Slight puzzlement. Are the brickheads at RFC/RFL presuming that all those supporters who can't go to a Wasps or Wuss match will immediately switch allegiance to another club and will go to watch those clubs and swell that club's numbers?
I don't think that's the case (at least, not IMO). Personally, I think one of the blockers to more casual fans attending games is lack of certainty around the big names playing. With 10-team divisions with breaks around the international period, it takes some of the uncertainty away. If the internationals are fit, they'll almost certainly be playing and I think that will attract those fans to attend.
It's a long-term game, as I went from casual fan > STH over a period of 5-6 years or so and tended to go and watch a mixture of Saracens, Irish, Quins and Wasps depending who they were playing (i.e. Irish v Falcons to see Jonny play).
Going to a closed 10-Team Premiership would be incredibly short-sighted even if the Clubs were keen short-term to accrue greater portions of TV revenues and incomes via their shareholdings. It doesn't really solve the problem of how to make Professional Rugby sustainable in the long-term.
My own view (aired previously) is that longer-term there's the ability to run 2x divisions of 10 Teams. So we ultimately grow professional rugby to 20 teams with promotion/relegation. But to do that, I think we'd have to shrink to grow. By shrink I mean:
- Fewer games to reduce operating costs
- Reduced salary cap again to reduce operating costs (Say £4m/£4.5m and keeping the same academy/homegrown/marquee add-ons)
- Reduced First-Team Squad sizes due to fewer games needing to play and league games not being played during internationals. The likelihood is that talent would disperse amongst teams in the second division
I would wager that most STH would be open to paying the same for 9 home games as they do for 12 they currently do especially as based on the (small sample size) group around where I sit often missing 2-3 league games throughout the season due to Family Events, Holidays, going to Internationals.
That doesn't really cover how income should be split via PRL Shareholders, as I doubt any team is up for diluting that income from being split between 20 teams from 13.
Although I do wonder what the maths look like - If anyone can surface the actual figures i'd be interested to learn more.
For example (out of date figures), the funding from the RFU under the professional game agreement (PGA) was £112m for the first 4 years (2016-2020), the second 4 years through to 2024 was a variable figure based on the RFUs finances.
Taking the first 4 years, if the funding was split equally between the 13 shareholding teams that's £28m per year split 13 ways = £2.15m per year. Split 20 ways it would be £1.4m. It's a fairly big gap.
However,
if, CVC take a third of that under their shareholding of PRL that would leave £18.76m being split over those first 4 years. Split 13 ways = £1.44m, split 20 ways = £0.94m. That gap narrows somewhat.
I wouldn't be surprised to see broadly similar attendance figures across 9 home games as 12 with internationals playing and suspect the finances would look a lot better balanced.
European Cups remain the same and add in a proper academy/a-league cup to be played during the international period. I'd like to see a competitive domestic cup, with each round a knock-out, but think we quickly run into fixture congestion.
Always a Wasp