• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[MegaThread] RFU Top Flight Future

How will letting players play abroad help either the RFU/ England or the premiership?

It would give England less control of them, weaken the prem quality and drive up the salary of England players wanting to stay in England.
 
Yeah I'm definitely against allowing England players to move abroad - don't mind it in the case of Worcester/Wasps players atm (but only for this season) but not full time/long term
 
I'm torn - On the one hand, I do like Giteau's Law, in allowing players who've "paid their dues" to earn more elsewhere; but then, they lose the control and rest periods of the EPS agreement.
Equally, I'm a firm believer that spending some time in a different environment, a different league, can really help round out a player's game, and their individual personality TBH.

For W&W players, I'm absolutely in favour of a 9 month allowance, as it's happening mid-season (I see some Sarries fans complaining that their players weren't allowed the same whilst in the Champ for a full year, and with most of a year's warning in advance).

If it works out well for those W&W players who do go abroad for the rest of the year, and return (and if Mercer, for example, shows the improvement he made in France) then I'd be in favour of some sort of sabbatical arrangement, where players can head overseas for a year and return, and have a secondary aspect of the EPS to include these - whilst acknowledging that they won't be having as much time in camp, and are less likely to be selected - or something - I can't instinctively see a practical way forward for it right now.
Maybe a pseudo-central-contract? RFU employ 4-5 players, and loan them out overseas, but retain the EPS level controls? Agree that this central contract is a one-off, and the player has to find a club contract on return?
 
Jim Hamilton making friends...

Yes Jim, yes we are still upset.

Not only does other clubs being extremely unfortunate justify cheating by yours; it's also crass to pretend it does.

Further to that, Nigel Wray has blood on his hands over the demise of Wasps and Wuss, though A] being a prime driver of the excessive salary cap increases, B] being a primary driver of the marquee player exceptions, and C] being THE primary driver of wage inflation - by cheating, repeatedly cheating, by spending well above the cap, so that other clubs struggles to compete whilst spending the full cap, and faced disaster if they didn't - all whilst top players demanded more and more in salaries - because of your cheating.
I did get a chuckle. Did Leicester breaking the cap mean that they also have blood on their hands? Do Leinster and the big French sides with their extraordinary spending power also share some of the blame? Nobody is forcing these clubs to spend as much as possible and breaking the cap – as demonstrated by Leicester – doesn't correlate with success.

The salary cap review of Saracens was up to and including the 2018-19 season which over three seasons ago now, during which Saracens weren't even present in the Premiership.

The sad reality is that Worcester were run by cowboys (if there was a fit and proper test this would have been weeded out), whilst Wasps treated the club like a NFL franchise and moved not once but twice away from its traditional base, becoming burdened by unsustainable debts (in excess of £100mn by some accounts). Where did all that CVC money go? The DCMS pandemic loans? The Saracens fine money?

Sarries bounced straight back from relegation to come within a whisker of winning the ***le last year and are flying this season. Money helps, but that's everything to do with culture and togetherness, which was also a huge factor in Chiefs rise. Too many clubs have overlooked this in my book with cheque book fuelled short termism and revolving doors of players etc.
Most clubs in England have varying degrees of success with academy outputs, but the underlying success behind Saracens and Exeter is that they have developed the most comprehensive academy systems in England. Part of the contradiction of developing international-grade players though is that with the overlap of the international fixtures, it puts such clubs at a disadvantage on and off the pitch. I recall reading a while back that the RFU compensation package perversely allocated money to clubs that didn't even commit England players. Hence the rise in southern hemisphere players who are available to play more frequently in domestic and European competitions; Leicester have 15 on their senior payroll, Harlequins 10. Wasps had 5, Saracens 4 and Worcester 3.

Rugby needs a complete overhaul.
  1. The pandemic provided a missed opportunity to realign the domestic and international calendars, but it should still materialise; football doesn't dilute focus and attention.
  2. A 10-team Premiership (Bath getting the chop based on their consistently poor form in recent years) and 10-team Premiership 2
  3. A fit and proper test of all existing and future owners/shareholders
  4. A cap (to be phased in over 3 seasons) on southern hemisphere and/or non-England qualified players and/or reduced cap or penalties (distributed to the other clubs, points deduction) for too many non-England qualified players
  5. If the international/domestic calendars can't be segregated then there needs to be a greater compensation solution particularly for clubs that don't produce many academy products (possibly paid by the other clubs rather than the RFU)
  6. Complete oversight of club finances covering (more than remuneration) to ensure that clubs are solvent and have a viable business plan for 'x' number of future seasons – this would have gone someway to addressing the mid-season fallout that the entire league is now experiencing with Wasps/Worcester
  7. Premiership Ruby Cup becomes a Premiership youth/player recovery Vs Premiership 2 competition
  8. Ditch the stadium capacity promotion requirement (that works against Jersey, Ealing, etc…), especially when so many teams are struggling with attendances at the moment
  9. More Showdown/Big Game style events to further boost the profile of the game
  10. Cap/lottery on international ticket fixtures
  11. Speeding the game up
    1. 10-seconds to take penalties/conversions
    2. penalties for time-wasting (I'm seeing far too many instances where fatiguing teams take an age to form for a line out)
    3. reworking the scrum – it is a mess for casual viewers to understand what is going on – possibly with fewer players, a limit on resets, etc…
    4. a longer half-time break (player welfare and also for fans to
  12. Better engagement with fans in the stadium
    1. more stats/in-game information on the big screens – perhaps sacrifice one of the digital advertising boards for some detail
    2. if you can't see the ref you have no idea what an infringement was for
    3. do we really need stadium screens showing "respect the kicker"; I want to see the kick or a replay
 
Is a part of the problem that the RFL (in general) is run by Toffs.

Now, I'm not about to start a class war here, but when you come from a wealthy and inherited wealth background the consequences of overspending aren't really borne. Money always seems to find its way to you.
 
Is a part of the problem that the RFL (in general) is run by Toffs.

Now, I'm not about to start a class war here, but when you come from a wealthy and inherited wealth background the consequences of overspending aren't really borne. Money always seems to find its way to you.
Toffs is completely the wrong term and quite frankly stupid. A correct phrase would be dinosaurs who are out of touch with the grassroots game and with players and clubs in general.
 
Toffs is completely the wrong term and quite frankly stupid. A correct phrase would be dinosaurs who are out of touch with the grassroots game and with players and clubs in general.
Of course they are Toffs, this denial is what causes the issue.
 
Of course they are Toffs, this denial is what causes the issue.
Ok, name the people who you think are from an aristocratic background then?

Can you also name a time when you've met them or seen them interviewed and noticed traits of a 'toff'.

When you can't do either, you can come back and say sorry.

The problem isn't a class thing (which is BS anyway these days), it's how far removed they are from the coal face.
 
Ok, name the people who you think are from an aristocratic background then?

Can you also name a time when you've met them or seen them interviewed and noticed traits of a 'toff'.

When you can't do either, you can come back and say sorry.

The problem isn't a class thing (which is BS anyway these days), it's how far removed they are from the coal face.
Literally judges, public school people and high end officers throughout the RFU.

Jeeesus! The denial is strong.

Simon Massie-Taylor (Wellington College)
Nigel Gillingham - RAF Officer
Jeff Blakett judge and Navy Commodore.
Brigadier James Cook

I don't know which schools they went to, but I doubt they were the local comp.

They are just off the top of my head!

A quick scan of the committee also has positions specifically for the Army and Oxford University!

Blows my mind that you would think this is the best governance model for professional sport.
 
Literally judges, public school people and high end officers throughout the RFU.

Jeeesus! The denial is strong.

Simon Massie-Taylor (Wellington College)
Nigel Gillingham - RAF Officer
Jeff Blakett judge and Navy Commodore.
Brigadier James Cook

I don't know which schools they went to, but I doubt they were the local comp.

They are just off the top of my head!

A quick scan of the committee also has positions specifically for the Army and Oxford University!

Blows my mind that you would think this is the best governance model for professional sport.
I'm going to leave this because you seem very diluded with your own agenda and opinions.

You obviously haven't lived much of a life if you think that people from working class backgrounds can't better themselves enough to become an officer or get a good education.
 
I'm going to leave this because you seem very diluded with your own agenda and opinions.

You obviously haven't lived much of a life if you think that people from working class backgrounds can't better themselves enough to become an officer or get a good education.
I am the son of a school cleaner who went to school in a valleys comprehensive. I am also a former officer with a masters degree from LSE . So again you're misguided.

You are deluded if you think there isn't a class bias holding back professional rugby....it's literally the basis of the sport. Those named did not go to the local comp.
There's no real point discussing this observation as the facts speak for themselves, this isn't 'opinion'.
 
This is an idea I've been evolving for 15+ years now, and occasionally posting:

IMO what we need is better player welfare (fewer matches/minutes per player) alongside increased interest levels (higher quality/intensity matches, larger geographic spread, greater diversity of opponents…), and re-arranging the season without shrinking it too much… Which is a bit like trying to square a circle.







IMO, decrease the Prem to 10 teams, 5 in each level of European rugby.
Shrink the champ to 10 (IMO: we can sustain about 20 fully pro clubs, even if they need some charity initially).
Increase promo/relegation with the Championship to 1 automatic and another play off.
Ring-fence the top two leagues (with specific criteria to eject under-performers or include ambitious semi-pro.s).



MSCs for both leagues, but looser than currently, predominantly administrative, and basic stadium features (any mention of capacity should be set very low; circa 2-3K; maybe include plans for increases to 10K over a sensible time period).
Same salary cap for both leagues (but without the expectation of paying up to it for the lower level Championship teams). Salary cap should be based on financial viability, not owner's ego.
TV deal is for both leagues as one deal (ideally 2 Prem and 1 Champ match per weekend, but I'm not averse to more).
RFU academies for all.
Ideally (and this is probably a non-starter) I'd ditch the SF aspect of the Premiership finals (removing international clashes should help with this) and put the top 2 from the league straight into the final. Leagues points difference is translated into score board points at kick-off. Promotion/Relegation match can be played as the curtain raiser.



Create a proper domestic cup competition between the 2 leagues. (I'm unsure if 5 pools of 4, or 6 pools of 4 with 4 invitational teams [ND1? military? England Students? Eng U20? Wales? South Africa ;)] is the better option).
Knock-out stages to include Cup, Plate and Shield competitions so that everyone gets some knock-out experiences every year. Players are only available for the cup if they played less than x minutes (1800?) in the previous season (may allow a higher number for the Championship teams [who won't be playing EPRC fixtures]).
If the cup "just" has the 20 teams, then Cup and Plate go from pools to Quarter Finals, whilst the shield goes straight into semi-finals. If inviting 4 outside teams, then all 3 can have a QF stage.

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.



In terms of home matches, clubs go from 11+2 (Prem), 3+2 (EPRC) and… 0 now that the AWC has become a mid-week squad filler, to 9 (Prem), 3+2 (EPRC) and 3+2 (DomCup) so actually increase the number of home gates per season (now that the AWC has died).
Everyone is also guaranteed at least one knock-out match each year, even if they're not guaranteed a home ground for it (might there be room to play DomCup QFs home and away?).
In terms of variety, Prem clubs go from facing 11 English opponents + 2-3 European to 9 English opponents + 2-3 European + an extra 2 English from a less usual pool of opponents.



Dropping 3 teams from the Premiership increases the quality there, and allows the season to be completed without clashes with international weekends.
Dropping 5 teams from the bottom, and replacing them with 3 big names from the Prem massively increases the quality of the Championship.
The Domestic Cup allows for a greater variety of opponents for the Premiership teams, and a requirement to use the back-up players. The Domestic Cup allows the Championship teams a chance at giant slaying the Prem clubs, and to measure themselves against the bigger boys, which really ought to generate interest from fans and sponsors alike.
Combine that extra interest with a proper TV deal (exposure + money) then that should grow the Championship significantly.
Increasing movement between the 2 levels, and greater cross-over matches between the 2 levels, should reduce the bounce-back aspect of promotion and relegation, whilst that and the extra funding for the Champ clubs (and the ring-fencing there) should reduce the existential fear of relegation for the Prem clubs.



For the champ teams, without European rugby, you could argue that they'd be lacking match numbers, despite the higher quality and TV deal. 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 (and thus, smaller playing budgets at that level).
If there aren't 7 Championship clubs willing to take on full professionalism with all those boosts, then I'd look for the RFU getting involved and "assisting" 1-3 clubs in unrepresented areas, say Carlisle, Blackburn or Canterbury.



In terms of financing, the Premiership's BT deal, signed during Covid, is supposed to be in the region of £37M p.a.
The current ***le sponsorship deal for the Premiership is supposed to be in the regions of £10M p.a.
The current RFU/PRL deal for EPS release etc etc is supposed to be in the region of £27.5M p.a.
FTR, current funding for the Championship is in the region of £3.5M p.a.
I would argue that my suggested set-up would see increases to all of those, and possibly a ***le sponsor found for the Domestic Cup (and remember, that BT deal was shrunk from the previous deal, due to pandemic uncertainties and problems)



Currently, those payments are smoothed over 13 clubs, for £5.7M each (or in the Champ, 12 clubs, for £0.288M each)
If spread evenly over 20 clubs, it would be £3.9M each
If split 3:2 it's be £4.7 (Prem) & £3.1M (Champ)
If split 2:1 it'd be £5.2M (Prem) & £2.6M (Champ)


If interest was increased by 20% from current levels, you could split those monies 3:2 and the Prem clubs wouldn't lose a penny, whilst the Champ clubs would see a 13 fold increase. I would also expect increased interest to increase ticket sales, shirt sales, and the value of club sponsorship agreements – especially in the Championship.
Great idea, the only change i would make would be revenue sharing, so have one kit supplier, etc. and have a hard salary cap, with a maximum and a minimum.
By having greater shares of revenues, then clubs would have greater ability to meet max salary cap.
 

obviously don't know much about cricket but every article I've come across the hundreds has been negative. Interesting they are bringing an exec from there into rugby.
 

obviously don't know much about cricket but every article I've come across the hundreds has been negative. Interesting they are bringing an exec from there into rugby.
For womens Cricket its been great,

County (traditional) supporters are pretty much uniformally opposed. Even those of us who like "hit and giggle" cricket they are essentially removing Cricket from certain areas.

There is some arguement its bought new people to the sport but the figures are highly dubious especially as we have nothing on retention.
 

obviously don't know much about cricket but every article I've come across the hundreds has been negative. Interesting they are bringing an exec from there into rugby.
  • The establishment of an independent financial monitoring panel, which will oversee all club finances, in a bid to avoid the fate that befell Worcester and Wasps.
  • A new sporting commission, which would be independently chaired and make decisions on behalf of the league.
  • Finalising the new PGA, with the biggest area of focus the structure of the English professional game going forward, and a clear vision of what the second-tier Championship looks like and how promotion and relegation will work.
  • Commitment to the growth plan, with an aim to continue to build the league's fanbase, using experience from cricket competition The Hundred to engage a new audience.
 
Doesn't really say anything about what the league will be like,

Wonder if
using experience from cricket competition The Hundred to engage a new audience
will be them pushing prem 7s hard or something?
 
  • The establishment of an independent financial monitoring panel, which will oversee all club finances, in a bid to avoid the fate that befell Worcester and Wasps.
  • A new sporting commission, which would be independently chaired and make decisions on behalf of the league.
These are the 2 im interested in though how transparent will finances be? And how will the sporting commission work? What will they do? And how much power will they have and are they actually just independent?
 

Latest posts

Top