Puja wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 2:22 pm
I will note, on further examination of the details, the proposal is 35 players in senior squad, 12 players in 20-24 age group (which would have its own salary cap, separate to the main squad) and then 15 players in a "rookie" age group of 18 and 19 year olds.
So that's basically a squad size of 47, with the yoof underneath that. I don't think that's too unreasonable. Feels like a weird set of constraints, put in for the sole purpose of artificially making teams have a chunk of their squad be young players, and will end up with some players becoming unemployed on their 25th birthday for what would seem to be an arbitrary reason, but it's hardly impossible to work with.
ETA. Leicester's squad has 32 players who are aged 24+, and 13 who are 20-23 (who have played in the period of the season outside of the RWC)
Puja
That is better, but still, wtf. Creating problems, not solving them.
And doesn't this just mean a raise in the cap? Seems like it...
I suspect it is a partitioning of the cap, rather than a raise. Not that that changes your summary of "creating problems" in the slightest.
Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 3:24 pm
Its more/also about DCMS trying to make clubs live within their means so they have some chance of getting loans and interest repaid. They are also looking at some loan restructuring apparently, which is possibly ominous.
How does this help though?
Why is spending £6.4M on 35 players more sustainable than spending £6.4M on 40 players?
If you want something like that, then bring in some sort of financial fair-play scheme, get the money to pay the squad for the season isolated out ahead of the season, the sort of thing we see working elsewhere - not an artificial cap on the number of players you're allowed in a way that won't make any difference beyond making more players unemployed.
I think the emphasis is on trying to enforce the use of young players by ringfencing the section of the salary cap for the 20-24 year olds. I would imagine it's the optics of "See, we're making sure that they're developing youngsters rather than wasting the government's money on buying overseas players. We're making them responsible!"
Because Worcester were well known for not developing young players and that was why they weren't sustainable.
Puja
As an erstwhile Warriors follower I recall it was more a case that Worcester would develop academy players e.g. Tom Wood and Matt Kvesic who would then move on to more well known clubs to get further in range of test rugby?
Just for the sake of comparison, from what I can see of the clubs' websites:
Bath have 44 senior and 30 academy (I've added Stooke myself)
Bristol have 47 and 37
Exeter have 81 total (they don't separate)
Gloucester have 36 and 22
Harlequins have 48 and 26
Leicester have 42 and 31
Newcastle have 43 and 16
Northampton have 56 total (they don't separate, and I think they exclude players they've loaned out*)
Sale have 55 and 11
Saracens have 43 and 15
So that's 4* clubs with <60 and 2 with >80
It's also 683 players, 80 of whom would have to be made unemployed (and there's only space for 17 of them in the other clubs, and even that depends on the age profiles of each squad)
WT, just thinking about making some poor sods redundant for an arbitrary rule makes blood boil. Whilst applauding a removal of international/club fixture clashes if it leads to less foreign journeymen being employed, I think the rest needs to be left to the clubs. There are so many variables that an arbitrary total numbers rule is daft - 3 or 4 TH injuries, for example.
Have the reasons ever been set out? I can see setting EQP targets. I can see avoiding financial disaster.
IF it was paired with proper funding for the Championship, or Prem2, or whatever, so that there are places for those (mostly academy) players being made redundant, then fair enough, but still a bit nonsensical.
I'd even be okay with it being "first dibs on 15 from your academy, then the rest go on draft, you keep any that are unwanted / unafforded elsewhere" - but there's no indication so far of that crucial last bit.
It's way too much to ask for (especially as all the talk from the Champ is that they're rejecting the tentative deal).
The only reason I've seen is "sustainability" and "because LIrish, Wuss and Wasps went bust" - which had nothing to do with the sheer size of their academies. £6.4M on 62 players is no more or less sustainable than £6.4M on 70 players, after all.
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 11:22 am
IF it was paired with proper funding for the Championship, or Prem2, or whatever, so that there are places for those (mostly academy) players being made redundant, then fair enough, but still a bit nonsensical.
I'd even be okay with it being "first dibs on 15 from your academy, then the rest go on draft, you keep any that are unwanted / unafforded elsewhere" - but there's no indication so far of that crucial last bit.
It's way too much to ask for (especially as all the talk from the Champ is that they're rejecting the tentative deal).
The only reason I've seen is "sustainability" and "because LIrish, Wuss and Wasps went bust" - which had nothing to do with the sheer size of their academies. £6.4M on 62 players is no more or less sustainable than £6.4M on 70 players, after all.
No funding uplift if at all til 25/26. Min standards drafted are a bit of a joke as well. What 'deal' is being rejected? Champ clubs have said they don't want to participate in a tendering round to retain positions for 25/6, esp as no funding has been tabled.
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 11:22 am
IF it was paired with proper funding for the Championship, or Prem2, or whatever, so that there are places for those (mostly academy) players being made redundant, then fair enough, but still a bit nonsensical.
I'd even be okay with it being "first dibs on 15 from your academy, then the rest go on draft, you keep any that are unwanted / unafforded elsewhere" - but there's no indication so far of that crucial last bit.
It's way too much to ask for (especially as all the talk from the Champ is that they're rejecting the tentative deal).
The only reason I've seen is "sustainability" and "because LIrish, Wuss and Wasps went bust" - which had nothing to do with the sheer size of their academies. £6.4M on 62 players is no more or less sustainable than £6.4M on 70 players, after all.
No funding uplift if at all til 25/26. Min standards drafted are a bit of a joke as well. What 'deal' is being rejected? Champ clubs have said they don't want to participate in a tendering round to retain positions for 25/6, esp as no funding has been tabled.
