Rugby Union

[tigerburnie]

Why would the higher leagues club financially support the lower leagues? Name me a sport in the world that does that? Do championship clubs support National league clubs, of course they don't they can't afford to. The clubs at all levels do support each other using the dual registration system where players are loaned by the clubs to each other, benefits clubs and players. Players from higher clubs assist coaching clubs in lower leagues, again to assist all parties. The RFU use clubs players raise money, pay for the use of their players under a mutually agreed system and should then support the lower levels of the game. This is not unique, the only difference is in some countries it's the RFU's who hold the contracts and pay the players, something the English RFU point blank refused to get involved with.

Premiership clubs take payment from the RFU and those funds are shared equally between the clubs, so some clubs who have no international players get the same share of the funds as do the sides with the most England players, something no other clubs/regions/franchises do anywhere else. The PRL are far from perfect, but the way the RFU govern(or to be precise do NOT govern) is the problem, they just seem to want to keep the cash for lining their own wallets.

[whart57]

On 17/03/2023 at 15:17, rockershovel said:

The whole point of a reduced fixture list is that IT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF FIXTURES, thereby solving the problem of playing League fixtures on International weekends. This was understood in amateur days but discarded by professional owners, intent on maximising the return on their outlay.

 

It becomes an inherent problem when you organise the season around leagues. Back in those "amateur days" the clubs just played the fixtures they'd organised for themselves. Promotion to more challenging opponents was nigh impossible for unfashionable clubs whose fixture secretaries hadn't been at the same school as the ones from the elite clubs. International days did give an opportunity to try out a new fixture, but more often it was the Saturday to put in the Old Boys' fixture the club committee didn't want dropped but was usually an embarrassing walkover.

[whart57]

36 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

Why would the higher leagues club financially support the lower leagues? Name me a sport in the world that does that?

 

Football's Premier League does. The arguments are over how much and in what form that payment should be and a new deal over TV money being passed on is being thrashed out between the Premier League and the EFL right now.

 

36 minutes ago, tigerburnie said:

Do championship clubs support National league clubs, of course they don't they can't afford to. The clubs at all levels do support each other using the dual registration system where players are loaned by the clubs to each other, benefits clubs and players. Players from higher clubs assist coaching clubs in lower leagues, again to assist all parties. The RFU use clubs players raise money, pay for the use of their players under a mutually agreed system and should then support the lower levels of the game. This is not unique, the only difference is in some countries it's the RFU's who hold the contracts and pay the players, something the English RFU point blank refused to get involved with.

 

At all levels of sport those at the higher levels fight to maintain their status. In non-league football the issues of ground facilities has been used to keep the ambitious down. Shamefully the rules about ownership and tenancy have not been applied equally to incumbents and newcomers, something I believe has happened in rugby's Premiership recently too where incumbents' murky ground share arrangements or temporary shortfalls in capacity have been glossed over but the same issues have been used to deny Championship clubs the opportunity of promotion.

 

The informal support by the big clubs of small clubs creates issues however, which are currently playing out in women's football. In the two fully professional divisions of the women's Premier League a divide is opening up between the teams that are a part of a major men's club and those that are either independent or, like WSL2 side Lewes, set up as an equal opportunity community club where the men of the Isthmian League side and the women of the WSL2 side are paid on the same payscale. Lewes is a well run outfit, well supported and well rooted in their local community, but they are struggling to match what the sides funded by a mens' Premier League outfit finding a bit of spare cash in the vault can raise. Sneaky extra requirements like a demand for undersoil heating - not usually found at non-league grounds - start to look very much like a cartel flexing their muscles. Ironically Lewes' men's team were themselves denied promotion to a higher league twenty years ago because their ground didn't have the number of turnstiles ground regulations demanded for the higher league and though that could easily be addressed in the close season, that didn't matter.

Edited March 20, 2023 by whart57

[rockershovel]

The RFU, and for that matter the FA were classic examples of Edwardian mutuality in action. 

 

Consider the FA Cup; a trophy in which the majority of sides involved, participate in the hope of a "big draw" which will support the club for years to come in increased credibility and revenue. 

 

Rugby Union was a "club sport" in the truest sense, with very minor nations playing occasional "big games". What is the commercial justification for the Lions mid-week games? But a club side which once beats a touring Test side will "strip their sleeves, and say - these scars I got on St Crispins Day" for decades afterwards; "all shall be forgotten, yet they shall remember, with advantages, what feats they did that day". 

 

 

[tigerburnie]

The game is nothing like the one I played in the 70's, but it isn't just money that's trashed it, society has changed to the point where some people are I swear from a different species and sport just reflects it. I thought dinosaurs were an extinct species, some one should tell Attenborough they are living in Twickenham.

[tigerburnie]

Back to some sanity and a full program of club rugby, with most of the clubs able to select from all their players, the fans will be happy at least.

[rockershovel]

.... meanwhile the tide has changed, and is flowing in a different direction. 

 

Wales are now realising that they have no option but to establish and follow a regional structure, like Scotland and Ireland. They MUST have a credible national side, the clubs cannot support themselves, let alone the sport as a whole. 

 

On the wider stage, plans for a World League have come to shape. Italy have done just enough to keep their place in 6N, which has maintained its structure as a self-contained tournament. However there is now to be a credible second tier of structured international competition, with a credible revenue stream which the top clubs have no real way of influencing. 

 

The clubs have succeeded in continuing restrictions on players selection, but for how long? This is an existential challenge for Twickenham. They MUST sustain the standard of the national squad, which the existing arrangements clearly don't do. 

 

Let's see what develops. 

[tigerburnie]

You're seriously blaming the clubs for the RFU's disastrous mis-management of the National game?..........................you're Donald Trump aren't you?

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, tigerburnie said:

You're seriously blaming the clubs for the RFU's disastrous mis-management of the National game?..........................you're Donald Trump aren't you?

 

The RFU are hopeless; BUT, and it's a very big but, I don't trust the Prem clubs either. 

 

When the game went professional, the RFU allowed (mostly through negligence and inaction) various third parties to establish themselves amongst the clubs. Some of these outsiders were the same people who made a lot of money from the reconstruction of football in the 1980s. 

 

These interests pursued an agenda of obstructing the RFU's belated attempts to establish a national structure, in pursuit of their own financial goals. 

 

Unlike football, the money is in the international game. The clubs maintained their own faction within Twickenham attempting to syphon more money out of the international revenues, control player wages (the block on selecting players based in France is an aspect of this) and preventing controls on importing overseas players in large numbers. 

 

These interests are mutually opposed and cannot be reconciled. 

 

A new actor has entered the game; major media interests who understand the value involved and have no particular interest in supporting the club sides. The RFU could, under certain circumstances make a lot of money out of this. The new promoters are interested primarily in the recognition value of top sides and top players and coaches. 

 

The RFU have made a complete dogs dinner of running the national side, but it's also obvious that the clubs are not acting as an effective development structure and player pool. Players are over-played and lack basic skills. Key decision-making positions are lacking. 

 

 

 

 

[whart57]

The problem with saying the money is in the international game is that the national sides don't find the talent, nurture it, coach it, and provide enough game time for players to stay sharp. International coaches scout the top end of the club game for their players, they don't take nine year old kids and develop them, nor does the international game provide regular games every weekend for the hundreds of players who try and make a living from rugby. Yet the international game cherry-picks the results of the clubs' work. The problem in England is that for a large part the Premiership clubs also cherry-pick the work of the community game.

 

[tigerburnie]

49 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

The RFU are hopeless; BUT, and it's a very big but, I don't trust the Prem clubs either. 

 

When the game went professional, the RFU allowed (mostly through negligence and inaction) various third parties to establish themselves amongst the clubs. Some of these outsiders were the same people who made a lot of money from the reconstruction of football in the 1980s. 

 

These interests pursued an agenda of obstructing the RFU's belated attempts to establish a national structure, in pursuit of their own financial goals. 

 

Unlike football, the money is in the international game. The clubs maintained their own faction within Twickenham attempting to syphon more money out of the international revenues, control player wages (the block on selecting players based in France is an aspect of this) and preventing controls on importing overseas players in large numbers. 

 

These interests are mutually opposed and cannot be reconciled. 

 

A new actor has entered the game; major media interests who understand the value involved and have no particular interest in supporting the club sides. The RFU could, under certain circumstances make a lot of money out of this. The new promoters are interested primarily in the recognition value of top sides and top players and coaches. 

 

The RFU have made a complete dogs dinner of running the national side, but it's also obvious that the clubs are not acting as an effective development structure and player pool. Players are over-played and lack basic skills. Key decision-making positions are lacking. 

 

 

 

 

Apart from Sir John Hall and Rob Andrew at Gosforth, that never happened, yes there have been asset strippers sneaking in as seems to have happened at Worcester and the RFU seem to be allowing another dodgy set of dealings to continue today, their handling, along with the PRL are doing their level best to corrupt the top of the game with shenanigan's at Wasps.

Up until covid and a season of playing behind closed doors, the club game was limping along just fine, the £400k that each club gets from the RFU for access to their players was proven to be peanuts compared to how much it costs to run the game. The reticence of the RFU to lead the discussion on change is testimony as to how they just want to sit in Twickenham, watch England and drink Gin.

[rockershovel]

53 minutes ago, whart57 said:

The problem with saying the money is in the international game is that the national sides don't find the talent, nurture it, coach it, and provide enough game time for players to stay sharp. International coaches scout the top end of the club game for their players, they don't take nine year old kids and develop them, nor does the international game provide regular games every weekend for the hundreds of players who try and make a living from rugby. Yet the international game cherry-picks the results of the clubs' work. The problem in England is that for a large part the Premiership clubs also cherry-pick the work of the community game.

 

Well, exactly. The main source of players for the national team are the schools and universities. 

 

The top clubs are trying to make a commercial sport by interposing themselves into the area formerly occupied by the Counties, Regions and England A teams. It isn't working. 

 

Look at the current England squad. Two of the three candidates for captain are in their thirties. There are three possible scrum-halves, all badly lacking development at Test level. There is no established #10/#12 pairing and no obvious preferred option. The scrum is consistently outmatched by teams like South Africa and their 6N record is frankly, pretty poor. 

 

The squad also lacks adaptability. There is an obvious problem (Owen Farrell personifies it) of players looking dominant at club level but unable to step up. I'm certain that this is because the lack of representative rugby stifles development, because players always play in the same line-ups. When a national coach has to experiment with possible combinations, he is doing work which should be done at County/Regional/ Possibles v Probables level. 

 

It's often remarked by commentators hat England players look as though they have never played together before; this is why. 

[tigerburnie]

I think now Jones has finally been shown the door England will rise to the top again, the club game can learn from the French game, some restrictions on how many non English players can be on the field, or more financial incentives for clubs to have more EQ players will help long term. If you look at the current crop of young players coming through the Tigers academy, you can see that the model works. JvP, Chessum, Steward, Martin(who tore Bristol apart today), Hayes along with players that have been developed outside of the academy like Dolly, Hurd, Kelly, Potter, Porter, Simmons and West. all young players growing with each season in the best league in the UK, the game can prosper with proper governance without any changes to the formula, after all England under this system have been in World Cup finals and no other northern hemisphere has won except England.

[whart57]

13 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

Well, exactly. The main source of players for the national team are the schools and universities. 

 

The top clubs are trying to make a commercial sport by interposing themselves into the area formerly occupied by the Counties, Regions and England A teams. It isn't working. 

 

Look at the current England squad. Two of the three candidates for captain are in their thirties. There are three possible scrum-halves, all badly lacking development at Test level. There is no established #10/#12 pairing and no obvious preferred option. The scrum is consistently outmatched by teams like South Africa and their 6N record is frankly, pretty poor. 

 

The squad also lacks adaptability. There is an obvious problem (Owen Farrell personifies it) of players looking dominant at club level but unable to step up. I'm certain that this is because the lack of representative rugby stifles development, because players always play in the same line-ups. When a national coach has to experiment with possible combinations, he is doing work which should be done at County/Regional/ Possibles v Probables level. 

 

It's often remarked by commentators hat England players look as though they have never played together before; this is why. 

 

Sorry mate, but that amateur era has passed. I suspect you have to be well into your seventies to remember a time when county games had any significance. Possibly rivalry between the Rose counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire kept that fixture alive beyond the 1950s but nowhere else paid much attention to county level games. At best they provided warm-up opponents for touring international sides.

[tigerburnie]

On a happier note my old club Leicester Lions have been promoted to National league 1 at the third level of English rugby for the first time, visits to the likes of Rosslyn Park, Plymouth Albion. Cambridge, Cinderford and Birmingham Mosely to look forward too.

[rockershovel]

I played at Cambridge at Exiles/Wanderers level in the late 70s and early 80s. Had a nostalgic trip there about 15 years ago when No 2 Son was on the County Schoolboys circuit. 

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, whart57 said:

 

Sorry mate, but that amateur era has passed. I suspect you have to be well into your seventies to remember a time when county games had any significance. Possibly rivalry between the Rose counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire kept that fixture alive beyond the 1950s but nowhere else paid much attention to county level games. At best they provided warm-up opponents for touring international sides.

True, but my point was that there is now a yawning gap from club to Test level and on the evidence, it's a major problem 

[whart57]

I know this is a rugby union thread, but Leeds Rhinos' comeback against Catalans Dragons is worth a mention. Five unanswered tries - the first two scored while Leeds had a man disadvantage - turning a 14 point deficit into a ten point win was quite remarkable.

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, whart57 said:

I know this is a rugby union thread, but Leeds Rhinos' comeback against Catalans Dragons is worth a mention. Five unanswered tries - the first two scored while Leeds had a man disadvantage - turning a 14 point deficit into a ten point win was quite remarkable.

Cambridge have won the Boat Race!

[teaky]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

Cambridge have won the Boat Race!

How many tries did they score?

[Dave Hunt]

14 hours ago, teaky said:

How many tries did they score?

 

Wrong sport - they won by two goals not out.

 

Dave

[whart57]

30 minutes ago, Dave Hunt said:

 

Wrong sport - they won by two goals not out.

 

Dave

 

Four actually, you have overlooked the women. Or the reserve crews.

[BoD]

As long as they didn’t kiss their cox afterwards.

[tigerburnie]

Nothing yet heard from either of the two sets of owners of Wasps and Worcester, season coming to it's end and no-one seems to know what is going on, how are clubs going to plan their next season and get the fixtures settled when we don't know if either club will still exist. Both sets of fans seem bewildered by it all, really poor leadership by the RFU and their team who are allegedly watching over all of this. This season already impacted with clubs losing revenue due to cancelled matches and it seems it just could continue next season too.

[whart57]

All the parties involved have created this problem by trying to avoid the logic of a sports club going bust. It was accepted that either or both clubs would have to drop into the Championship but from a financial point of view that was the least attractive option. Huge drop in revenue but the expenses of running a club at Championship level, especially if promotion back to the Premiership is expected within two years at the most, would exceed that likely revenue. Better would have been to reserve a couple of slots in National 2. For both these ex-Premiership clubs, recruiting a team of Championship and National 1 level players would be affordable, their gates would go a long way to covering the costs and the fans would get some rugby, albeit at a lower level for 3-4 years. Meanwhile the infrastructure could be built back. The problem for Wasps though would be a ground to play on, renting sizeable football stadiums only makes sense with five figure crowds paying Premiership ticket prices.

 

When Glasgow Rangers got busted down for financial irregularities they went to the bottom of what was then the Scottish pyramid. It took five years to get back but there was wholesale fumigation of the back office while the team took on Annan Athletic and Berwick Rangers.