What teams do you predict will get promoted in the next few years?

[Rugbydiehard]

I can see Ealing going up this year. Cornish Pirates and Doncaster also look like very good teams. Don't know if the money is there for them to succeed in the top flight though.

 

[EdBirch]

It's all about the Promotion criteria isn't it? I don't know if any of the teams apart from Sarries meet the criteria and also, how many could end up like London Welsh and be financially unviable?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Realistically?
Whoever has the deepest pockets

Ealing's owner has given them a blank chequebook and, unsurprisingly, it's coincided with a rapid ascent

 

[RedruthRFC]

It's all about the Promotion criteria isn't it? I don't know if any of the teams apart from Sarries meet the criteria and also, how many could end up like London Welsh and be financially unviable?

I'm pretty sure that Ealing have passed an audit in the past using someone else's ground, so if they were to win promotion I would expect them to accept it.

Pirates' major benefactor announced a couple of weeks ago that he is going to put his hand in his pocket to expidite the building of a "Stadium For Cornwall", but there's no way it will be in place for the start of next season, . If Pirates were to win promotion, the nearest ground that has a chance of passing the PRL audit is Home Park in Plymouth (about 80 miles away), which would make a ground share more difficult, but I'd imagine that they would do everything in their power to find a way of going up.

Unlike the others, I don't think that Doncaster have a major benefactor, so playing level 1 would be a bigger ask for them. That said, I think that they intended to accept promotion the year that they lost out to Bristol, so I imagine that there's a plan in place to tick all the PRL boxes.

My recollection of the LW situation is that their demise was a result of overspending in persuit of survival. By virtue of having a benefactor, Pirates and Ealing are better placed to make a good fist of promotion, but there's no reason why Donny couldn't go up, live within their means and enjoy their season in the sun. They'd by heavy favourites for demotion if it still exists by then, but could pull survival off based onaa few big results against fellow cellar dwellers.

 

[higgik]

I'm pretty sure that Ealing have passed an audit in the past using someone else's ground, so if they were to win promotion I would expect them to accept it.

Pirates' major benefactor announced a couple of weeks ago that he is going to put his hand in his pocket to expidite the building of a "Stadium For Cornwall", but there's no way it will be in place for the start of next season, . If Pirates were to win promotion, the nearest ground that has a chance of passing the PRL audit is Home Park in Plymouth (about 80 miles away), which would make a ground share more difficult, but I'd imagine that they would do everything in their power to find a way of going up.

Unlike the others, I don't think that Doncaster have a major benefactor, so playing level 1 would be a bigger ask for them. That said, I think that they intended to accept promotion the year that they lost out to Bristol, so I imagine that there's a plan in place to tick all the PRL boxes.

My recollection of the LW situation is that their demise was a result of overspending in persuit of survival. By virtue of having a benefactor, Pirates and Ealing are better placed to make a good fist of promotion, but there's no reason why Donny couldn't go up, live within their means and enjoy their season in the sun. They'd by heavy favourites for demotion if it still exists by then, but could pull survival off based onaa few big results against fellow cellar dwellers.

This financial issue is the main reason I think ring fencing is a way forward.

The way clubs, like LW, Leeds, Rotherham have broken the club in trying to reach the sun is not sustainable.
Also, owners with deep pockets is not either.
The only way forward is for revenue sharing so that the collective earn more, even if some earn less than current.

A competitive league will bring in far more revenue overall for everyone and in the long term, everyone will earn more.

 

[RedruthRFC]

This financial issue is the main reason I think ring fencing is a way forward.

The way clubs, like LW, Leeds, Rotherham have broken the club in trying to reach the sun is not sustainable.
Also, owners with deep pockets is not either.
The only way forward is for revenue sharing so that the collective earn more, even if some earn less than current.

A competitive league will bring in far more revenue overall for everyone and in the long term, everyone will earn more.

I don't think it's fair to group Rotherham in with Welsh. Their gradual slide down the pyramid was a result of them not spending money they didn't have chasing unrealistic goals. All their story shows to me is the difficulty of demotion from The Championship and the resulting transition from mostly-pro to semi-pro. Donny coped because a consortium dug deep to retain their squad and crossed their fingers they bounced right back, Richmond can cope because they are able to open doors for players. Roth's sun reaching days were 15 years or more previous and I think they remained at level two afterwards.

Leeds weren't trying to reach the sun, but were stupid in not cutting budgets when the Carnegie money dried up, but were just trying to maintain their standing, not reaching for the sun as such. IIRC what they and LW got really wrong was to chose to believe assurances from a potential benefactor rather than getting their legals and due diligence in place (my recollection is hazy though).

For fear of reductio ad absurdum, ringfencing of the basis of finance would make for a boring Premiership, with Exeter playing Leicester every week. I get what you're saying and agree to some extent, but it's tough to make a case for ringfencing on a financial basis when most on the inside of the ringfence are also a financial basket case. In an ideal world, some sort of financial fair play would be great, but I don't see how you could implement it wothout turning some big teams into village sides.

Revenue sharing is already in place for PRL A share holders. I'm not sure what you're suggesting on that front. If you mean them sharing revenues with The Championship, I would be in favour, but I can't see why PRL would ever go for it. I sound like a broken record on this, but the RFU's malaise back in 1995 is what created the crappy situation we have now where the PRL hold all the cards. They benefit massively from The Championship and further down the pyramid already, so there would need to be a case that they would benefit more if they invested in it to make it compelling for them to do so. On the flip side, there's nothing that the Championship have that they could threaten to withdraw from the PLR clubs is they don't invest in them.

It's interesting that you mention a competitive league. I've already heard complaints of relegation leading to poor games. Between the salary cap and distributing RFU / TV money equally (AFAIK) I don't see what else can be done to make a ringfenced league more competitive. Maybe more thought about academy boundaries?

 

[higgik]

More revenue sharing, for example single kit suppliers or official league sponsors, and how about sharing ticket sales yo a certain level.

Look at how the NFL shares it's revenue and how strict salary caps work.

The league already has share holders, so why not get those 13 to offer a 14th place in a ring fenced league for a club willing to buy a share holding for a given price. If the league wants to expand further the same would apply for new teams, but they get the benefits of a 14th share in all league revenues.

See this about how the NFL does it.

NFL revenue-sharing model good for business | Sporting News

NFL teams share close to 61 percent of total revenues the league generates, which makes a great deal of business sense.

www.sportingnews.com

 

[Seeker]

I can see Ealing going up this year. Cornish Pirates and Doncaster also look like very good teams. Don't know if the money is there for them to succeed in the top flight though.

I'd like to see that.

 

[higgik]

I'd like to see that.
View attachment 10685

Why not.
How about a 16 team league, 4 groups of 4, hone and away in group, home or away v others, (18 matches). Followed by pay offs for group winners and best 3 runners up, (best winner gets bye week)

Groups
South West: Pirates, Chiefs, Bears, Bath
West: Gloucester, Warriors, Wasps, Sharks
East: Falcons, Knights , Tigers, Saints
London: Saracens, Harlequins, Trailfinders, Irish

Good spread of clubs, all with good finances.
Less matches for most, meaning less cross over with international matches.

 

[Seeker]

Why not.
How about a 16 team league, 4 groups of 4, home and away in group, home or away v others, (18 matches). Followed by pay offs for group winners and best 3 runners up, (best winner gets bye week)

Groups
South West: Pirates, Chiefs, Bears, Bath
West: Gloucester, Warriors, Wasps, Sharks
East: Falcons, Knights , Tigers, Saints
London: Saracens, Harlequins, Trailfinders, Irish

Good spread of clubs, all with good finances.
Less matches for most, meaning less cross over with international matches.

I like your idea.

 

[higgik]

I like your idea.

Championship could follow a similar system, but the teams should be 'linked' with Prem teams and dual registrations used more. For example, academy players should ALL be automatically dual registered.

The Championship becomes a feeder competition for the Premiership.

Below this should be fully amateur and regionalised with national play offs.

4 regions based on current, North, Midlands, South East, South West.

Each region has 16 teams in 2 groups of 8.

Everyone plays a 10 game season, with the group winners into National play offs, (3 more weeks).

This gives a 13 week season, meaning players are not having to make the current huge commitment.

It also leaves space for a proper county championship season as a way of providing an extra for players to aspire to.

 

[Craigo]

None. And we all know why. I say angrily !.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Ealing win the league ngl pleased they are not going up.

 

[higgik]

I like your idea.

Could even start by adding just Doncaster and Ealing and having 3 groups of 5, still playing an 18 game season.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Playing a pool system in England IMO makes no sense and would kill the game completely.

 

[Which Tyler]

Playing a pool system in England IMO makes no sense and would kill the game completely.

I haven't stopped advocating for my suggested pool / conference system; of maybe 22 / 24 English teams; but with pools / conferences divided by ability, rather than geography or random allocation.
The 8/10 better teams in one conference, with the 12-14 less-good teams in the second; playing everyone in their own conference twice in a league-type structure. The top 8-10 can sent half their teams to the Champions Cup, with the lower half to the Challenge Cup.
Of course, you need a proper competition to bring the 2 conferences together, in a cup format with pool stages and play-offs at Cup, Shield and Plate levels.
Of course, as it's all a single league, split into conferences, all teams get TV coverage under a single contract. Equally, 22 / 24 league shares, and seats on PRL.

 

[higgik]

I haven't stopped advocating for my suggested pool / conference system; of maybe 22 / 24 English teams; but with pools / conferences divided by ability, rather than geography or random allocation.
The 8/10 better teams in one conference, with the 12-14 less-good teams in the second; playing everyone in their own conference twice in a league-type structure. The top 8-10 can sent half their teams to the Champions Cup, with the lower half to the Challenge Cup.
Of course, you need a proper competition to bring the 2 conferences together, in a cup format with pool stages and play-offs at Cup, Shield and Plate levels.
Of course, as it's all a single league, split into conferences, all teams get TV coverage under a single contract. Equally, 22 / 24 league shares, and seats on PRL.

But you will just get the top getting more money and reducing number of teams.
Groups work because teams get more local derbies and there is something to play for for longer.

If EPRC was reduced back to 20 teams then 6 teams qualify, 2 from each group.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm pretty sure that 22 or more than 12, so I'm not sure how adding teams becomes fewer teams.
Also not sure how an even split of the group pot means that some get more and others less from the group pot.

Groups only provide more local derbies if grouped by region (which is not a given), as for something to play for, for longer - ditching relegation eliminates that, whilst a shrunk top conference with higher quality teams means that EVERY match matters, especially if fighting for places in end of season KO competitions, Europe for the following year, etc.

What it does mean is the current Championship is improved in quality, improved in finance, improved in exposure and improved in "matches that matter" as well as the current Prem doing the same.

 

[higgik]

I'm pretty sure that 22 or more than 12, so I'm not sure how adding teams becomes fewer teams.
Also not sure how an even split of the group pot means that some get more and others less from the group pot.

Groups only provide more local derbies if grouped by region (which is not a given), as for something to play for, for longer - ditching relegation eliminates that, whilst a shrunk top conference with higher quality teams means that EVERY match matters, especially if fighting for places in end of season KO competitions, Europe for the following year, etc.

What it does mean is the current Championship is improved in quality, improved in finance, improved in exposure and improved in "matches that matter" as well as the current Prem doing the same.

Because the bottom group will get less exposure.

 

[Which Tyler]

Because the bottom group will get less exposure.

Right, so league sponsorship, televised matches, and giant slaying opportunities, results in significantly less exposure than no sponsorship, no televised matches and no giant slaying opportunities...
Not to mention less up-front money, less sponsorship opportunities and smaller crowds...