The Rugby Thread

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
6,358
In hindsight having just spoken to the missus she’s just informed me that Italian football is being played behind closed doors, she said they’d be better off just banning italian supporters.
She then had a dig and said the players might as well stay away as they never turn up anyway!
 

SugarRay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
7,984
Maybe I’m being a bit blasé about it but I think it’d be a ridiculous decision if they cancel it.
When would they propose to reschedule the remaining championship games as it’s not going away any time soon.
It happened years ago didn’t it? Foot and mouth? England played Ireland later in the year
 

SugarRay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
7,984
I think there’s a case to be made for cancelling the tournament. Harsh on France but the six nations is all about rolling with punches, back to back games, injuries, weather etc

The whole dynamic of the competition changes if a few games are played months later. Especially in dry conditions with blazing warm sunshine
 

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
27,796
I think there’s a case to be made for cancelling the tournament. Harsh on France but the six nations is all about rolling with punches, back to back games, injuries, weather etc

The whole dynamic of the competition changes if a few games are played months later. Especially in dry conditions with blazing warm sunshine
I think they should just declare all Italy's games null and void in this year's tournament.

And France's.

:shifty:
 

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
27,796
Just null and void all games and then do the table in alphabetical order! Sorted .....
Sitting here on my birthday with a generous glass of Gentleman Jack in my hand it took me way too long to work out whether I should agree with that!
 

tototoner

Staying Alert
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
25,949
I think there’s a case to be made for cancelling the tournament. Harsh on France but the six nations is all about rolling with punches, back to back games, injuries, weather etc

The whole dynamic of the competition changes if a few games are played months later. Especially in dry conditions with blazing warm sunshine
It's happened before, in 2001 3 of Ireland's games were played in Sept / Oct
 

tototoner

Staying Alert
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
25,949
Got this invite today, don't support either team but this looks like a day out and a half

Looking forward to it
20200227_184549.jpg
 

Arnoldtoo

The thinking ape's ape
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
27,796
Mako & Cowan-Dickie back

England Squad:

Forwards: Cowan-Dickie, Curry, Dunn, Earl, Ewels, Genge, George, Itoje, Kruis, Launchbury, Lawes, Ludlam, Marler, Sinckler, Stuart, Underhill, M Vunipola, Williams, Wilson.

Backs: Daly, Devoto, Farrell, Ford, Furbank, Heinz, Joseph, May, Maunder, Slade, Thorley, Tuilagi, Umaga, Watson, Youngs.

Not available: B Vunipola, Nowell, Moon, Mitchell*, Hill, Dingwall, Cokanasiga.
 

teok

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
6,628

Brian Moore

Rugby has no obligation to CVC and talk of a TV paywall – it cannot afford to get this decision wrong

There is a plan afoot to take the Six Nations behind Sky’s satellite TV paywall and to prevent terrestrial broadcasters ITV and the BBC from combining their bids, a mechanism which has kept the tournament free to air.
Let me declare an interest: I have, for 20 years, worked on the BBC’s Six Nations coverage as a pundit and a co-commentator. That said, this is a small minority of my total income, the vast majority of which comes from private media outlets. I have no reason to advocate for public over private media, unless I believe it to be in rugby’s best interests, which in this case I firmly do.

From where has this initiative come? This is rumoured to be at the prompting of CVC Capital Partners, a private equity firm which has its headquarters in Luxembourg. Amongst a myriad of investments, it is widely reported that CVC has bought a £120 million stake in the Pro14, a 27 per cent holding in Premiership Rugby and is seeking to finalise a £300 million deal to obtain a 14 per cent stake in the Six Nations. It also, notably, has an 80 per cent stake in Sky’s betting and gaming company.

The first point to make is that CVC has no track record in rugby and has previously expressed no interest in it as a sport. If its recent ownership of Formula One is anything to go by, it appears to be interested only on its return on investment. In 2016, the then deputy team principal of Force India summed up everything about the firm’s relationship with F1 in a single sentence: “All their actions have been taken to extract as much money from the sport as possible and put as little in as possible.”
In 2014, it is reported they took in £347 million from a turnover of £1.25 billion, at that point representing a return on investment of more than 350 per cent. Between 2010 and 2019, F1’s viewing numbers are said to have fallen 137 million globally.

Rugby is not like football. It is a minority sport which needs money and exposure even to stand still in the battle to survive. If you doubt this, look at what happened to cricket in the decade after 2005 when it left free-to-air television. The England and Wales Cricket Board announced record turnover, profit and investment in the game and a near 30 per cent drop in participation numbers. There is no reason to think the same would not happen in rugby.

Whilst CVC have invested a lot of money, they do not own a majority stake in any rugby competition. Why are they being treated as majority owners and seemingly being unchallenged over where these contracts are awarded?
The Six Nations is an extraordinary entity. Audiences of up to nine million, year on year, for a minority sport are unprecedented. Many of these viewers are not regular rugby fans, because if they were, rugby would be the national sport. They will not pay to watch in any guise and live viewing numbers will plummet. Take just one example – Sky’s peak audience for the England v New Zealand game in the autumn of 2018, arguably the biggest draw in the sport, peaked at 1.5 million.
The Six Nations committee retains majority ownership of the Six Nations; CVC has a one-seventh share. It must consider why the tournament commands such high viewings and what would happen to rugby in the northern hemisphere without that audience. It should ask itself – what obligation does it have to CVC, legal or moral, and why should it dance to the tune of equity capitalists who have no interest beyond maximising return?

At present, the competition is a category B event under the Ofcom Code on Sports and Other Listed and Designated Events and is protected provided sufficient free-to-air highlights are made available. Such broadcasts might satisfy the terms of the listing but, for rugby itself, the exposure would be nowhere near as effective as the current model, which sees the autumn internationals on satellite TV and the Six Nations free-to-air, a combination that gives cash and the mass audience needed to publicise the game.

There have already been rumours of certain games being made pay as you go and what is to stop this becoming ubiquitous if the cash stacks up for CVC? How do you think CVC will seek to use the Six Nations to leverage its ownership of Sky’s betting arm? What makes you believe that CVC has rugby’s long-term interest at heart?
Rugby cannot afford to get this decision wrong and it should remember, it will have to live with the consequences of a bad choice. CVC will be long gone and on to whatever project it thinks will add to its $75 billion (£59 billion) assets.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,928

Brian Moore

Rugby has no obligation to CVC and talk of a TV paywall – it cannot afford to get this decision wrong

There is a plan afoot to take the Six Nations behind Sky’s satellite TV paywall and to prevent terrestrial broadcasters ITV and the BBC from combining their bids, a mechanism which has kept the tournament free to air.
Let me declare an interest: I have, for 20 years, worked on the BBC’s Six Nations coverage as a pundit and a co-commentator. That said, this is a small minority of my total income, the vast majority of which comes from private media outlets. I have no reason to advocate for public over private media, unless I believe it to be in rugby’s best interests, which in this case I firmly do.

From where has this initiative come? This is rumoured to be at the prompting of CVC Capital Partners, a private equity firm which has its headquarters in Luxembourg. Amongst a myriad of investments, it is widely reported that CVC has bought a £120 million stake in the Pro14, a 27 per cent holding in Premiership Rugby and is seeking to finalise a £300 million deal to obtain a 14 per cent stake in the Six Nations. It also, notably, has an 80 per cent stake in Sky’s betting and gaming company.

The first point to make is that CVC has no track record in rugby and has previously expressed no interest in it as a sport. If its recent ownership of Formula One is anything to go by, it appears to be interested only on its return on investment. In 2016, the then deputy team principal of Force India summed up everything about the firm’s relationship with F1 in a single sentence: “All their actions have been taken to extract as much money from the sport as possible and put as little in as possible.”
In 2014, it is reported they took in £347 million from a turnover of £1.25 billion, at that point representing a return on investment of more than 350 per cent. Between 2010 and 2019, F1’s viewing numbers are said to have fallen 137 million globally.

Rugby is not like football. It is a minority sport which needs money and exposure even to stand still in the battle to survive. If you doubt this, look at what happened to cricket in the decade after 2005 when it left free-to-air television. The England and Wales Cricket Board announced record turnover, profit and investment in the game and a near 30 per cent drop in participation numbers. There is no reason to think the same would not happen in rugby.

Whilst CVC have invested a lot of money, they do not own a majority stake in any rugby competition. Why are they being treated as majority owners and seemingly being unchallenged over where these contracts are awarded?
The Six Nations is an extraordinary entity. Audiences of up to nine million, year on year, for a minority sport are unprecedented. Many of these viewers are not regular rugby fans, because if they were, rugby would be the national sport. They will not pay to watch in any guise and live viewing numbers will plummet. Take just one example – Sky’s peak audience for the England v New Zealand game in the autumn of 2018, arguably the biggest draw in the sport, peaked at 1.5 million.
The Six Nations committee retains majority ownership of the Six Nations; CVC has a one-seventh share. It must consider why the tournament commands such high viewings and what would happen to rugby in the northern hemisphere without that audience. It should ask itself – what obligation does it have to CVC, legal or moral, and why should it dance to the tune of equity capitalists who have no interest beyond maximising return?

At present, the competition is a category B event under the Ofcom Code on Sports and Other Listed and Designated Events and is protected provided sufficient free-to-air highlights are made available. Such broadcasts might satisfy the terms of the listing but, for rugby itself, the exposure would be nowhere near as effective as the current model, which sees the autumn internationals on satellite TV and the Six Nations free-to-air, a combination that gives cash and the mass audience needed to publicise the game.

There have already been rumours of certain games being made pay as you go and what is to stop this becoming ubiquitous if the cash stacks up for CVC? How do you think CVC will seek to use the Six Nations to leverage its ownership of Sky’s betting arm? What makes you believe that CVC has rugby’s long-term interest at heart?
Rugby cannot afford to get this decision wrong and it should remember, it will have to live with the consequences of a bad choice. CVC will be long gone and on to whatever project it thinks will add to its $75 billion (£59 billion) assets.
Absolutely spot on. Long term it will be an absolute disaster for the sport if the six nations is all locked behind a pay wall. Not much more I can add without just regurgitating the article.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,928

Brian Moore

Rugby has no obligation to CVC and talk of a TV paywall – it cannot afford to get this decision wrong

There is a plan afoot to take the Six Nations behind Sky’s satellite TV paywall and to prevent terrestrial broadcasters ITV and the BBC from combining their bids, a mechanism which has kept the tournament free to air.
Let me declare an interest: I have, for 20 years, worked on the BBC’s Six Nations coverage as a pundit and a co-commentator. That said, this is a small minority of my total income, the vast majority of which comes from private media outlets. I have no reason to advocate for public over private media, unless I believe it to be in rugby’s best interests, which in this case I firmly do.

From where has this initiative come? This is rumoured to be at the prompting of CVC Capital Partners, a private equity firm which has its headquarters in Luxembourg. Amongst a myriad of investments, it is widely reported that CVC has bought a £120 million stake in the Pro14, a 27 per cent holding in Premiership Rugby and is seeking to finalise a £300 million deal to obtain a 14 per cent stake in the Six Nations. It also, notably, has an 80 per cent stake in Sky’s betting and gaming company.

The first point to make is that CVC has no track record in rugby and has previously expressed no interest in it as a sport. If its recent ownership of Formula One is anything to go by, it appears to be interested only on its return on investment. In 2016, the then deputy team principal of Force India summed up everything about the firm’s relationship with F1 in a single sentence: “All their actions have been taken to extract as much money from the sport as possible and put as little in as possible.”
In 2014, it is reported they took in £347 million from a turnover of £1.25 billion, at that point representing a return on investment of more than 350 per cent. Between 2010 and 2019, F1’s viewing numbers are said to have fallen 137 million globally.

Rugby is not like football. It is a minority sport which needs money and exposure even to stand still in the battle to survive. If you doubt this, look at what happened to cricket in the decade after 2005 when it left free-to-air television. The England and Wales Cricket Board announced record turnover, profit and investment in the game and a near 30 per cent drop in participation numbers. There is no reason to think the same would not happen in rugby.

Whilst CVC have invested a lot of money, they do not own a majority stake in any rugby competition. Why are they being treated as majority owners and seemingly being unchallenged over where these contracts are awarded?
The Six Nations is an extraordinary entity. Audiences of up to nine million, year on year, for a minority sport are unprecedented. Many of these viewers are not regular rugby fans, because if they were, rugby would be the national sport. They will not pay to watch in any guise and live viewing numbers will plummet. Take just one example – Sky’s peak audience for the England v New Zealand game in the autumn of 2018, arguably the biggest draw in the sport, peaked at 1.5 million.
The Six Nations committee retains majority ownership of the Six Nations; CVC has a one-seventh share. It must consider why the tournament commands such high viewings and what would happen to rugby in the northern hemisphere without that audience. It should ask itself – what obligation does it have to CVC, legal or moral, and why should it dance to the tune of equity capitalists who have no interest beyond maximising return?

At present, the competition is a category B event under the Ofcom Code on Sports and Other Listed and Designated Events and is protected provided sufficient free-to-air highlights are made available. Such broadcasts might satisfy the terms of the listing but, for rugby itself, the exposure would be nowhere near as effective as the current model, which sees the autumn internationals on satellite TV and the Six Nations free-to-air, a combination that gives cash and the mass audience needed to publicise the game.

There have already been rumours of certain games being made pay as you go and what is to stop this becoming ubiquitous if the cash stacks up for CVC? How do you think CVC will seek to use the Six Nations to leverage its ownership of Sky’s betting arm? What makes you believe that CVC has rugby’s long-term interest at heart?
Rugby cannot afford to get this decision wrong and it should remember, it will have to live with the consequences of a bad choice. CVC will be long gone and on to whatever project it thinks will add to its $75 billion (£59 billion) assets.
Absolutely spot on. Long term it will be an absolute disaster for the sport if the six nations is all locked behind a pay wall. Not much more I can add without just regurgitating the article but
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
10,344
Absolutely spot on. Long term it will be an absolute disaster for the sport if the six nations is all locked behind a pay wall. Not much more I can add without just regurgitating the article but
Taking it out of the public domain would be devastating to a minority sport like Rugby IMO. It's a family friendly sport that needs to inspire younsters to take it up. Cutting down access to only fat gits like me with Sky subscriptions would be a truly horrible path to take.
 
Top