rugby team could be well supported but there just aren't any top flight clubs around at the moment?

Fonz wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 5:49 pm
I was wondering recently, are there any places in England where a pro rugby team could be well supported but there just aren't any top flight clubs around at the moment?

Bath and Gloucester spring to mind. But if actually trying to give an answer maybe Cambridgeshire would be the place, but I doubt you could just drop one in and things would work without a hitch