Aviva Premiership 17/18 - Round 5

[RedruthRFC]

What I mean by "market value" is probably what Mole is suggesting I mean... the "market" being: the business of rugby.

Massive external investment and inflation of player wages is not supported by the "market".

Surely that depends on how you define "the business of rugby". High profile / talented players allow teams to attract sponsors / "investors" and increase the value of TV rights. What revenue streams are you defining as part of the business of rugby?

The rationale of players saying they are worth more money is correct, but only when what they do generates the revenue from which they can profit.
At the moment, the overall increase in average salary is due to increased investment into player salaries, not because of massive increases in revenue in the "market".

Swap them for Championship players and see what happens to revenues.

If some lunatic started paying £10 for a can of coke, does that make a coke worth £10??

Technically, yes, if you consider market value to simply be a definition of the highest price someone is willing to pay for something. But that is skewed massively IMO.

Interesting question. To me, that would depend of Coca Cola's view. If they take said lunatic's purchase to mean that £10 should be the market price of their product and enforce an RRP to that effect, then the answer is yes. In reality, of course they wouldn't because there are billions of cans of Coke and people who want to buy them, meaning that one person doesn't have the ability to move the market, rendering the analogy somewhat moot to me.

Just playing devil's advocate, I certainly don't have the academic background to argue that anyone who has commented is right or wrong.

My contention would be that while World Rugby allow teams to attract benefactors, players are contributing to all revenues that teams generate. While this is the case, to my mind the market value of a player is the amount that a player could earn elsewhere if his current employer ceased to exist towards the end of the season. In this context, I think that the London Welsh story is an interesting one. I believe that a lot of London Welsh's squad when the bubble finally burst were unable to secure full time contracts elsewhere and have been since. This is skewed by the fact that other potential employers already had their squads in place and may have found greener grass by the time offers came along, but it does point to Welsh's (as it turned out non-existent) benefactor paying above the market value.

 

[RedruthRFC]

DOR's complaining that they can't keep an amazing squad... well, yes... that's the whole point of the salary cap - keep the league competitive.

Maybe they should join our fantasy league for a bit of practice! I quite agree, by making this complaint, they're effectively holding their hands up and saying that they don't understand the job that they're employed to do.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Don't have any sympathy for Wasps TBH, i do have some sympathy for Sarries currently.

I guess it might be what happened with Umaga that i'm a bit salty about them but honestly what did they think would happen with the way they are spending money.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The increase in wages is/should be symptomatic of an increase in revenue of the sport. So it's detached from the value of the sport to investors. A big money owner coming in does very little for tv companies other than provide a marketing opportunity, unless the sport is grown from a consumer point of view. Realistically, the largest portion of English rugby's revenue growth has been born of the emergence of BT sport. Not due to individuals deciding they are going to pay way over the odds to garuantee the signature of players who would otherwise have no interest. The coke analogy works so long as you are talking about 12 people buying from one shop!

I'm not sure of your point about championship players, as long as the perception of the consumer is that the league is the elite competition they'll watch it (for the most part).

 

[ratsapprentice]

Dayglo really has trouble pronouncing Yeandle

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Tigers lucky with the YC, one of those things where the letter of the law doesn't need be so absolute.
Although not sure how loz or Exeter fans can argue about the Salvi card, there was zero attempt to wrap the arms.

Ref missing a few forward passes by exeter too.

Sloppy game so far.

 

[RedruthRFC]

The increase in wages is/should be symptomatic of an increase in revenue of the sport. So it's detached from the value of the sport to investors. A big money owner coming in does very little for tv companies other than provide a marketing opportunity, unless the sport is grown from a consumer point of view. Realistically, the largest portion of English rugby's revenue growth has been born of the emergence of BT sport. Not due to individuals deciding they are going to pay way over the odds to garuantee the signature of players who would otherwise have no interest. The coke analogy works so long as you are talking about 12 people buying from one shop!

All of what you say is true, but I'm not sure what point you're making.

In the Coke analogy, I'd be amazed if the one customer paying over the odds wouldn't push the price up and would be more amazed if the shop keep would sell his last can for 75p, knowing that it's worth £10 to one of his customers. He would be less inclined again to let if go for 75p if he hears about a 13th customer called Mourad Bouj-Lunatic who is prepared to pay €20 a can.

I'm not sure of your point about championship players, as long as the perception of the consumer is that the league is the elite competition they'll watch it (for the most part).

My point wasn't about Championship players in general, it was about the London Welsh squad - if they were earning their market value, you would expect more of them to have found contracts elsewhere in the fullness of time.

It seems clear to me that either consumers don't view Championship rugby as "the elite competition" (why would they when it's tier 2?) or you're wrong in your assertion.

Back to this weekend's AP rugby, it's such an entertaining game at Welford Road, that I'm giving the SA vs Oz game a go!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Really happy to see Slade playing well, and not making the sort of errors he was making a while ago.

Very confused as to what you're saying about the championship...!?

The only point I was trying to make is that the salary cap exists as a way to enforce a "market value" on player salaries, because private investment into individual clubs means that there isn't one. It's just the whims of people with a lot of money. Which I think you are agreeing with about London Welsh's players?!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Good to see Townsend playing well too.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'd say that was schoolboy from Exeter but that's an insult to schoolboys
Have they never heard of advantage?

 

[Big_Grumper]

Tigers deserved that. Very professional performance.

 

[FLOBALOB]

"Unequivocally, it was not a gouge. Absolutely not" says Kingston.
Not sure i agree with him.
Think sincklers in trouble.

 

[Hound]

Bloody hell, Exeter falls off HARD at 8 and 9 without Simmonds and White.

Full squad they'd have handled Leicester with a bonus point.

 

[Which Tyler]

Bloody hell, Exeter falls off HARD at 8 and 9 without Simmonds and White.

Full squad they'd have handled Leicester with a bonus point.

I think you (massively) underestimate the competitiveness of the Premiership.
No club in Britain would go to Welford Rd and expect to "handle Leicester with a bonus point"
I'd suggest that this year, no team in the Prem can expect to go to away match and expect a 5 pointer. Sarries will go to Worcester targeting 5, but I don't think they'd be expecting it (nor did they get it).

Whilst Ewers and Townsend are fine players in their own right.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Ewers wasn't playing, it was Armand, who's no slouch... but he's not got the freak factor of Big ZimboMungo Dave.

Townsend and Maunder are both very good, but very young and inexperienced.

 

[Which Tyler]

Course it was Armand, sorry + another perfectly good player though; and doesn't really change my point.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Course it was Armand, sorry + another perfectly good player though; and doesn't really change my point.

Not an 8 though.

 

[Hound]

It was Armand and he played as he usually does (which is not as an 8) with Salvi coming into their backrow.

Townsend was rubbish and made errors throughout and gave Steenson less to build with.

Without White their organization was shot and without Simmonds they lost their go-to go-forward option who makes the advantage line a virtual inevitability.

I agree it's a big call to go into another team's stadium and handle them with a bonus point... but Leicester's forwards are weak (particularly in the lineout... but also in general) and you'd expect with those two healthy you'd have the size and head their to starve that star-studded backline off the ball (which has happened numerous times to the Tigers this year).

They immediately became disorganized when White went off last week against the Wasps and the only way they could play efficiently was to rumble it in their forward pack and let the big guys do it themselves at the back of the breakdown. They looked chaotic with Townsend slinging.

Wouldn't mind seeing more of Chudley and Maunder as other options.

 

[Hound]

There's other teams I think will finish lower than Tigers who I wouldn't expect them to handle with a bonus point... it's the matchup that's favourable (or would be with a full team).

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Tigers weren't exactly full strength either.