Todd Blackadder calls for play-offs to be expanded to Top 6.

[Rinkadink]

How so?

Less support, less exposure, less money, less jobs, less players, less clubs, less competition, less interest, less geographic spread, less opportunities... I could go on.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

More cone concentration of players especially English ones, in fact if they put a foreign player limit like Ireland has it would more opportunities and more exposure.

You don't need more than 10 top clubs, I mean Ireland have 4 and do fine with it.

Less competition inflating wages, less clubs just wasting money.
Less geographical it's England not America we have about 5 clubs in the south west hows that a spread?
Less interest? Has the club game really grown in this country? Don't let free tickets being giveaway fool into thinking more interest. A better quality comp = more views and adding 3 more champ sides would not be the answer to that.

Like I know you're a Bristol fan so of course you think having more games and more teams is right becuase it would be best for Bristol but it really wouldn't.

 

[Rinkadink]

Success in international competitions isn't the same as "best for English rugby". League structure as-is is proven as successful, see 2003. See grand-slam and #2 ranking in more recent years. The problems with the international game in England has little to do with the domestic structure and more to do with RFU, it's appointments and strategies but that's a different matter. You want as many people invested in rugby as possible, that means not only the international scene but local access to top-quality professional outfits and of course development pathways and grass roots.

Geographical spread is extremely important as both the PRL and RFU recognises. True, we are not America in geographical size but we do have an extremely dense population with poor public and private transport systems and huge income inequality. We need decent clubs in every part of the country to service this.

Addressing one specific thing you brought up, five west country clubs? Exeter, Bristol, Barf *spits*, Gloucester and? The Midlands have the same number; Leicester, Worcester, Northampton, Wasps. London similar. Speaking of distances, Manchester/Sale is closer to Leicester than Exeter is to Gloucester, to give you an idea of the size covered.

The club game has unequivocally grown in this country from the amateur days, even taking out the "big games" which inflate figures. TV ratings are on the up backed up with lucrative deals, although more should be done here and it is through this we can grow the game - France's TV coverage of domestic rugby is probably the best in world and very accessible to many people from all backgrounds. More and more people there are getting into rugby.

I think what you are really arguing for is franchising, is it not? It more closely aligns with the discussion you have brought to the table so far; merge Midlands, West country, London and the North and there's your four teams which RFU can leverage for the prawn sandwich brigade on the cabbage patch to do well with a few times a year, like Ireland.

Ultimately reducing the size of the premiership would cost a lot of jobs, most likely kill off a number of premiership and championship teams, deny many thousands access to top tier rugby, reduce competition, create a less marketable product and all the rest... It's several steps backward. It has nothing to do with me supporting Bristol because ultimately we have the means, support, finances and infrastructures in place to get ourselves into a reduced elite league at the bare minimum, even if we were locked out for a number of years. There are many clubs who aren't that lucky and they would suffer greatly.

There are a number of championship clubs who could make a real go of the top flight if given the means and a fair playing field, something they are currently denied due to the cartel that's in place right now protecting their own interests (and I can't blame them, to an extent). B*rf wouldn't have even be able to gain promotion in their current state due to the MSC, thankfully challenged by London Welsh but there are many more issues such as upon promotion, receiving far less money than those established. Cornish Pirates, Doncaster, Ealing, Bedford, London Irish, Leeds are a number of these who are capable of stepping up but currently hamstrung. Even in ND1, newly promoted Coventry, Plymouth and co should thrive with more funding, it was not long ago the latter was Exeter's biggest rival alongside Pirates. The Championship on the whole should be fully professional as was the original idea behind it's conception but it's becoming increasingly difficult and the gap between the two leagues is almost insurmountable. Makes it very cosy for far too many in the premiership and it's by design, not chance.

All that stuff needs to change for the good of the game in this country. We have the population and means to become a dominant force in rugby, and become a much less niche sport. I don't see why we should shy away from that and potentially end up like Rugby League (which I also really enjoy, BTW and sorry for formatting, typing on mobile).

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Success in international competitions isn't the same as "best for English rugby". League structure as-is is proven as successful, see 2003. See grand-slam and #2 ranking in more recent years. The problems with the international game in England has little to do with the domestic structure and more to do with RFU, it's appointments and strategies but that's a different matter. You want as many people invested in rugby as possible, that means not only the international scene but local access to top-quality professional outfits and of course development pathways and grass roots.

Geographical spread is extremely important as both the PRL and RFU recognises. True, we are not America in geographical size but we do have an extremely dense population with poor public and private transport systems and huge income inequality. We need decent clubs in every part of the country to service this.

Addressing one specific thing you brought up, five west country clubs? Exeter, Bristol, Barf *spits*, Gloucester and? The Midlands have the same number; Leicester, Worcester, Northampton, Wasps. London similar. Speaking of distances, Manchester/Sale is closer to Leicester than Exeter is to Gloucester, to give you an idea of the size covered.

The club game has unequivocally grown in this country from the amateur days, even taking out the "big games" which inflate figures. TV ratings are on the up backed up with lucrative deals, although more should be done here and it is through this we can grow the game - France's TV coverage of domestic rugby is probably the best in world and very accessible to many people from all backgrounds. More and more people there are getting into rugby.

I think what you are really arguing for is franchising, is it not? It more closely aligns with the discussion you have brought to the table so far; merge Midlands, West country, London and the North and there's your four teams which RFU can leverage for the prawn sandwich brigade on the cabbage patch to do well with a few times a year, like Ireland.

Ultimately reducing the size of the premiership would cost a lot of jobs, most likely kill off a number of premiership and championship teams, deny many thousands access to top tier rugby, reduce competition, create a less marketable product and all the rest... It's several steps backward. It has nothing to do with me supporting Bristol because ultimately we have the means, support, finances and infrastructures in place to get ourselves into a reduced elite league at the bare minimum, even if we were locked out for a number of years. There are many clubs who aren't that lucky and they would suffer greatly.

There are a number of championship clubs who could make a real go of the top flight if given the means and a fair playing field, something they are currently denied due to the cartel that's in place right now protecting their own interests (and I can't blame them, to an extent). B*rf wouldn't have even be able to gain promotion in their current state due to the MSC, thankfully challenged by London Welsh but there are many more issues such as upon promotion, receiving far less money than those established. Cornish Pirates, Doncaster, Ealing, Bedford, London Irish, Leeds are a number of these who are capable of stepping up but currently hamstrung. Even in ND1, newly promoted Coventry, Plymouth and co should thrive with more funding, it was not long ago the latter was Exeter's biggest rival alongside Pirates. The Championship on the whole should be fully professional as was the original idea behind it's conception but it's becoming increasingly difficult and the gap between the two leagues is almost insurmountable. Makes it very cosy for far too many in the premiership and it's by design, not chance.

All that stuff needs to change for the good of the game in this country. We have the population and means to become a dominant force in rugby, and become a much less niche sport. I don't see why we should shy away from that and potentially end up like Rugby League (which I also really enjoy, BTW and sorry for formatting, typing on mobile).

2003 is closer to the amateur days than it is to today. The league structures France and England have place brought success until 2007, since then 2010/16/17 have been anomalies with Ireland and Wales dominating European international rugby. RFU appointments obviously aren't the problem when the two failures at the last world cup have gone on to win a grand slam and beat every tier 1 side as an international defence coach and win a Heineken Cup and Pro 14 as a senior coach at Leinster.

There hasn't been a stage in the last 10 years where France or England with their talent spread thinly over 14 and 12 teams have been better than all of the countries who spread theirs across 4 or 5 teams, the FFR and RFU have more money and at least comparable infrastructure to all the other unions.

I think it's very shortsighted to say that you were successful due to the Jones effect and that justifies the current system, in reality England and France have been under achieving for more than 10 years at this stage. New Zealand clearly have the system to follow, Schmidt saw this and implemented it and it took him five years to be dominant in Europe for a season, the Welsh are slowly going that way, the Scots are doing what they can with their limitations. A less profitable league would be better for English rugby, it's pretty obvious, there's too large a conflict of interest for it to happen though so you'll continue to be competing with the rather large disadvantage of a league that has next to nothing to do with the RFU and is too large.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Success in International rugby is the best for English rugby it's pretty clear in that the Rugby World Cup gave rugby it's biggest boost.
Success in club rugby is only good for that local area.
Personally I would rather have Tigers win Europe than England win the 6N's but I know that it wouldn't be better for the game, and I think most people can attest i'm club over country.

Club rugby will never be big enough to draw the same interest International does to attract new fans, look at the last couple of prem finals not selling out, the only reason we have such a good TV deal is the size of the English sports market not because the fan support as shown by club attendances on the whole and the amount of debt clubs are racking up.

What i'm arguing for is ring fenced 10 team league with Irish, Bristol and Worcester going TBH.

There really isn't a number of champ clubs that could make a go of it, pretty much all are miles off and it shows by the amount of wins newly promoted clubs get in the prem.
Your suggestion is to throw money at the problem by giving more funding but rugby doesn't generate enough money to make that sustainable clubs like Sarries and Wasps are already on a tightrope as is, having a 14 team league.

The Rugby clubs spending is massively inflated largely by the English clubs design, not the french clubs as the England draw is enough to limit that.


Let's look at football, England has the biggest club league out of pretty much everyone with the most clubs yet have the most under performing international team and IMO Club rugby is heading the same way.

10 teams ring fenced for 6 years, limit non EQP to 5 per team, and lower the cap giving incentives for academy products, and try to fix the mounting debt club rugby is growing before looking to expand. The league foundations need ripping up.

 

[Which Tyler]

Here you go Rink just for you:

As ever, i just think people are thinking about this all wrong.

It's far too late for franchise rugby in England, that horse bolted a long time ago. It's also entirely unnecessary.

What we need is fewer, higher quality matches at the top, with a more pyramidal structure at the top of the game, concentrating the talent a bit more, and preferably, decreasing the number of overseas mercenaries (thought that's not too bad these last few years).


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

 

[RedruthRFC]

English rugby needs a shake up and expansion, the goal should be two fully professional leagues of 14+. Over 10 years it should be possible if planned and managed correctly. Reducing premiership numbers to 10 or something and semi-pro second division would be a huge step back and a loss all round.

What's your plan to deliver this (I assume you have your own ideas as you say that it should be possible to deliver this within 10 years)?

At level one, ignoring the problems created by stretching resources further (maybe AJ Gallagher makes up for the financial side of this) and reducing development opportunities, last season ran with one uncompetitive team. Things look set to be better next season with Bristol likely to do better than last time around and hopefully Quins and Northampton getting their houses in order, but where are the other two coming from? Reinstating the failed Irish team and adding in a team who in all likelihood will finish behind them next season? I don't see what this does to create a strong competition.

At level two, I can't help thinking that you've spent the past season listening to the Walter Mitty characters that inhabit the grounds around The Championship! The return of Coventry looks like it has a good chance of improving the strength of the league, although the difficulty of making the step up shouldn't be underestimated - London Scottish showed how difficult it is to make the step up, even with a National 1 Dream team (albeit to a stronger Championship), but where are the other teams coming from? Rotherham have proved for two seasons that they aren't up to Championship rugby, DMP have a nice ground, but not a lot else going for them, Albion are still reeling from their brush with ceasing to exist and Blackheath seem like the kind of club who want to do the best they can within their means. Ampthill might fancy a go, but there must be a limit who what they can achieve with the fruits of their money tree.

At the moment, The Championship doesn't work. Everyone wants it to be a professional league, but no one wants to pay for it. Unless a raft of people with deeper pockets and / or more ambition can be found, I don't see how this is going to change. Adding more sides is only going to make the funding shortfall worse, other than Ealing for obvious reasons, pretty much every side seems to be pleading poverty.

 

[Rinkadink]

Here you go Rink just for you:

Yeah, that would be similar to mine but alas I'm short on time so I'll get into what I believe is the right way to go which is 14/14, two up/down another time. In short the top two leagues need to come under the same body (current deals go to 2020, AFAIK). You really need the bigger range than that which is provided by 10/10, plus you have to worry about staleness. Push came to shove 10 a piece with plenty of fluidity could do it, reality is we would probably see a similar situation to now with lower attendances in 2nd tier and a handful of bigger in the 1st and the same teams at the top.

Tigs, bit hypocritical isn't it - proposing current lower table and newly promoted sides are permanently shut out, Exeter came from below that standard, ditto Wuss. Quins and Saints have spent time below and come back to take silverware - but then you subsequently like a proposal that does the opposite of what you describe. May as well ditch Quins and Saints as they were also pretty bad in previous season? You also can't really blame the gap on championship clubs who basically prop up the premiership developing players, every year a shedload of talent is hoovered up by premiership clubs. A number of those do nothing more than bench warm or play in Mickey mouse cups, it's a waste.

Redruth; there are sides like Donny who have said outright they have the funding in place, planning permission, and attainable goals and vision for premiership rugby but due to some of the aforementioned things (and some more besides) make promotion unviable due to the cartel's own self-serving structure.

Alpha, you really are comparing apples with oranges across the board, eg; Lancaster and Co. are in different roles to when employed by RFU, under 5 million people spread across the whole of Ireland vs over 50 million in England. You have the structure you do because there is little choice.

Signing off I Feel like that there should be a small disclaimer on my behalf; I am no fan of the RFU for various things and would quite happily put club before country, also for numerous reasons. You bring up the soccer example; I'd rather we had the rugby equivalent of that but learn from their mistakes so national side wouldn't suffer but if it was either or, definitely side with the professional soccer league route and stuff the country. The benefits far outweigh the negatives.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Redruth; there are sides like Donny who have said outright they have the funding in place, planning permission, and attainable goals and vision for premiership rugby but due to some of the aforementioned things (and some more besides) make promotion unviable due to the cartel's own self-serving structure.

All of that passed me by, do you have a link? Saying that, it's a pretty hollow boast made in the knowledge that it's unlikely to be tested, therefore unlikely to be disproved. The last real world thing I remember hearing about Donny's finances is that their bounce back from National One was thanks to a group of local benefactors who put their hands in their pockets to sub the club for a season. Doesn't smack of being ready to build towards the Premiership. I'd love to know who you've been talking to about the other clubs not covered:

Bedford - perennial overachievers and relatively well supported, but still part time with a ground limited by planning permission.
Pirates - not too long ago had a brush with insolvency, still no ground. Lots of noise made by new movers and shakers, but they've yet to back it up. Look for an improvement from them next season though.
Jersey - had to sell their ground to cover their overspending, hoping to buy it back in 2020.
Yorkshire Carnegie - sliding down the table as ties with the university are unravelling.
Nottingham - homeless, doing well to maintain status, but little sign of kicking on.
Richmond - semi-professional, well run following the mistakes of the late nineties, therefore guarded in their ambitions.
Hartpury - no support, totally reliant on Gloucester and the College marketing department's purse, neither of which will stretch much further.
London Scottish - on a downward trajectory following some belt tightening, also semi-pro I think, although that may have changed.

 

[Rinkadink]

Can't find what I'm looking for and don't have time but this recent one will give you the general gist;

If all that you're doing is committing financial suicide by going up there then the heart that says 'let's make it the tenth and final promotion, after eight promotions through nine leagues' is still there but the mind says 'no'. Not until it is a level playing field.

Believe me, there is no decision not to [go up]. There is no stating 'we won't'. There is certainly stating that it is difficult to the point of being impossible.

Last season we didn't go for it because we said it's just an impossibility here to go up.

In the future we'd assess it on its own merit.

But, and it's a massive but, the playing field of going up has to be more level.

If we go up and get significantly less money than the guys already up there, if we go up and in ten weeks [over the summer] have to achieve what they've had ten years to achieve, if all that pertains and it's all stacked up against us then it's a nonsense going up. Yes, you go up, but you know you'd be beaten 70-0 [every week].

PG: What are the cost implications of promotion to the Premiership?

SL: I hate to quote figures because they change so dramatically but on our enquiries the year before last, what we would've got if we'd gone up was approximately £1.5 million.

Over a third of a million we would've had to spend immediately on just renting temporary seating for a season to make Castle Park up to scratch.

We already get £600,000 in the Championship, so you're talking £700,000 to get up there and stay there with playing stock that aren't available - because it's the play-offs and it's May. The players are all recruited.

In terms of the stadium our current licence is for a capacity of 5,500. When you go up we'd need to double that, of which about 8,000 need to be seats.

We wouldn't have a problem doing it but we'd be staring at a lot of empty seats every week. It goes back to the culture thing. The rule book is stacked against us going up and that's what we're questioning. Everyone is saying 'this is unfair, this is not correct'.

PG: What is the solution?

SL: The solution is a more level playing field.

The solution is to be able to get [in funding] what everybody else gets up there, and not have to wait two to three years to get your 'P share' and so on, and then get bigger chunks of the prize as it were.

I couldn't totally verify it but in France you go into the Premiership and everyone gets the same. I think that's still the case although I'm not totally sure.

PG: That seems extraordinary that clubs going up shouldn't be treated equally.

SL: In France you also get a 'golden hello' - a lump of money that helps you bed in.

PG: Surely if the RFU wanted to grow the game they would welcome new clubs into the top flight?

SL: Absolutely, and also bring premier rugby not just to Doncaster but Yorkshire, a county that has more rugby clubs than any other in the UK.

Bringing premier rugby here would be brilliant for the town. I see total symbiosis between a sport in a town and the town's commercial growth. I have no doubt the two are inextricably linked.

If we're pushing Doncaster the place, we're pushing the sport. If we're pushing the sport, we're pushing Doncaster the place.

Aspirationally, yes, we'd like to go up there. We've not put Castle Park up for nothing. Tony and I put this up as a gift, if you like, to the club to give it the gravitas

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.do...g-a-rugby-legacy-at-castle-park-1-9069334/amp

More there.

I've also spoken to people in person, such as some Ealing bods. Echoes much of the above. Speaking of Ealing, I reckon there's a very good chance of them getting promoted in the coming season.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Tigs, bit hypocritical isn't it - proposing current lower table and newly promoted sides are permanently shut out, Exeter came from below that standard, ditto Wuss. Quins and Saints have spent time below and come back to take silverware - but then you subsequently like a proposal that does the opposite of what you describe. May as well ditch Quins and Saints as they were also pretty bad in previous season? You also can't really blame the gap on championship clubs who basically prop up the premiership developing players, every year a shedload of talent is hoovered up by premiership clubs. A number of those do nothing more than bench warm or play in Mickey mouse cups, it's a waste.

Hardly hypocritical, I'm just not ridged in my thinking.
Both better than your proposal of playing even more games, either 1 flog the players more or 2 ask clubs to carry more players and spend money they don't have.....
Also bit of a difference between Quins and Saints and those teams. People keep bringing up Exeter but how many Exeters have happened in the leagues history?

Can't wait for Ealing to join the debt crisis that is prem rugby.....

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yeah, that would be similar to mine but alas I'm short on time so I'll get into what I believe is the right way to go which is 14/14, two up/down another time. In short the top two leagues need to come under the same body (current deals go to 2020, AFAIK). You really need the bigger range than that which is provided by 10/10, plus you have to worry about staleness. Push came to shove 10 a piece with plenty of fluidity could do it, reality is we would probably see a similar situation to now with lower attendances in 2nd tier and a handful of bigger in the 1st and the same teams at the top.

Tigs, bit hypocritical isn't it - proposing current lower table and newly promoted sides are permanently shut out, Exeter came from below that standard, ditto Wuss. Quins and Saints have spent time below and come back to take silverware - but then you subsequently like a proposal that does the opposite of what you describe. May as well ditch Quins and Saints as they were also pretty bad in previous season? You also can't really blame the gap on championship clubs who basically prop up the premiership developing players, every year a shedload of talent is hoovered up by premiership clubs. A number of those do nothing more than bench warm or play in Mickey mouse cups, it's a waste.

Redruth; there are sides like Donny who have said outright they have the funding in place, planning permission, and attainable goals and vision for premiership rugby but due to some of the aforementioned things (and some more besides) make promotion unviable due to the cartel's own self-serving structure.

Alpha, you really are comparing apples with oranges across the board, eg; Lancaster and Co. are in different roles to when employed by RFU, under 5 million people spread across the whole of Ireland vs over 50 million in England. You have the structure you do because there is little choice.

Signing off I Feel like that there should be a small disclaimer on my behalf; I am no fan of the RFU for various things and would quite happily put club before country, also for numerous reasons. You bring up the soccer example; I'd rather we had the rugby equivalent of that but learn from their mistakes so national side wouldn't suffer but if it was either or, definitely side with the professional soccer league route and stuff the country. The benefits far outweigh the negatives.

So less players and worse infrastructure should result in better results like we've seen in the last 10 years at both club and international level? There's no denying Ireland chose the current provincial system because it was more sustainable than making the all Ireland league but equally there's no denying it's a far better system for the current state of professionalism. English international rugby would be best served if they managed to get their best players playing for no more than six clubs and playing less rugby due to rotation. It's obvious that playing more rugby at the pretty consistent level that is the premiership simply isn't nurturing talent. Elliot Daly, Jonathan Joseph and Maro Itoje are not much better than they were in their breakout seasons because they are playing at a similar level week in, week out in the same role give or take. Compare them to Garry Ringrose, Robbie Henshaw and James Ryan who play in games ranging from pro 14 games against the Dragons with an otherwise second team where they're the leaders, to interpros where maturity and composure is usually enough to win, to Heineken Cup finals where they need to play all guns blazing. This has resulted in them improving far more since the world cup and being far more adaptable rugby players and has been a large part of the reason Ireland caught up with and overtook England since March 2017, it was also part of the reason that they were better in the two years leading up to the 2015 RWC.

English rugby and English players would be better served running the Prem like the Mitre 10 cup, slightly more competitive because there are less European games, and creating 5 or 6 franchises from the 12 clubs to compete in Europe. This obviously can't happen due to the power of the PRL but it's extremely naive to think the NZ model isn't the one to follow simply due to population sizes, last I checked NZ are producing more pros anyway.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Also bit of a difference between Quins and Saints and those teams. People keep bringing up Exeter but how many Exeters have happened in the leagues history?

It depends what "doing an Exeter" means. Rotherham, Rugby, West Hartlepool and Worcester were all at the same level or lower than Exeter when the leagues started. None of them enjoyed the success that Exeter have, nor did they get to where they were by building a business capable of sustaining a rugby club. I should add the usual caveat that I have no idea what SW Telecoms' financial input is (or was over the years) and more importantly whether they would be able to find another business willing to put the same amount of money in if Tony Rowe woke up tomorrow and decided that he's gone off rugby and is going to invest in the local bareback camel riding club.

Can't wait for Ealing to join the debt crisis that is prem rugby.....

Should they make it (the signings and departures thread seemed to show a lot of Ealing players stepping up to the Premiership next season), I assume that Mike Gooley would fund the costs / write off the debts. My worry as a club member would be that he's 81 years old!

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

So, a team who finishes almost as close to the bottom as the top gets into the play-off?
Maybe if there were 14 premiership teams, but there aren't.

There's already an absurd gulf between the top two teams and the rest; I'd also argue that there's quite a gap between wasps and the next couple based on the last two seasons(granted this could change with Leicester and falcons probably on the way up. To expand to 6 though? Mental.

 

[RedruthRFC]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.do...g-a-rugby-legacy-at-castle-park-1-9069334/amp

More there.

I've also spoken to people in person, such as some Ealing bods. Echoes much of the above. Speaking of Ealing, I reckon there's a very good chance of them getting promoted in the coming season.

A little bit tl;dr, so I may have missed bits, but none of that sounds to me like having "funding in place, planning permission, and attainable goals and vision for premiership rugby". He even mentions that club's ambition being to tread water. Seeing he seems to think that 600k + 700k = 1.5m and that you can dual register players who aren't members of academies I'd take his views with a pinch of salt.

The word "entitled" is in vogue at the moment and is usually applied to millennials, but nowhere is it more true than when it comes to members of Championship rugby clubs. This guy is basically saying that he'd like to be promoted and would like the other clubs in the league to pay for it!

 

[FrenchFan]

I think it's very shortsighted to say that you were successful due to the Jones effect and that justifies the current system, in reality England and France have been under achieving for more than 10 years at this stage.

wait the union here can underachieve more, better. They've become good at it now. The LNR are setting everything up for another 10 years of it.

On provinces. The union-funded provinces have zero takers in this country. Completely bogus.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

wait the union here can underachieve more, better. They've become good at it now. The LNR are setting everything up for another 10 years of it.

On provinces. The union-funded provinces have zero takers in this country. Completely bogus.

Yeah, I've acknowledged that there won't be drastic change in France and England but their should be if the goal of everyone was international success like in Ireland and NZ, which it isn't .

 

[FrenchFan]

Yeah, I've acknowledged that there won't be drastic change in France and England but their should be if the goal of everyone was international success like in Ireland and NZ, which it isn't .

But I think change will happen but not in the direction you expect.

International rugby has shrunk. The club/provincial game has surged and will take over if international rugby can't compete.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

But I think change will happen but not in the direction you expect.

International rugby has shrunk. The club/provincial game has surged and will take over if international rugby can't compete.

Nah, that's just France, you've always been different to the rest. There's a bit of a struggle in England but until their clubs can become as sustainable and lucrative as the French (qhich they likely never will) the international game will still be top dog there too.

 

[FrenchFan]

Nah, that's just France, you've always been different to the rest. There's a bit of a struggle in England but until their clubs can become as sustainable and lucrative as the French (qhich they likely never will) the international game will still be top dog there too.

ah you do denial so well Alpha...