DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123086--------------------------------------------------
BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: Adrian
Date: April 16, 2024, 1:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2024/04/15/breathtaking-harlequins-great-for-the-game-rugby-finances/
#Post#: 123090--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: April 16, 2024, 2:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
pay wall
#Post#: 123092--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: April 16, 2024, 2:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Breathtaking Harlequins great for the game – but that will not
make rugby survive financially
European rugby does not get better than the one-point victory
over Bordeaux – so why is there not more money in our sport?
BRIAN MOORE
15 April 2024 • 7:00am
Brian Moore
Related Topics
Harlequins Rugby, Union Bordeaux Begles, European Rugby
Champions Cup
191
Louis Lynagh of Harlequins makes the break and the pass to set
up Tyrone Green of Harlequins winning try
In glorious sunshine and a packed stadium, Harlequins stunned
Bordeaux
Saturday’s thrilling 42-41 win by Harlequins, over French side
Bordeaux-Begles, made a mockery of the severe doubts I voiced
about their winning chances in last week’s column.
I was wrong but so were the bookies, who had made Quins 7/1
outsiders to reach the semi-finals of the European Champions
Cup. It is more than welcome that we were so mistaken.
Quins have been the authors of so many extraordinary and
unlikely rugby victories in the past few seasons that I, and
nearly everyone else, should probably by now have learned to
caveat any predictions about the West London side with the words
“but we are talking about Harlequins”.
Whether this win was better than their comebacks against Bristol
Bears or the Exeter Chiefs in past seasons is a moot point but
the common denominator of all those triumphs is the ambition to
take risks and throw off the shackles of a system-led approach
to rugby that is so often extolled in today’s game.
Some might say that this Quins’ win is evidence that my
assertions of last week about the ever-increasing power focus of
modern rugby and substitutions were also wrong. I concede that I
ought not to have limited the teams that are able to counteract
these issues to Leinster, Ireland and the All Blacks but I
maintain the general points. Make no mistake, Quins had to match
Bordeaux’s huge power to enable the win. They did so on the back
of physical performances from players like Fin Baxter and his
fellow forwards. It was an immense performance from Baxter,
deputising for Joe Marler; a performance of old, where a
smaller, but more technically proficient prop, out-scrummaged
the gigantic, 25-stone Tongan, Ben Tameifuna.
Fin Baxter
Baxter, 22, had a stunning game in France CREDIT: Getty
Images/David Rogers
Tribute should also be made to another Quins’ deputy, scrum-half
Will Porter, who made Danny Care’s unavailability a non-decisive
factor. Not only was his service to Marcus Smith rapid and
reliable, he showed Care-like tendencies in gathering his own
chip kick to score the second of his two tries. After the game,
Quins’ captain, Stephan Lewies, was keen to stress that “The job
is not done yet.” He is right, Quins have to add reliability to
the resilience they showed and replicate this feat to reach the
European final.
Whatever Quins’ ultimate fate in this competition nobody could
criticise the thrilling nature of the match nor legitimately
criticise it both as a sporting contest and a piece of
entertainment. That brings us back to the other points I made
last week about the sustainability of rugby at club level from a
financial point of view.
Advertisement
Advertisement : 25 sec
Those people who claim that rugby’s real issue is merely a PR
problem have to answer this question: How much more entertaining
could you make a game of European club cup rugby? The match was
played in glorious weather, in front of a full stadium of loud
and loyal fans. It was a game in which the lead changed hands
several times, where 12 tries were witnessed, several of which
showed immense skill.
The answer, in reality, is that you probably could not do so. If
so, this prompts the further question: Why has the competition
not been able to emulate its football counterpart – the Uefa
Champions League – and proceed as a tournament that does not
have a title sponsor but attracts more money by having a raft of
non-title sponsors and a huge TV broadcast contract?
The answer to this, most basic, of commercial points is that the
problem is not merely presentational, as some claim. It is more
fundamental than that. Put simply, rugby is not as big or
powerful as football and this leads us back to other basic
business issues. There are only two ways to stop losing money
and to at least break even over a season. Rugby has to either
increase its revenues or decrease its costs.
Advertisement
Advertisement : 29 sec
As the European Champions Cup shows, even the best club rugby
product has a ceiling with its commercial attractiveness. Rugby
can create more competitions to sell more broadcast rights, but
there is no room in the rugby calendar for more tournaments.
There is also no way to balance the safety load on players if
you create more competitions.
On top of this, if you could, and did, create another commercial
property you necessarily detract from the viability of existing
properties.
Barring a seismic change in the current rugby structure, like
one hemisphere moving its traditional season to match the other
hemisphere, the only path to profitability is to cut costs,
which goes back to the point I made about cutting the size of
squads. One way of doing this is to limit or ban substitutions.
If you disagree with this, what suggestions do you have to
achieve this goal?
#Post#: 123097--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: Brown Bottle
Date: April 16, 2024, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OT but I'm surprised BM doesn't know how bookies work.
#Post#: 123100--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: poorfour
Date: April 16, 2024, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't usually disagree with Mr Moore, but I am not sure that
cost cutting is the answer here, not least because it's the
players who would bear the brunt of the costs.
I think there is scope to grow the game in terms of TV coverage
and popularity, both games and documentaries, and that the big
opportunity is in growing the women's game - because a lot of
the fixed costs can be shared across men's and women's teams,
and because the matches can be scheduled in a complementary way
that enables revenue to grow faster than costs.
None of that is easy, but I think it's a better option than
paying the players less.
#Post#: 123106--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: Banstead Quin
Date: April 16, 2024, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can't pay the players less, as they'd move away or not
bother playing the game in the first place
The superstars are fine but the Lawday's/Chisolm's/Anderson's
won't be anywhere near a Marcus or Dommer's salary.
It plays nicely into the hands of the rich owners who will push
the franchise route, with no cap and squads of superstars. That
will bring in huge revenues and move to summer or play it
between September and the 6N with Europe from April to June.
Global season and all that.
#Post#: 123108--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: Quinky
Date: April 16, 2024, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: poorfour link ---
>
> I don't usually disagree with Mr Moore, but I am not sure that
cost cutting is the answer here, not least because it's the
players who would bear the brunt of the costs.
>
> I think there is scope to grow the game in terms of TV
coverage and popularity, both games and documentaries, and that
the big opportunity is in growing the women's game - because a
lot of the fixed costs can be shared across men's and women's
teams, and because the matches can be scheduled in a
complementary way that enables revenue to grow faster than
costs.
>
> None of that is easy, but I think it's a better option than
paying the players less.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree that there is opportunity to increase revenue from media
coverage. I don't agree this should be focussed on the women's
game. They just don't have as much appeal in my opinion.
#Post#: 123109--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: never sleep
Date: April 16, 2024, 11:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> I agree that there is opportunity to increase revenue from
media coverage. I don't agree this should be focussed on the
women's game. They just don't have as much appeal in my opinion.
>
--- End Quote ---
Women? or the Women's Game?
#Post#: 123110--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: Camquin
Date: April 16, 2024, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Premiership sides are losing on average £3m a year = and already
receive £2m from the RFU.
I cannot see there being much more TV money.
There certainly is no more money from the RFU.
So what is the solution?
Quins have the advantage of being next to Twickenham and being
able to play two games there - but they require a lot of
marketing to be profitable
Clubs outside London do not have the pool of possible supporters
to make big games viable.
#Post#: 123111--------------------------------------------------
Re: BMoore Harlequins great for game, but that'll not make rugby
survive financially
DIR By: poorfour
Date: April 16, 2024, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> I agree that there is opportunity to increase revenue from
media coverage. I don't agree this should be focussed on the
women's game. They just don't have as much appeal in my opinion.
>
--- End Quote ---
But isn't that the whole point? You are almost certainly pretty
close to a saturated market for rugby coverage. You're in the
group of active fans who watch as many matches live and on tv as
you can afford in terms of time and money. The game probably
can't squeeze that much more out of you.
The potential for significant growth in the market is in
attracting fans who aren't as engaged, and women's rugby has the
potential to do that in two ways. Firstly by attracting a
different demographic altogether, and secondly by getting
existing fans into stadia on away weekends for the men's team.
I do think the men's game could get more and better TV coverage
(and with hindsight I could have worded that bit more clearly),
but where BCM is right is that you can't squeeze more men's
games into the season.
So there's an upper limit on broadcast revenue once all the
games are shown, and given most clubs are pretty close to
capacity (average attendance last season across the league was
83%, and that's with the likes of Bristol rattling around inside
Ashton Gate) there's not much scope for higher attendance until
they can afford to build bigger stadia.
To put it another way, if you want rugby to be sustainable
without cutting salaries, your choices are between you paying
more for the same number of games, or someone else paying to
watch games you aren't particularly interested in. Which would
you prefer?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page