Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Warburton: 20 games a year for welsh players a year
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Peat" data-source="post: 495327" data-attributes="member: 42330"><p>Well, for one thing, if the players rest their players during the season, then they will have fresher players for the all-important playoffs and HC knockout games at the end. See Leinster's defeat of Northampton and Saracens' Premiership win for examples.</p><p></p><p>For another, international rugby is still bankrolling domestic rugby. The vast majority of professional rugby clubs cannot afford to run themselves, or at least not at their current level, without union funds. Asking players to deliberately avoid international rugby would be a very risky undertaking as it could quite easily harm the clubs due to reduced funds coming in at international level, which means reduced funds to distribute. And, from the views of the players themselves, missing out on international games is likely to hurt more financially than missing domestic games, both in terms of missing game fees and reduced endorsements, and involves missing out of the chance of a higher and more prestigious level of rugby and trophy.</p><p></p><p>In short, its simply not practical for players to turn down international games, nor for their clubs to encourage them to do so; plus the clubs do reap rewards from resting players anyway. I'm sympathetic to any argument saying that clubs should receive more money from the unions for resting players, and that money should go directly to clubs rather than getting spread evenly; any argument that players should play less internationals needs to come with plans for increased funding from other sources attached.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You said clubs need internationals to bring the fans in; the Irish provinces do just fine even with their internationals missing about half of the Rabble Pro season.</p><p></p><p>And yes the money helps. There's a whole host of reasons why the Irish provinces are rocking along. But that doesn't change the fact they do it while missing all the centrally contracted players for about half the Rabble Pro season. And they manage to get past the disruption with only 6 NIQ players a season too. So, it's not the end of the world. Far from it. And frankly, I think the fact their players aren't played into the ground does have at least some part in their success.</p><p></p><p>p.s. The central contract is a big part in how Ireland have kept their best players at home incidentally i.e. direct money from the Union.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peat, post: 495327, member: 42330"] Well, for one thing, if the players rest their players during the season, then they will have fresher players for the all-important playoffs and HC knockout games at the end. See Leinster's defeat of Northampton and Saracens' Premiership win for examples. For another, international rugby is still bankrolling domestic rugby. The vast majority of professional rugby clubs cannot afford to run themselves, or at least not at their current level, without union funds. Asking players to deliberately avoid international rugby would be a very risky undertaking as it could quite easily harm the clubs due to reduced funds coming in at international level, which means reduced funds to distribute. And, from the views of the players themselves, missing out on international games is likely to hurt more financially than missing domestic games, both in terms of missing game fees and reduced endorsements, and involves missing out of the chance of a higher and more prestigious level of rugby and trophy. In short, its simply not practical for players to turn down international games, nor for their clubs to encourage them to do so; plus the clubs do reap rewards from resting players anyway. I'm sympathetic to any argument saying that clubs should receive more money from the unions for resting players, and that money should go directly to clubs rather than getting spread evenly; any argument that players should play less internationals needs to come with plans for increased funding from other sources attached. You said clubs need internationals to bring the fans in; the Irish provinces do just fine even with their internationals missing about half of the Rabble Pro season. And yes the money helps. There's a whole host of reasons why the Irish provinces are rocking along. But that doesn't change the fact they do it while missing all the centrally contracted players for about half the Rabble Pro season. And they manage to get past the disruption with only 6 NIQ players a season too. So, it's not the end of the world. Far from it. And frankly, I think the fact their players aren't played into the ground does have at least some part in their success. p.s. The central contract is a big part in how Ireland have kept their best players at home incidentally i.e. direct money from the Union. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
International Test Matches
Warburton: 20 games a year for welsh players a year
Top