McCall calling for a Under 23 league

[Which Tyler]

I think it used to be three, but I don't think Chiefs are anymore (their main sponsor being Rowe's company is just sugar daddy with extra steps)

Leicester, Exeter by faking it, and.... who's would the 3rd be?

Go back to the massive cap increase around 2015ish, most clubs were broadly breaking even.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Leicester, Exeter by faking it, and.... who's would the 3rd be?

Go back to the massive cap increase around 2015ish, most clubs were broadly breaking even.

I want to say Saints, but I might be misremembering

Edit: just saw an article from 2018 that said saints were self sustaining up until that year but had made a loss, might be thinking of that

 

[higgik]

Less matches = less money though.

Anyone know again how many clubs are financially stable without a wealthy backer? I don't think it's many if any. Rugby is in a difficult place where it is juggling player welfare, a desire to grow and attempting to keep rugby financially stable.

Not necessarily.

Less games mean greater emphasis on each one, so more people would attend each one. Also more likely to get more casual fans and more season ticket sales, which woyld balance.
Basic economics reduce supply then demand goes up.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

TV and sponsor deals will be on a match number basis though, I imagine

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Other than props, how many guys between the age of 21 and 23 that are not ready for first team rugby will eventually develop into good players? It seems to be that you usually know by the age of 21 whether or not a dude has the goods or not. This just seems like a way for clubs to hoard players for an extra couple of years.

After checking, apparently Top 14 switched the espoirs league switched to U21 in 2019.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Basic economics doesn't work for Entertainment.
Otherwise you wouldn't get shows like the big bang theory having 12 seasons or the Simpsons on what 30 seasons.

Reality is if rugby isn't on people will just put on to something that is on.
The key to increasing sports views and interest is more games that are more available.
So not locked behind a pay channel.

It's taken the sport 21 years to put the Final the big flagship game of Premiership rugby on free to air tv.
Any momentum gained from International rugby in the 6N's always gets zapped away because unless you are paying what nearly £30 a month on BT sports you couldn't watch another free game till next 6N's!
If Prem rugby really wants to increase demand and interest it needs a weekly game with an affordable alternative to watch the others.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Not necessarily.

Less games mean greater emphasis on each one, so more people would attend each one. Also more likely to get more casual fans and more season ticket sales, which woyld balance.
Basic economics reduce supply then demand goes up.

what branch of economic thought teaches that cause it isn't anyone that I'm familiar with?