• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Ring fence premiership for 3 years.

Scotty

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
4,778
Club or Nation

Exeter

Steve Lansdown: Ring-fence Premiership for three years, says Bristol Bears owner - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/46922849

I dont think this is to bad of an idea or least theres something in it, i hate that normally teams go up one season and down the next, if a team had 3 years to prepare for the prem and if they get there by winning a playoff with bottom prem team then they have 3 years to develop to prove they deserve to be there.

What are peoples thoughts on this or what would your preferred option be?
 
How would it work in practice? Imagine say it started this year and Bristol finish bottom, they then finish bottom next year and then finish second from bottom the third year by a point. If you took average points and scores etc... into account over those 3 years Bristol would be bottom. I would argue that isn't fair on the team that finishes bottom in the last year. I know there is a big issue because at the moment it's limiting rugby's growth around the U.K, but it still has to be fair and with every 3 years it has the very real potential to be unfair.
 
I like the idea of a home and away play off between the top championship team and the bottom premier team
 
If you really HAVE to ring fence - then it has to be done properly.
Aroundabout the 18-20th or so best team in the land (around the limit of professional viability); with a reduced 1st XV fixture list, (and preferably increased for the youth / backup) and proper financing & TV exposure in place for ALL of those teams; alongside codified ability to switch things up if one of the top teams becomes too crap, or one of the excluded becomes too good to ignore.

Absolutely no way whatsoever that it wil ever be a good idea to allow ringfencing without getting what the game as a whole needs in return.
 
The overall aim should be ring fencing with expansion to 16 teams, based on geography, financial capability fan base etc.

Start with 14 teams, current 12+ L. Irish and best team from North and Midlands. 2 groups of 7, playing a 20 match season plus play offs

Plan to add 1 more team in 3-5 years, allowing teams to prepare properly with finances etc. Three groups of 5, playing an 18 match season, plus play offs.

Repeat in another 3-5 years, completing the 16 teams. 4 groups of 4, playing an 18 match season, plus play offs.

Strict salary cap, better revenue sharing and limits on squad size.

These teams would also look to link with local clubs as 'farm' teams, where academy players would get experience.
 
The overall aim should be ring fencing with expansion to 16 teams, based on geography, financial capability fan base etc.

Start with 14 teams, current 12+ L. Irish and best team from North and Midlands. 2 groups of 7, playing a 20 match season plus play offs

Plan to add 1 more team in 3-5 years, allowing teams to prepare properly with finances etc. Three groups of 5, playing an 18 match season, plus play offs.

Repeat in another 3-5 years, completing the 16 teams. 4 groups of 4, playing an 18 match season, plus play offs.

Strict salary cap, better revenue sharing and limits on squad size.

These teams would also look to link with local clubs as 'farm' teams, where academy players would get experience.

18 games per season? Atm we have 22 rounds of 6 games. Thats 132 matches plus play offs, not saying it doesn't need to be reduced but that is way to low nunber of games.

How about giving a promoted team a year to bed in meaning every 2 years theres a relegation year, this would also mean on the non relagation years teams would be more likely to play young talant without fear of going down which aids development, welfare of established players and might prevent teams bringing in so many foreign players.
 
Only way to increase teams but reduce games?
Abandoning the Premiership Cup is another way to reduce games.

I think 18 league games plus Europe is more than enough. It cuts at least 8 games (Premiership and Premiership Cup) from the calendar and potentially up to 12 games if a team was to make the final of each domestic competition. Fewer games means smaller squads will be needed, reducing costs. It also makes every game more of an event because there's more riding on every match.

From the outside looking in, the Premiership doesn't have enough quality players at the moment to sustain 12 teams let alone 13+. These things are cyclical though. A few years ago the Premiership was ahead of the Pro 14 in terms of overall talent. A couple of years before that, the Top 14 was the league with the most talent. It'll all change again in the not too distant future.

Getting back onto the topic, I can see the 13 shareholders proposing a ring fenced Premiership for 3 years to appease the rest of the Championship. Then in 2 years, they'll pull the ladder up and remove promotion from the table. If a new team wants to come up, it'll be invitation only and they'll have to pay a franchise fee.
 
Only way to increase teams but reduce games?
And ruin the competition in the process.

As above: bin off the prem cup and have proper rest weekends.
Have a proper development competition.
Reduced games without reducing the comp to a group one.
 
And ruin the competition in the process.

As above: bin off the prem cup and have proper rest weekends.
Have a proper development competition.
Reduced games without reducing the comp to a group one.

I don't think people include the premiership cup games most teams play development sides anyway?

What don't you like about conferences? Is it due to the super rugby system? Works in NFL.
 
Why do people think that if we remove relegation then suddenly loads of young talent is going to come through???

You play to win, relegation or no relegation. Young players get a chance when they are good enough.
Agreed! Teams want to get top 6-4 And will play however they feel gives the best chance of that- especially with owners rather than being run by union. Plus poorer/lower teams will still have players poached by higher teams anyway.
 
Kick Wasps out, let Cov Rugby in then ring-fence ;) ;)

Anyway, people might hate this, I'm not convinced but its more feasible than some. Call it conferences if you will...

Premiership 1 & 2 of 8 teams each (games played home and away). Division 2 Ring-fenced. Bottom two and top two are promoted/relegated. All comes under premiership banner so funding equal across both leagues. Equal TV coverage for league games. Cup games on terrestrial TV or free to air.

This spreads the quality across more teams, and there is less pressure on a team getting relegated from '1' as the quality in '2' is still high enough to develop your team/squad. My added teams are debatable but potentially are the 4 biggest teams outside the current prem.

Get rid of Anglo-Welsh and have a Premiership Cup of the 16 teams. Home ties in the 16 team round goes to the Div 2 team.

Division 1 top 6 qualify for European Cup. Relegated and promoted teams + 3rd and 4th in Div 2 qualify for Challenge Cup. 4-8 in Division 2 get rest weekends on European weeks.

Premiership 1

Saracens
Exeter
Bath
Leicester
Harlequins
Gloucester
Wasps
Northampton

Premiership 2

Sale
Bristol
Newcastle
Worcester
London Irish
Coventry (biased, but historically big, potential large fan base, best attendances outside prem)
Cornwall (Lets get the far SW involved, Rugby is huge in Cornwall)
Yorkshire Carnegie (Wanted to get Yorkshire involved, Northerners etc)

14 league games a season. 4 max Cup games. And as many in Europe as it is.

A development league (U23s) of the same teams (but 1 division of 16 teams) runs underneath this for youth and players coming back from injury (max of 3 over 23 in matchday squad) played home or away on alternating years so 15 league games a season.

Amateur (or Semi-Pro) teams from below these divisions can apply to join in the future, a maximum of 10 teams per division in the future, but has to be approved by all members, and prove their financially stability (without being bank-rolled) and support potential.

Hopefully it will remove the stigma of relegation, and the financial issues of being relegated as it currently stands. Teams are always of a high level and have plenty of chance to improve. Players get more rest. Quality always high. Hopefully.
 
Last edited:
I don't think people include the premiership cup games most teams play development sides anyway?

What don't you like about conferences? Is it due to the super rugby system? Works in NFL.
Just think it's **** for the consumer.
You say it works in NFL but that's been there so long, and only really works for people who already follow the sport/know the set up.
I couldn't tell you who plays who, who's in what league, how they work out who they play from other sides.

Losing the home and away vs every team structure would be terrible.

I also don't think it works at all for Super Rugby/Pro14, from an outside spectators perspective.
 
I also don't think it works at all for Super Rugby/Pro14, from an outside spectators perspective.
The big increase in revenue the Pro14 is receiving versus the old system shows conferences are working for that competition. I think it has helped foster new rivalries too. Munster v Glasgow and Leinster v Scarlets games have taken on an extra edge on top of traditional rivalries.

Why do people think that if we remove relegation then suddenly loads of young talent is going to come through???

You play to win, relegation or no relegation. Young players get a chance when they are good enough.
Maybe this is another point entirely but England are dominant at u20 level showing really high skill levels whereas Ireland are rarely more than average. When it comes to senior level, Ireland overtake England in player development. What's the reason for this? Is it that Premiership coaches are risk averse and won't pick players who are clearly incredibly talented? Fear of relegation is a bullshit argument for being risk averse yet it has somehow gained traction. As you say, play to win. If an expansive game helps you win, do it.
 
Why do people think that if we remove relegation then suddenly loads of young talent is going to come through???

You play to win, relegation or no relegation. Young players get a chance when they are good enough.

Except if you don't have any realistic (or mathematical) chance, at which point you can play in order to win in the future (with no fear of relegation) or play to not lose now if you don't want to be relegated.

Young players often don't get good enough if they don't get to play.
 
Except if you don't have any realistic (or mathematical) chance, at which point you can play in order to win in the future (with no fear of relegation) or play to not lose now if you don't want to be relegated.

Young players often don't get good enough if they don't get to play.

But the last few years teams have been in this position anyway. Multiple teams have been safe from relegation without threatening the top of the table.
 
But the last few years teams have been in this position anyway. Multiple teams have been safe from relegation without threatening the top of the table.

Perhaps, but if a team is in a relegation battle, they definitely aren't going to play their young players, are they?
 

Latest posts

Top