• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England need a limit to playing time

Not a phrase your average sports administrator understands.
But in the NFL
LESS =MORE

They see full capacity grounds as better all over, rather than that than more games with empty stadia.

I would like to see a B&I League, with 28 teams,
4 Welsh, 4 Irish, 3 Scots, 3 London Celtic, 14 English
Play an NFL style conference league reduced to 16 over 17 weeks with 5 weeks of play offs. Benefits, more top quality games, Celtic teams in London bring more revenue to the other Celtic teams, no need for AW cup, shorter European competition.
London Irish should be the first to move over to Celtic league, as they will be far better off than in Championship, and would bring in more revenue for them. London Scottish should become third SRU team and play at Wimbledon new stadium. Drop the Italian teams, (force the French to take them into Top14, with no relegation), this would give 14 teams again.
Increase AP to 14 teams with no relegation, by adding Bristol, Doncaster (as South Yorkshire) and Yorkshire.

Finally drop the SA teams, add team in Aberdeen and London Welsh, (need finance), and join the leagues together.
 
Just need to get 15 clubs that can afford to run as pro but seems very reasonable to me

Current 12 + Bristol, Ealing (Who are starting to make moves and build up) and maybe Yorkshire or Doncaster potentially.
If they could give a guarantee prem rugby finding money would prob be easier for a few clubs.
 
How would you reduce the prem size then?
I'd add Yorkshire Carnegie and Bristol to the premiership and split it in half . My 2 conferences would look something like

Conference 1
Leicester
Northampton
Bath
Gloucester
Bristol
Yorkshire Carnegie
Worcester

Conference 2
Saracens
Wasps
Harlequins
Newcastle
Sale
London Irish
Exeter

Anywhere possible I've tried to keep the historic rivalries together whilst keeping an eye on having the 2 conferences fairly even . I'd rather have Exeter swapped with Yorkshire Carnegie but the conferences would be lop sided then . After that I'd say the 2 top teams from either conference play in Ann NFL syle (championship game) followed by an overall final in a similar fashion to the Super Bowl
 
Would much rather Pirates than Bris, but it would take some serious investment.

Well yeh Would love Pirates in the prem. But can't see it happening.
BUT Ringfencing although i'm against it would give a few clubs a chance to generate a backer potentially.

Would like to see Ealing and irish merge in some way aswell TBH.
The current prem teams with Yorkshire, Doncaster and Pirates would cover the country quite well.
 
Don't see the point in conferences, were not a huge nation that needs to reduce travel time, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with have separate leagues with promotion and relegation. Meritocracy is always preferable to dilution.

I'll just copy/paste my thoughts from the last thread on this, from about a month ago.

IMO, decrease the Prem to 10 teams, 5 get EPRC places.
Probably shrink the champ to 10 (we can sustain a good 20 fully pro clubs IMO)
Increase promo/release to the Championship to 1 automatic and another play off.
Ring-fence the top two leagues (with specific criteria to eject underperformers or include ambitious semi-pro.s)
MSCs for both leagues, but looser than the current, but with additional requirements for admin etc. Same salary cap for both.
TV deal is for both leagues.
RFU academies for all.
Expand the AWC, by adding the champ teams. 6 pools of 4, orthodox fixture list; knock-out stages to include cup, plate and shield, so that everyone gets KO experience*. Players only eligible if they played less than X minutes in the previous season.
This gives us 6 pool + 3 KO weekends to fit into the 10 week international window. We've bought that by reducing the league by 4 weekends and helped player welfare with that game time limit for the domestic cup - I'd also have a maximum number of minutes for every player anyway.

Clubs go from 22+2, 6+3, 4+2 (32-39) matches to 18+2, 6+3, 6+3* (31-38) matches, so the loss of 1 home game, higher quality in the league, greater variety of opposition, especially for the less experienced players, higher quality Championship, with a chance of giant slaying in the cup, and a guarantee that everyone gets a QF*.
Increasing the quality of the champ, along with inclusion in the TV deal (and the direct cash and subsequent sponsorship and growth opportunities), increased promotion opportunities, giant-slayi g options, and that ring-fence meams that this shouldn't be too much a case of turkeys voting for Christmas.

For the champ teams, without European rugby, you could argue that theyd be lacking match numbers. You could also argue that this is better for player welfare, allows them to rest ahead of their giant-slaying opportunities, and allow for smaller squads... But I suspect that wouldn't fly, and we'd need to reinstate the B&I cup or something.
Alternatively, increase the champ to 14 (just the 2 dropping down being added), which negates that league, but would mean throwing the Welsh out of the domestic cup (oh well, nevermind), but does count against improving the quality of the champ. I vacilate on this each time I think about it, and I guess it would ultimately depend on how many champ clubs want to go fully pro and have (reduced) MSCs applied.
Of course, you could get a situation where, too many champ clubs would choose not to go fully pro; in which case I'd argue for the RFU getting involved and "assisting" 1-3 clubs in union-poor areas, say Carlisle, Blackburn or Canterbury
 
But in the NFL
LESS =MORE

They see full capacity grounds as better all over, rather than that than more games with empty stadia.

Fair enough, but not exactly troubled by the conflicts of the international game though.
 
Any plan which involves reducing the number of games has no chance. Fewer rounds = less money. tbh, it also doesn't make much sense. There are 400+ players in the Premiership excluding academy players. Why reduce the competition on the account of ~30 overworked English players?

Here's an alternative idea: players sign central contracts with the RFU and clubs bid via a draft to 'lease' the players season-by-season. Clubs successful with a bid are then reimbursed on the percentage of the season that the player missed with England and through enforced rest periods. Also has the desirable effect of spreading the England stars throughout the league making it more competitive.
 
Any plan which involves reducing the number of games has no chance. Fewer rounds = less money. tbh, it also doesn't make much sense. There are 400+ players in the Premiership excluding academy players. Why reduce the competition on the account of ~30 overworked English players?
Usually, the reaction is that not having the stars there would kill the competition, revenue-wise. So the equation is more: Fewer rounds involving the top ~30 "star" players = less money, and any such plan has no chance.

Other than the Mitre10 Cup, (which is marginal anyway), is there any format that can make a profit without relying on international players? In other words do those other 370+ players actually count for anything?
 
Any plan which involves reducing the number of games has no chance. Fewer rounds = less money. tbh, it also doesn't make much sense. There are 400+ players in the Premiership excluding academy players. Why reduce the competition on the account of ~30 overworked English players?
We're not doing it for the 30 overworked England players - we're suggesting it for the 150 overworked Premiership players (and ideally, for the 150 underworked ones as well).
 
Hansen has said he believes the Irish central contract system and the ability to rest their players played a significant role in the grand slam. I think there is a real chance England will be left behind if every time we get a core of players who regularly play, we flog them like crazy and break them by the time they hit their late 20's.
 
I suspect the clubs would fiercely oppose resting their internationals but its a short sighted view imo. Yes the Irish system works well for the likes of Sexton but the chance it gives to younger players is easily missed. Putting SOB's injury record aside, do we think Leavy would be the player he is if O'Brien was hogging all the minutes each season? No he wouldn't. The system affords Leavy a bigger chance to make an impression and grow as a player. Its a win for the club and country.

Sarries, Leicester, etc have comparable youth set ups. Resting the likes of Farrell and giving a young lad the chance to prove himself more regularly should be seen as an opportunity not a threat. You look at the England under 20's every year and wonder how the **** do these lads not make an impact at senior level?
 
I suspect the clubs would fiercely oppose resting their internationals but its a short sighted view imo. Yes the Irish system works well for the likes of Sexton but the chance it gives to younger players is easily missed. Putting SOB's injury record aside, do we think Leavy would be the player he is if O'Brien was hogging all the minutes each season? No he wouldn't. The system affords Leavy a bigger chance to make an impression and grow as a player. Its a win for the club and country.

Sarries, Leicester, etc have comparable youth set ups. Resting the likes of Farrell and giving a young lad the chance to prove himself more regularly should be seen as an opportunity not a threat. You look at the England under 20's every year and wonder how the **** do these lads not make an impact at senior level?
Absolutely - it's why I favour reducing the Prem, but boosting the AWC and the Championship. Less game time for the first-team starters; more for the backup and kids; reduced spread of the top talent.
 
I love the Lions tours but the more I think about it, the more my head tells me they should become a thing of the past.

Fact is they wont though. They make way too much money.
 
I love the Lions tours but the more I think about it, the more my head tells me they should become a thing of the past.

Fact is they wont though. They make way too much money.

It also appeals to the ego of players and is unique in British and Irish sport. Fact is Jones went back on his word on playing Lions players in the November internationals. Itoje shouldn't have been playing any of those, but still ended up playing Iirc at least one match. He looked knackered in this 6N.
 
I suspect the clubs would fiercely oppose resting their internationals but its a short sighted view imo.

Not if you're the private investor who's poured millions in. All you want to do is sweat your assets - the top stars. And if one's not performing you just bring in another ready made one. Which answers...

You look at the England under 20's every year and wonder how the **** do these lads not make an impact at senior level?

It's an inherent conflict. See League, Premier.

Short termism for sure, but the club owners aren't in it for the betterment of the national side or the game as a whole.
 
Top