Top 14 too long

[psychic duck]

Some of you will have noticed that whilst the Premiership and RaboPro12 just started this weekend, the Top 14 was into the third weekend and had started in mid August. Not only does the league start two weeks earlier it also finishes a week later too, in the first week of June.

The reason as to why the French league starts earlier and finishes later, is because they don't want to play during the international period as owners of clubs moan they don't get a fully available team.

I know the Top 14 has 4 extra rounds to play than the Premiership or RaboPro12, but the English and Welsh teams also have the LV Cup equalling four extra rounds of matches meaning they play the same amount of matches over the season, but the French league starts earlier and ends later.

In total, the Top 14 has four weeks (two during the November internationals and two during the 6 Nations) where the teams all have a rest and don't play.

Surely it would be better to take at least two weeks of the season and start at the same time as the Premiership and RaboPro12.

Because of the late end to the Top 14 season, the first test of France's June tour to New Zealand starts a week after the final, meaning that France will be able to field a full strength team with the national team players who were playing in the final.

That means that the first test of that New Zealand tour will feel watered down and will not be as good as it should be. So the very long Top 14 schedule is damaging the French national team reaching their potential (which they have been very short of these last few years) and lessening international rugby.

I know that Top 14 owners hate their sides playing during the internationals, and it has lead to numerous player release disputes such as the James Haskell one with Stade Français. But the Top 14 simply goes on for too long and is making France's June tours watered down worse matches. Either they play during the internationals a bit more, or they should cut the league down to 12.

From another point of view, either way the Top 14 hurts international rugby, as playing matches during the November and March windows will mean Tier 2 nations will struggle to get players available for those matches. But then currently, the Top 14 owners have in some cases stopped players playing in June saying they need to rest after a long season.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Yes, all true. The problem is that the LNR (Ligue Nationale de Rugby), who owns and manages the Top 14 belings to the clubs, and is independent from the FFR (Fédération Française de Rugby). If it depended only on the LNR, the French national side wouldn't even exist. Their money comes from the Top 14 and then they have to allow people on their payroll to work for another company... It's only in sports where that is "normal".
The LNR wanted to extend the tournament further, turning into a Top 16. Luckily, that didn't work.

 

[Tony Manx]

Please correct me if any this, being my understanding or views, is factually wrong.

In Ireland and Wales, the rugby clubs are effectively owned by their Unions who supply the vast majority of the club's finances and can dictate to the clubs what their players do in terms of when they can and cannot play and even what position they are to play in....this is because they continued in charge at the time of acceptance of professional rugby what they were doing previously.......

In France and England, the clubs were and are owned by individuals or companies who have historically picked up the shortfall in the finances coming from sponsorship, place money and admittance charges etc.and the players have a sole duty to the club who pay their salaries. The players are allowed to be utilised by the respective unions for which the unions recompense the clubs in full or in part. The various agreements between the IRB, unions and clubs dictate the periods during which the clubs MUST release the players for international commitments and when they have to be rested to ensure they play a limited number of matches per annum. During this period, the French clubs must release their internationals to which ever country they play for and it is England, primarily, that upset the French clubs by wanting them for the odd international outside of this period so they can increase their income by having an extra international. This can, of course, be overcome by the payers insisting on further periods of release when signing their contracts with the clubs and taking less money in exchange for the honour of International glory?!!

It is apparent to me that the French clubs will lose their players from time to time for the rest periods demanded by international regulations and are prepared to go along on basis that not all their internationals are then rested at the same time wherever possible. Even with the two two week breaks, they do actually play a number of games when the international players are missing (either in the periods of preparation for the 3/4 November and 5 Six Nations games or are when they playing in them).....

In addition, two week rest periods in November and February are good on the basis that it gives the players a chance to recover and also to rest small injuries that they would otherwise play through with pain killing injections!

Furthermore, not everyone thinks that international rugby is THE most important thing in rugby (perhaps becuse most cannot get tickets?!!)and, certainly, the vast majority of it is quite boring and.or has no end product..........for example, when are Italy or Scotland going to be pushing for 6 N honours, or what chance Argentina (and maybe Australia!!) in the so called Rugby Championship?

Many also see the RWC as an over long period of worthless internationals that would be better run only from the quarter finals stages rather than have all the qualifying pools!!

 

[oldscumbagonian]

When I was living in France I seem to recall that they had a 2-week break over Christmas and New Year - has that disappeared now?

 

[smartcooky]

Furthermore, not everyone thinks that international rugby is THE most important thing in rugby

You wont find that view prevailing anywhere else but in Europe, particularly France and England. Its the "soccer" mentality where club football is all important, international football is a nuisance.

In the SH its the reverse; the domestic game is just a means to an end, that end being international rugby.

Many also see the RWC as an over long period of worthless internationals that would be better run only from the quarter finals stages rather than have all the qualifying pools!!

A great way to kill the game stone dead everywhere else but in the top 5 or 6 countries. See Rugby League for a great example of where that thinking will lead; a game that is strong in three countries, and dying a low, agonising death everywhere else.

 

[welshglory]

Well the majority of fans watch domestic rugby all season long. There are only 10 international matches a season and they are expensive to go and see.

Union needs to change it's attitude imo or else domestic rugby in some countries will never improve or attract fans. The product is **** poor in some countries (Wales, Italy and Scotland in particular)

 

[psychic duck]

The various agreements between the IRB, unions and clubs dictate the periods during which the clubs MUST release the players for international commitments and when they have to be rested to ensure they play a limited number of matches per annum. During this period, the French clubs must release their internationals to which ever country they play for and it is England, primarily, that upset the French clubs by wanting them for the odd international outside of this period so they can increase their income by having an extra international.

England have had more than one dispute with French teams over player release.

In theory the IRB rule means the French clubs have to release players from whatever nation, but they can stop Tier 2 players playing for their country by threatening to cancel their contracts.

Georgia this summer couldn't play some players like talisman Gorgodze and Datunashvili as the clubs said they needed to rest, even though the matches were in the IRB release period.

It is apparent to me that the French clubs will lose their players from time to time for the rest periods demanded by international regulations and are prepared to go along on basis that not all their internationals are then rested at the same time wherever possible. Even with the two two week breaks, they do actually play a number of games when the international players are missing (either in the periods of preparation for the 3/4 November and 5 Six Nations games or are when they playing in them).....

The French players actually barely miss any matches in the week or so before the 6 Nations as the clubs would get angry about it. France are the only nation in the 6 Nations who can't manage to get their players a preparation period from the weekend before the tournament, and this is probably a factor in the national side largely underachieving compared to what the side on paper is capable of.

The French players also often return to their clubs in between the 6 Nations tournament, which no other nation does unless the national coach approves.

In addition, two week rest periods in November and February are good on the basis that it gives the players a chance to recover and also to rest small injuries that they would otherwise play through with pain killing injections!

You could say that. But then you could also say that a short summer break doesn't leave enough time for players (especially internationals who play in June) to recover in between seasons.

I don't argue that it may be better to have a little rest may be better, but if they want a 14 team league then it is better to use that time to play rather than start so early in August and finish in June.

Furthermore, not everyone thinks that international rugby is THE most important thing in rugby (perhaps becuse most cannot get tickets?!!)and, certainly, the vast majority of it is quite boring and.or has no end product..........for example, when are Italy or Scotland going to be pushing for 6 N honours, or what chance Argentina (and maybe Australia!!) in the so called Rugby Championship?

So you're not bothered that a World Cup final rematch series between New Zealand and France will have a watered down France team for the first match and be much less of an occasion?

Do you really think some Toulon vs Biarritz slugfest of a 15-9 match should be prioritised in importance over a France New Zealand match being at full strength?

Many also see the RWC as an over long period of worthless internationals that would be better run only from the quarter finals stages rather than have all the qualifying pools!!

If that is your attitude, then rugby would be just the 8 founder nations and would be on a par with cricket or Rugby League in terms of global spread. World Cup is important to develop rugby in nations like Russia, who although didn't win any matches, now many more people there know about rugby and it should improve popularity which will mean more market audience for rugby.

Rugby Union actually has done an enormously better job (not perfect though) compared to Rugby League in growing the game globally.

With that attitude, we would never see Argentina progress into a good team.

 

[Tony Manx]

Without the clubs there would be no players to play Internationals or any demand at all for it........

Without Internationals it is possible that the number of players available for the clubs to draw on from other countries would dwindle.............

As to the relative importance of each...............I think we should just agree to disagree!!

 

[smartcooky]

Without the clubs there would be no players to play Internationals or any demand at all for it........

Without Internationals it is possible that the number of players available for the clubs to draw on from other countries would dwindle.............

As to the relative importance of each...............I think we should just agree to disagree!!

Well I can tell you for a fact that only three or four out of the 12 clubs in the Premiership run at a profit. The rest run at a loss and only survive because they either have Sugar Daddies or they get handouts from the RFU.

Professional Rugby in England is propped up by the RFU. It would never survive without them.

Here just one example

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03110665

Saracens, one of the Premiership "marquee" clubs, has a net worth of MINUS £23 MILLION, with only £440K in the bank

Here the sad story for the rest of them

Club Turnover Operating Profit/Loss 2010 end of season financial balance ..

Total turnover and then profit or loss ..

Leicester £18,489,000 +£284,000

Saracens Limited £6,929,102 -£6,401,086

Gloucester £9,360,891 -£562,540

Saints £12,032,507 +£566,401

Irish £7,547,574 -£2,088,841

Quins £11,300,113 -£1,315,051

Bath £8,832,271 -£1,256,560

Wasps £8,428,367 -£2,680,309

Exeter £4,622,608 -£76,967

Sale £7,948,703 -£1,581,148

Only Leicester and Northampton makes a profit. I don't have figures for the other two.

 

[Tony Manx]

The French players actually barely miss any matches in the week or so before the 6 Nations as the clubs would get angry about it. France are the only nation in the 6 Nations who can't manage to get their players a preparation period from the weekend before the tournament, and this is probably a factor in the national side largely underachieving compared to what the side on paper is capable of.

This today when it was announced the 30 players would be decided on 16th October.......this gives them 8 days which is plenty!!!

The French face Australia on November 10 at the Stade de France, Argentina November 17th in Lille, and Samoa November 24 in Saint-Denis. The 30 selected will be collected on November 2, the day after the 10th day of the Top 14. Twenty-three players will be selected for the first match against the Australians and the seven unsuccessful players will leave the CNR after a few days of training.

 

[psychic duck]

This today when it was announced the 30 players would be decided on 16th October.......this gives them 8 days which is plenty!!!

The French face Australia on November 10 at the Stade de France, Argentina November 17th in Lille, and Samoa November 24 in Saint-Denis. The 30 selected will be collected on November 2, the day after the 10th day of the Top 14. Twenty-three players will be selected for the first match against the Australians and the seven unsuccessful players will leave the CNR after a few days of training.

The point is that they have had 12 weeks slog of Heineken Cup/Top 14 by then though. Whilst all other teams from the 6 Nations have some sort of deal with the clubs which allows management of players. The other leagues would have started later, plus had more rest by their clubs through deals with RFU, IRFU, WRU, FIR etc.

France's national team would be much better served if they didn't flog their players from mid August (too early start to the season), and finish the season in June (hurting their performances in June), and didn't make their players play for their clubs mid 6 Nations.

France have a good team on paper, but it is highly underachieving whilst other nations manage their players better.

 

[Surefire]

I agree that the Top 14 season is too long and that it affects the quality of the French national team and the quality of life of the players. My preference is a reduction of two weeks in the season, however the number of clubs remaining at 14. This means the not every club has home/away with every other club. I think the Top 14 is a fun league to watch, but Internationals are a great atmosphere, Test Matches, 6Ns & World Cup I look forward to them all.