Planet Rugby Forum

A Gatland Lions team playing a match at BTM really makes me feel like we are having our noses rubbed in it in a ‘see what you could have won’ manner.

My suspicion, though, is that the cynical fücker would pick a few Scottish players to start the game, and then not pick any of them for a match day squad for the rest of the tour.

Doc Rob wrote:A Gatland Lions team playing a match at BTM really makes me feel like we are having our noses rubbed in it in a ‘see what you could have won’ manner.

My suspicion, though, is that the cynical fücker would pick a few Scottish players to start the game, and then not pick any of them for a match day squad for the rest of the tour.

Either way, I'm ready to be totally p*ssed off with him, what with all the Covid upheaval we could do with things getting back to some sense of normality and comfort.

dargotronV.1 wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:A Gatland Lions team playing a match at BTM really makes me feel like we are having our noses rubbed in it in a ‘see what you could have won’ manner.

My suspicion, though, is that the cynical fücker would pick a few Scottish players to start the game, and then not pick any of them for a match day squad for the rest of the tour.

Either way, I'm ready to be totally p*ssed off with him, what with all the Covid upheaval we could do with things getting back to some sense of normality and comfort.

I think the most I could must muster would be a broad-based hope that it was a great test and there were no injuries. I do, however, have no doubt that it would be a sellout and a befitting send off for the lions. Still hoping to fly to SA for the tour!

We were due to go to Botswana on safari next month but it is now moved untilJune 2021. So cannot go to the Murrayfield test. However as we will be flying in and out of Joburg, perhaps we go extend it and and see more Lions !!

Caley_Red wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:

Doc Rob wrote:A Gatland Lions team playing a match at BTM really makes me feel like we are having our noses rubbed in it in a ‘see what you could have won’ manner.

My suspicion, though, is that the cynical fücker would pick a few Scottish players to start the game, and then not pick any of them for a match day squad for the rest of the tour.

Either way, I'm ready to be totally p*ssed off with him, what with all the Covid upheaval we could do with things getting back to some sense of normality and comfort.

I think the most I could must muster would be a broad-based hope that it was a great test and there were no injuries. I do, however, have no doubt that it would be a sellout and a befitting send off for the lions. Still hoping to fly to SA for the tour!

It's great for the SRU if it happens. Helps with the finances a tad.

You just know Hogg will get battered by flailing Irish arm and be out of the tour before it starts.

Plus, if any Scots do play well it will just feed into Gatlands narrative about being decent at home but shite away from home. Lose/Lose.

Would probably go for the occasion mind.

Won’t go, Lions are dead to me with Gatland at the helm. Don’t care if we have 2/3rds of the team, a generation has now passed since we were involved.

Good for the coffers I’m sure but not from me

OptimisticJock wrote:Japan v Lions at Murrayfield next year I know a lot of you aren't interested but I'd love to get to that. Not as much as I'd love to follow the tour tbf.

Lions tour is on my sporting bucket list. I have managed to tick off a few but I think that would be the big one.

Hopefully the Scottish players step up and perform in the internationals and European ties between now and selection. For two reasons really, firstly it will help the sides they play for and secondly they might get picked for the tour.

Will be interesting to see who Gatlands assistants are. Not many obvious candidates.

Talking about coaching, has it been said who is replacing Wilson for Scotland?

Mine too. Unfortunately I've got too much other stuff I need/want to do its a bit down my overall life list

Lorthern Nights wrote:Won’t go, Lions are dead to me with Gatland at the helm. Don’t care if we have 2/3rds of the team, a generation has now passed since we were involved.

Good for the coffers I’m sure but not from me

Yeah, I don't much care for the Lions myself but it'll give the SRU some much needed cash which can only a good thing.

Would consider going on the tour as I haven't visited SA in a few years but it would be, firstly, an SA holiday to catch up with friends with a few games thrown in rather than being on the travelling entourage. I have a bit of an affinity for the springboks so it'd be a close call on who I'd prefer to win.

Would, however, love to see Scotland get a tour down here, I'd definitely travel for that.

OptimisticJock wrote:Japan v Lions at Murrayfield next year I know a lot of you aren't interested but I'd love to get to that. Not as much as I'd love to follow the tour tbf.

Might even be a few Scottish players on the pitch if Gatland is classing it as one the lesser games.

Pretty hard to get excited by the Lions with him in charge, although it would probably be a decent occasion at Murrayfield.

robmatic wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Japan v Lions at Murrayfield next year I know a lot of you aren't interested but I'd love to get to that. Not as much as I'd love to follow the tour tbf.

Might even be a few Scottish players on the pitch if Gatland is classing it as one the lesser games.

Pretty hard to get excited by the Lions with him in charge, although it would probably be a decent occasion at Murrayfield.

Not a chance if it's an official Test. He wouldn't want to sully the great honour of being a Test Lion.

clydecloggie wrote:

robmatic wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Japan v Lions at Murrayfield next year I know a lot of you aren't interested but I'd love to get to that. Not as much as I'd love to follow the tour tbf.

Might even be a few Scottish players on the pitch if Gatland is classing it as one the lesser games.

Pretty hard to get excited by the Lions with him in charge, although it would probably be a decent occasion at Murrayfield.

Not a chance if it's an official Test. He wouldn't want to sully the great honour of being a Test Lion.

Won’t be a test, Argentina wasn’t.

frillage wrote:

clydecloggie wrote:

robmatic wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Japan v Lions at Murrayfield next year I know a lot of you aren't interested but I'd love to get to that. Not as much as I'd love to follow the tour tbf.

Might even be a few Scottish players on the pitch if Gatland is classing it as one the lesser games.

Pretty hard to get excited by the Lions with him in charge, although it would probably be a decent occasion at Murrayfield.

Not a chance if it's an official Test. He wouldn't want to sully the great honour of being a Test Lion.

Won’t be a test, Argentina wasn’t.

Woohoo! Scottish Lions! Apologies: Woohoo! Scottish Lion! A whole 5 minutes!

To try and spark some rugby chat, any views on a) the likelihood of and b) the desire to have a Pro18 including the South African Super Rugby sides?

For me there are pluses and minuses. On the plus side SA will bring additional revenues (though possibly not large given the relative strength of the rand) with their large population, prestige from their excellent teams and an improvement in the overall level of the league.

On the negative side, the need to travel to SA for 5 games per season (minimum) is not great despite the similar timezones. I'm also not sure how the league would be organised.

Overall I think this would be an improvement. The league would contain 10 sides I think most would agree have decent to excellent pedigree in Leinster, Munster, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Ulster, Scarlets, Sharks, Bulls, Stormers and Lions. The real weak teams would be limited to Ospreys, Zebre and Dragons with Connacht, Cardiff and Benneton all decent to good. I don't particularly buy into the narrative that the Pro18 is weak, but the general view outside of those who actually watch it is that it is a weak league. If this change could shift that narrative then we might see improvements in future TV deals and sponsorship opportunities.

Rumour Barclay might not retire.
Would be a good add at Weegies imo, shorter on back row, experience/leadership/game day captain be useful and knows the “whatever it takes” mentality

Alba wrote:To try and spark some rugby chat, any views on a) the likelihood of and b) the desire to have a Pro18 including the South African Super Rugby sides?

For me there are pluses and minuses. On the plus side SA will bring additional revenues (though possibly not large given the relative strength of the rand) with their large population, prestige from their excellent teams and an improvement in the overall level of the league.

On the negative side, the need to travel to SA for 5 games per season (minimum) is not great despite the similar timezones. I'm also not sure how the league would be organised.

Overall I think this would be an improvement. The league would contain 10 sides I think most would agree have decent to excellent pedigree in Leinster, Munster, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Ulster, Scarlets, Sharks, Bulls, Stormers and Lions. The real weak teams would be limited to Ospreys, Zebre and Dragons with Connacht, Cardiff and Benneton all decent to good. I don't particularly buy into the narrative that the Pro18 is weak, but the general view outside of those who actually watch it is that it is a weak league. If this change could shift that narrative then we might see improvements in future TV deals and sponsorship opportunities.

I'm worried - Super Rugby essentially killed itself going to 18, although that had the problems of geography with teams having to travel half the planet on a weekly basis and outposts in Japan and Argentina.

In your list, add the Kings to the shite group and Cheetahs to the Connacht group.

I'd much prefer a return to the Pro12 in a one league system, but I guess that's wishful thinking.

As good as it would be to have all the top Saffer teams coming to Scotstoun, it would be at the expense of what made the league good in the first place.

clydecloggie wrote:

Alba wrote:To try and spark some rugby chat, any views on a) the likelihood of and b) the desire to have a Pro18 including the South African Super Rugby sides?

For me there are pluses and minuses. On the plus side SA will bring additional revenues (though possibly not large given the relative strength of the rand) with their large population, prestige from their excellent teams and an improvement in the overall level of the league.

On the negative side, the need to travel to SA for 5 games per season (minimum) is not great despite the similar timezones. I'm also not sure how the league would be organised.

Overall I think this would be an improvement. The league would contain 10 sides I think most would agree have decent to excellent pedigree in Leinster, Munster, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Ulster, Scarlets, Sharks, Bulls, Stormers and Lions. The real weak teams would be limited to Ospreys, Zebre and Dragons with Connacht, Cardiff and Benneton all decent to good. I don't particularly buy into the narrative that the Pro18 is weak, but the general view outside of those who actually watch it is that it is a weak league. If this change could shift that narrative then we might see improvements in future TV deals and sponsorship opportunities.

I'm worried - Super Rugby essentially killed itself going to 18, although that had the problems of geography with teams having to travel half the planet on a weekly basis and outposts in Japan and Argentina.

In your list, add the Kings to the shite group and Cheetahs to the Connacht group.

I'd much prefer a return to the Pro12 in a one league system, but I guess that's wishful thinking.

As good as it would be to have all the top Saffer teams coming to Scotstoun, it would be at the expense of what made the league good in the first place.

I think being in the same time zone-ish is is a big structural advantage over the Super Rugby set up.

I suppose it depends on how much you think the current SA additions to the league has worked. The teams probably aren't allowed to grumble about the additional travel, but they seem to be managing it well enough as a mini-tour. The biggest issue for me so far has been that Kings are terrible and the away games down there aren't much of a spectacle on TV due to the small crowds.

robmatic wrote:

clydecloggie wrote:

Alba wrote:To try and spark some rugby chat, any views on a) the likelihood of and b) the desire to have a Pro18 including the South African Super Rugby sides?

For me there are pluses and minuses. On the plus side SA will bring additional revenues (though possibly not large given the relative strength of the rand) with their large population, prestige from their excellent teams and an improvement in the overall level of the league.

On the negative side, the need to travel to SA for 5 games per season (minimum) is not great despite the similar timezones. I'm also not sure how the league would be organised.

Overall I think this would be an improvement. The league would contain 10 sides I think most would agree have decent to excellent pedigree in Leinster, Munster, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Ulster, Scarlets, Sharks, Bulls, Stormers and Lions. The real weak teams would be limited to Ospreys, Zebre and Dragons with Connacht, Cardiff and Benneton all decent to good. I don't particularly buy into the narrative that the Pro18 is weak, but the general view outside of those who actually watch it is that it is a weak league. If this change could shift that narrative then we might see improvements in future TV deals and sponsorship opportunities.

I'm worried - Super Rugby essentially killed itself going to 18, although that had the problems of geography with teams having to travel half the planet on a weekly basis and outposts in Japan and Argentina.

In your list, add the Kings to the shite group and Cheetahs to the Connacht group.

I'd much prefer a return to the Pro12 in a one league system, but I guess that's wishful thinking.

As good as it would be to have all the top Saffer teams coming to Scotstoun, it would be at the expense of what made the league good in the first place.

I think being in the same time zone-ish is is a big structural advantage over the Super Rugby set up.

I suppose it depends on how much you think the current SA additions to the league has worked. The teams probably aren't allowed to grumble about the additional travel, but they seem to be managing it well enough as a mini-tour. The biggest issue for me so far has been that Kings are terrible and the away games down there aren't much of a spectacle on TV due to the small crowds.

My understanding was that one or both of the current teams would be scrapped in exchange for the SR teams. I think the Cheetahs, as you said, were decent. If only one was kept from those two, the cheetahs is the preference.

Alba wrote:

robmatic wrote:

clydecloggie wrote:

Alba wrote:To try and spark some rugby chat, any views on a) the likelihood of and b) the desire to have a Pro18 including the South African Super Rugby sides?

For me there are pluses and minuses. On the plus side SA will bring additional revenues (though possibly not large given the relative strength of the rand) with their large population, prestige from their excellent teams and an improvement in the overall level of the league.

On the negative side, the need to travel to SA for 5 games per season (minimum) is not great despite the similar timezones. I'm also not sure how the league would be organised.

Overall I think this would be an improvement. The league would contain 10 sides I think most would agree have decent to excellent pedigree in Leinster, Munster, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Ulster, Scarlets, Sharks, Bulls, Stormers and Lions. The real weak teams would be limited to Ospreys, Zebre and Dragons with Connacht, Cardiff and Benneton all decent to good. I don't particularly buy into the narrative that the Pro18 is weak, but the general view outside of those who actually watch it is that it is a weak league. If this change could shift that narrative then we might see improvements in future TV deals and sponsorship opportunities.

I'm worried - Super Rugby essentially killed itself going to 18, although that had the problems of geography with teams having to travel half the planet on a weekly basis and outposts in Japan and Argentina.

In your list, add the Kings to the shite group and Cheetahs to the Connacht group.

I'd much prefer a return to the Pro12 in a one league system, but I guess that's wishful thinking.

As good as it would be to have all the top Saffer teams coming to Scotstoun, it would be at the expense of what made the league good in the first place.

I think being in the same time zone-ish is is a big structural advantage over the Super Rugby set up.

I suppose it depends on how much you think the current SA additions to the league has worked. The teams probably aren't allowed to grumble about the additional travel, but they seem to be managing it well enough as a mini-tour. The biggest issue for me so far has been that Kings are terrible and the away games down there aren't much of a spectacle on TV due to the small crowds.

My understanding was that one or both of the current teams would be scrapped in exchange for the SR teams. I think the Cheetahs, as you said, were decent. If only one was kept from those two, the cheetahs is the preference.

Surely it won't make sense to have a Pro17 - would be harsh on the Cheetahs to axe them.

clydecloggie wrote:

Alba wrote:

robmatic wrote:

clydecloggie wrote:

Alba wrote:To try and spark some rugby chat, any views on a) the likelihood of and b) the desire to have a Pro18 including the South African Super Rugby sides?

For me there are pluses and minuses. On the plus side SA will bring additional revenues (though possibly not large given the relative strength of the rand) with their large population, prestige from their excellent teams and an improvement in the overall level of the league.

On the negative side, the need to travel to SA for 5 games per season (minimum) is not great despite the similar timezones. I'm also not sure how the league would be organised.

Overall I think this would be an improvement. The league would contain 10 sides I think most would agree have decent to excellent pedigree in Leinster, Munster, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Ulster, Scarlets, Sharks, Bulls, Stormers and Lions. The real weak teams would be limited to Ospreys, Zebre and Dragons with Connacht, Cardiff and Benneton all decent to good. I don't particularly buy into the narrative that the Pro18 is weak, but the general view outside of those who actually watch it is that it is a weak league. If this change could shift that narrative then we might see improvements in future TV deals and sponsorship opportunities.

I'm worried - Super Rugby essentially killed itself going to 18, although that had the problems of geography with teams having to travel half the planet on a weekly basis and outposts in Japan and Argentina.

In your list, add the Kings to the shite group and Cheetahs to the Connacht group.

I'd much prefer a return to the Pro12 in a one league system, but I guess that's wishful thinking.

As good as it would be to have all the top Saffer teams coming to Scotstoun, it would be at the expense of what made the league good in the first place.

I think being in the same time zone-ish is is a big structural advantage over the Super Rugby set up.

I suppose it depends on how much you think the current SA additions to the league has worked. The teams probably aren't allowed to grumble about the additional travel, but they seem to be managing it well enough as a mini-tour. The biggest issue for me so far has been that Kings are terrible and the away games down there aren't much of a spectacle on TV due to the small crowds.

My understanding was that one or both of the current teams would be scrapped in exchange for the SR teams. I think the Cheetahs, as you said, were decent. If only one was kept from those two, the cheetahs is the preference.

Surely it won't make sense to have a Pro17 - would be harsh on the Cheetahs to axe them.

That's what I thought - another possibility is that the Welsh have repeatedly talked about going to three teams, so 5 saffers would make a Pro16, which would give a nice simple two conference format, play every one in your group home and away, everyone in the other group once to give 22 games.

Con of that is the Irish in particular losing the home and away games vs all other Irish teams. But they may be convinced that home games against the Sharks, Bulls or WP make up for that.

The other rumour doing the rounds is that an Argentine team, based in Spain, may also be joining as a replacement for the Jaguares. You could end up with:
Ireland - 4
Scotland - 2
SA - 5
Italy - 2
Wales - 4
Argentina - 1

If the Welsh are considering dropping to 3, and SARU only want 4, a Pro16 would also work that way.

One big downside of the increase in the number of competing nations and teams is the likelihood that Scotland will never have a third pro team in this league.

It's a bit of a mess, unfortunately.

Would prefer to go back to an inter pro with Ireland and the Welsh, keep it simple. The Italians I am unsure, they've not been successful but punting them would be tough to do. The Saffers could come good yet but the hemisphere hopping makes a bit of a mockery of it all. The Argies based in Spain? Just all seems quite far fetched.

dargotronV.1 wrote:It's a bit of a mess, unfortunately.

Would prefer to go back to an inter pro with Ireland and the Welsh, keep it simple. The Italians I am unsure, they've not been successful but punting them would be tough to do. The Saffers could come good yet but the hemisphere hopping makes a bit of a mockery of it all. The Argies based in Spain? Just all seems quite far fetched.

No argument here, in an ideal world you'd have an 11 or 12 team Celtic league, a European league with Italy, Georgia, Russia etc., an African league with majority saffer and a few others like Namibia, and a South American league mostly RG but with the odd team from Brazil, Uruguay and Chile. Might happen in the future but no way to do it at the moment. I could see the European one happening maybe five or ten years down the line.

Biffer29 wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:It's a bit of a mess, unfortunately.

Would prefer to go back to an inter pro with Ireland and the Welsh, keep it simple. The Italians I am unsure, they've not been successful but punting them would be tough to do. The Saffers could come good yet but the hemisphere hopping makes a bit of a mockery of it all. The Argies based in Spain? Just all seems quite far fetched.

No argument here, in an ideal world you'd have an 11 or 12 team Celtic league, a European league with Italy, Georgia, Russia etc., an African league with majority saffer and a few others like Namibia, and a South American league mostly RG but with the odd team from Brazil, Uruguay and Chile. Might happen in the future but no way to do it at the moment. I could see the European one happening maybe five or ten years down the line.

To be honest, the obvious solution for the Italians is to find a way into the French league. I suppose it may be worth the Italians dropping to one team in the Pro12/14/16/18/whatever and putting one team into a regional European league. That way they can concentrate on having one decent pro team competing at the top end, while also having a development route for their (rapidly improving) youth system.

dargotronV.1 wrote:It's a bit of a mess, unfortunately.

Would prefer to go back to an inter pro with Ireland and the Welsh, keep it simple. The Italians I am unsure, they've not been successful but punting them would be tough to do. The Saffers could come good yet but the hemisphere hopping makes a bit of a mockery of it all. The Argies based in Spain? Just all seems quite far fetched.

I agree. It’s a clusterfuck at present.

For two main reasons, Less is most definitely more.

1. The demand that we’re putting on players in terms of number of matches is beyond a joke and it’s unsustainable long term.

2. About time Rugby took global warming seriously. The Planet is going to hell in a handcart and we’re expecting squads of 30 folks to traverse the globe every weekend for a game of rugby? Its ridiculous.

In my opinion its time to punt the Jarpies and reduce it to a round robin 10 team league. Whether that means we drop the Welsh to 3 sides and retain an Italian side or keep the 4 taffs and punt the Italians. Meh I’m happy with either.

And whilst we’re at it can we reduce the Heineken to 4 pools of 3 with the pool winner going straight to the Semis?

I see Tom Taylor has become available after being sacked by Pau. That would be an ideal pickup for Glasgow. He is a 10/15 so provides experience and depth in two positions they are weak.

dargotronV.1 wrote:It's a bit of a mess, unfortunately.

Would prefer to go back to an inter pro with Ireland and the Welsh, keep it simple. The Italians I am unsure, they've not been successful but punting them would be tough to do. The Saffers could come good yet but the hemisphere hopping makes a bit of a mockery of it all. The Argies based in Spain? Just all seems quite far fetched.

I think there's a strong incentive for the Celtic unions to keep the Italians in the league if they want to keep the 6 Nations in its current format. Without the pro teams, imagine how well the Italian national team would be doing and the pressure there would be to reorganise the competition - which would presumably be for the benefit of the English and the French, not the likes of Scotland.

robmatic wrote:

dargotronV.1 wrote:It's a bit of a mess, unfortunately.

Would prefer to go back to an inter pro with Ireland and the Welsh, keep it simple. The Italians I am unsure, they've not been successful but punting them would be tough to do. The Saffers could come good yet but the hemisphere hopping makes a bit of a mockery of it all. The Argies based in Spain? Just all seems quite far fetched.

I think there's a strong incentive for the Celtic unions to keep the Italians in the league if they want to keep the 6 Nations in its current format. Without the pro teams, imagine how well the Italian national team would be doing and the pressure there would be to reorganise the competition - which would presumably be for the benefit of the English and the French, not the likes of Scotland.

Quite possible yes. Fwiw I like having the Italians in and wouldn't want to see them regress by being chucked out. Any exit would need to be on the proviso that they have something else suitable lined up.

Id prefer a return to something like the old Celtic League with perhaps an A competition that runs at the same time rather than further expansion.

The only reason we are talking about the SA and RG teams is because of money. Not to strengthen rugby in each of the countries or anything like that. Teams often send weakened sides to SA and Italy as it is, adding more teams will not change that.

Embra sign Andrew Davidson from the Weej. Cockers continuing to stack the pack.

For anyone that had a ticket for the Wales game. Obviously not official yet though.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... s-18381185

Steamin Beamin wrote:For anyone that had a ticket for the Wales game. Obviously not official yet though.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... s-18381185

Cheers for that. It will remain on my bucket list by the looks of it, the final ground i need to tick off from the 6N venues.

Be good if we could get a behind closed doors game against them done though to finish this years campaign.

robmatic wrote:Embra sign Andrew Davidson from the Weej. Cockers continuing to stack the pack.

You'd hope that means there is a strong chance Nakarawa is staying, otherwise they only have two senior locks (3 if you include McDonald). There was a rumour of another 'experienced' lock to join them at some point so perhaps that will also happen.

I still think there must be a fairly significant number of players to be announced as the squad looks very threadbare. Either that or the U20 players breaking through are better than we all expect them to be at this stage.

Big D wrote:Id prefer a return to something like the old Celtic League with perhaps an A competition that runs at the same time rather than further expansion.

The only reason we are talking about the SA and RG teams is because of money. Not to strengthen rugby in each of the countries or anything like that. Teams often send weakened sides to SA and Italy as it is, adding more teams will not change that.

Yeah, agreed. It would be a more competitive league with a Celtic league, although it would be poorer and in the current climate, considerably so.

Saw that the English prem is looking to slash its wage bill to try and make it sustainable, all leagues will be looking at this i suspect. Not good for the players but might help the financial health of the sport in the long term.

Lorthern Nights wrote:

Big D wrote:Id prefer a return to something like the old Celtic League with perhaps an A competition that runs at the same time rather than further expansion.

The only reason we are talking about the SA and RG teams is because of money. Not to strengthen rugby in each of the countries or anything like that. Teams often send weakened sides to SA and Italy as it is, adding more teams will not change that.

Yeah, agreed. It would be a more competitive league with a Celtic league, although it would be poorer and in the current climate, considerably so.

Saw that the English prem is looking to slash its wage bill to try and make it sustainable, all leagues will be looking at this i suspect. Not good for the players but might help the financial health of the sport in the long term.

But would you accept the impacts that come with that? It's all very well saying that we'd be poorer, but where will you accept the reductions falling? Reduced pro team quality? Cut the sevens programme? Reduced club funding? Scrap the women's team? Scrap the academy system? None of those decisions would be popular. For me it is naive to think the SRU / Pro14 would do anything other than go after the money.

The rumored impact of the SARU teams on SR is around £20m per season. If the TV income from those teams joining the Pro18 was the same, when added to the current £30m per season the Pro14 brings in but divided by more teams, that is an additional £1.2m per season for the SRU. That funds 5 or 6 top Scottish internationals at the pro teams, or the sevens programme with change to spare. They can't do anything but go after the money, especially when the English teams may be reducing wage bills and the French teams are starting to look internally for talent again.

Alba wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

Big D wrote:Id prefer a return to something like the old Celtic League with perhaps an A competition that runs at the same time rather than further expansion.

The only reason we are talking about the SA and RG teams is because of money. Not to strengthen rugby in each of the countries or anything like that. Teams often send weakened sides to SA and Italy as it is, adding more teams will not change that.

Yeah, agreed. It would be a more competitive league with a Celtic league, although it would be poorer and in the current climate, considerably so.

Saw that the English prem is looking to slash its wage bill to try and make it sustainable, all leagues will be looking at this i suspect. Not good for the players but might help the financial health of the sport in the long term.

But would you accept the impacts that come with that? It's all very well saying that we'd be poorer, but where will you accept the reductions falling? Reduced pro team quality? Cut the sevens programme? Reduced club funding? Scrap the women's team? Scrap the academy system? None of those decisions would be popular. For me it is naive to think the SRU / Pro14 would do anything other than go after the money.

The rumored impact of the SARU teams on SR is around £20m per season. If the TV income from those teams joining the Pro18 was the same, when added to the current £30m per season the Pro14 brings in but divided by more teams, that is an additional £1.2m per season for the SRU. That funds 5 or 6 top Scottish internationals at the pro teams, or the sevens programme with change to spare. They can't do anything but go after the money, especially when the English teams may be reducing wage bills and the French teams are starting to look internally for talent again.

That was entirely my point, i would prefer a Celtic league but because of money i cant see that happening. My ideal would be back to 4 pro teams with academy set-up below them feeding them, playing in a 12 team league with the Irish and Welsh sides and all of them attracting circa 20k through the gate every game, this however is not realistic so we have to make do.

Lorthern Nights wrote:

Alba wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

Big D wrote:Id prefer a return to something like the old Celtic League with perhaps an A competition that runs at the same time rather than further expansion.

The only reason we are talking about the SA and RG teams is because of money. Not to strengthen rugby in each of the countries or anything like that. Teams often send weakened sides to SA and Italy as it is, adding more teams will not change that.

Yeah, agreed. It would be a more competitive league with a Celtic league, although it would be poorer and in the current climate, considerably so.

Saw that the English prem is looking to slash its wage bill to try and make it sustainable, all leagues will be looking at this i suspect. Not good for the players but might help the financial health of the sport in the long term.

But would you accept the impacts that come with that? It's all very well saying that we'd be poorer, but where will you accept the reductions falling? Reduced pro team quality? Cut the sevens programme? Reduced club funding? Scrap the women's team? Scrap the academy system? None of those decisions would be popular. For me it is naive to think the SRU / Pro14 would do anything other than go after the money.

The rumored impact of the SARU teams on SR is around £20m per season. If the TV income from those teams joining the Pro18 was the same, when added to the current £30m per season the Pro14 brings in but divided by more teams, that is an additional £1.2m per season for the SRU. That funds 5 or 6 top Scottish internationals at the pro teams, or the sevens programme with change to spare. They can't do anything but go after the money, especially when the English teams may be reducing wage bills and the French teams are starting to look internally for talent again.

That was entirely my point, i would prefer a Celtic league but because of money i cant see that happening. My ideal would be back to 4 pro teams with academy set-up below them feeding them, playing in a 12 team league with the Irish and Welsh sides and all of them attracting circa 20k through the gate every game, this however is not realistic so we have to make do.

Yeah, it'd be great to be getting Leicester / Gloucester / Northampton style crowds every week. I can see that building with success, hopefully to Edinburgh and Glasgow regularly getting 10k+ for home games in the next 5-10 years. 1872 at Murrayfield is key - needs to be established in the rugby psyche at the same level as the 6Ns and AIs as a social event. Get up to 50k for that and then even if only 10% of that additional crowd come to a couple of extra games each season that's around a thousand on to each home game (although you'd hope for more). Might be able to expect a bigger boost for European home games as well if that happens.

Lorthern Nights wrote:

Alba wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

Big D wrote:Id prefer a return to something like the old Celtic League with perhaps an A competition that runs at the same time rather than further expansion.

The only reason we are talking about the SA and RG teams is because of money. Not to strengthen rugby in each of the countries or anything like that. Teams often send weakened sides to SA and Italy as it is, adding more teams will not change that.

Yeah, agreed. It would be a more competitive league with a Celtic league, although it would be poorer and in the current climate, considerably so.

Saw that the English prem is looking to slash its wage bill to try and make it sustainable, all leagues will be looking at this i suspect. Not good for the players but might help the financial health of the sport in the long term.

But would you accept the impacts that come with that? It's all very well saying that we'd be poorer, but where will you accept the reductions falling? Reduced pro team quality? Cut the sevens programme? Reduced club funding? Scrap the women's team? Scrap the academy system? None of those decisions would be popular. For me it is naive to think the SRU / Pro14 would do anything other than go after the money.

The rumored impact of the SARU teams on SR is around £20m per season. If the TV income from those teams joining the Pro18 was the same, when added to the current £30m per season the Pro14 brings in but divided by more teams, that is an additional £1.2m per season for the SRU. That funds 5 or 6 top Scottish internationals at the pro teams, or the sevens programme with change to spare. They can't do anything but go after the money, especially when the English teams may be reducing wage bills and the French teams are starting to look internally for talent again.

That was entirely my point, i would prefer a Celtic league but because of money i cant see that happening. My ideal would be back to 4 pro teams with academy set-up below them feeding them, playing in a 12 team league with the Irish and Welsh sides and all of them attracting circa 20k through the gate every game, this however is not realistic so we have to make do.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood your point.

Biffer29 wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

Alba wrote:

Lorthern Nights wrote:

Big D wrote:Id prefer a return to something like the old Celtic League with perhaps an A competition that runs at the same time rather than further expansion.

The only reason we are talking about the SA and RG teams is because of money. Not to strengthen rugby in each of the countries or anything like that. Teams often send weakened sides to SA and Italy as it is, adding more teams will not change that.

Yeah, agreed. It would be a more competitive league with a Celtic league, although it would be poorer and in the current climate, considerably so.

Saw that the English prem is looking to slash its wage bill to try and make it sustainable, all leagues will be looking at this i suspect. Not good for the players but might help the financial health of the sport in the long term.

But would you accept the impacts that come with that? It's all very well saying that we'd be poorer, but where will you accept the reductions falling? Reduced pro team quality? Cut the sevens programme? Reduced club funding? Scrap the women's team? Scrap the academy system? None of those decisions would be popular. For me it is naive to think the SRU / Pro14 would do anything other than go after the money.

The rumored impact of the SARU teams on SR is around £20m per season. If the TV income from those teams joining the Pro18 was the same, when added to the current £30m per season the Pro14 brings in but divided by more teams, that is an additional £1.2m per season for the SRU. That funds 5 or 6 top Scottish internationals at the pro teams, or the sevens programme with change to spare. They can't do anything but go after the money, especially when the English teams may be reducing wage bills and the French teams are starting to look internally for talent again.

That was entirely my point, i would prefer a Celtic league but because of money i cant see that happening. My ideal would be back to 4 pro teams with academy set-up below them feeding them, playing in a 12 team league with the Irish and Welsh sides and all of them attracting circa 20k through the gate every game, this however is not realistic so we have to make do.

Yeah, it'd be great to be getting Leicester / Gloucester / Northampton style crowds every week. I can see that building with success, hopefully to Edinburgh and Glasgow regularly getting 10k+ for home games in the next 5-10 years. 1872 at Murrayfield is key - needs to be established in the rugby psyche at the same level as the 6Ns and AIs as a social event. Get up to 50k for that and then even if only 10% of that additional crowd come to a couple of extra games each season that's around a thousand on to each home game (although you'd hope for more). Might be able to expect a bigger boost for European home games as well if that happens.

This is a really good point actually. Marketing it as a grudge match just isn't going to work, not many people really hold a grudge between the two! But market it as a social event, BBQ's in the car park, champagne tents, schools/club games during the day as a build up etc etc could be great.