RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: As he won’t be available for a large chunk of time. A few players have said they would earn less to play less, Ive just followed that line of thinking.

I've heard a few players say they might do that. I've not heard many say they've actually done it.

I haven't heard any say they've done it. We haven't ringfenced, we haven't imposed central contacts and we haven't reduced the size of the Prem, but they've all been suggested on this thread. If we are only going to propose things that have already been done this would be a very boring thread.

The point was more that players (Billy Vunipola being the obvious example) have come out and said they would accept less money if their contract guaranteed fewer games.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I've heard a few players say they might do that. I've not heard many say they've actually done it.

I haven't heard any say they've done it. We haven't ringfenced, we haven't imposed central contacts and we haven't reduced the size of the Prem, but they've all been suggested on this thread. If we are only going to propose things that have already been done this would be a very boring thread.

The point was more that players (Billy Vunipola being the obvious example) have come out and said they would accept less money if their contract guaranteed fewer games.

I know, Ben Youngs also said the same. If a player hands a portion of their Lions earnings to their club so the club can secure an adequate replacement to cover their time off, then they will earn less to play less. Thus, 'they would accept less money if their contract guaranteed fewer games'.

I will believe in turkeys voting for Christmas when it happens

Also there's still no real explanation as to why the game should run still more in the interests of the national team

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I haven't heard any say they've done it. We haven't ringfenced, we haven't imposed central contacts and we haven't reduced the size of the Prem, but they've all been suggested on this thread. If we are only going to propose things that have already been done this would be a very boring thread.

The point was more that players (Billy Vunipola being the obvious example) have come out and said they would accept less money if their contract guaranteed fewer games.

I know, Ben Youngs also said the same. If a player hands a portion of their Lions earnings to their club so the club can secure an adequate replacement to cover their time off, then they will earn less to play less. Thus, 'they would accept less money if their contract guaranteed fewer games'.

That wouldn't work though, since the club still needs to meet the salary cap. The player would have to sign a contract for less money. They have the power to do it, and they're the ones saying they would, but like Digby, I doubt they actually would.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:
The point was more that players (Billy Vunipola being the obvious example) have come out and said they would accept less money if their contract guaranteed fewer games.

I know, Ben Youngs also said the same. If a player hands a portion of their Lions earnings to their club so the club can secure an adequate replacement to cover their time off, then they will earn less to play less. Thus, 'they would accept less money if their contract guaranteed fewer games'.

That wouldn't work though, since the club still needs to meet the salary cap. The player would have to sign a contract for less money. They have the power to do it, and they're the ones saying they would, but like Digby, I doubt they actually would.

If you go back to my original post, I said it would be outside the cap. I see it a bit like the allowance for cover for long term injuries, albeit preplanned.
As you and Diggers both say, it would be turkeys voting for Xmas, but then so are all the suggestions. Regardless, I don’t see how it’s not consistent with the handful of players who have said they would be happy to earn less to play less, ie the turkeys who say they would vote for Xmas.

Mellsblue wrote:As you and Diggers both say, it would be turkeys voting for Xmas, but then so are all the suggestions. Regardless, I don’t see how it’s not consistent with the handful of players who have said they would be happy to earn less to play less, ie the turkeys who say they would vote for Xmas.

Saying and doing are two rather different things.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:As you and Diggers both say, it would be turkeys voting for Xmas, but then so are all the suggestions. Regardless, I don’t see how it’s not consistent with the handful of players who have said they would be happy to earn less to play less, ie the turkeys who say they would vote for Xmas.

Saying and doing are two rather different things.

Couldn’t agree more.

Would a player agreeing to take a 15% drop in salary (for example) be enough to fund a reasonable replacement to give them some rest periods? Arguably, you would need a number of players to agree to this to bring in one half decent player who could provide some cover. And then run the risk of players heading over the channel for a mega bucks payout if they think that they have no England career.

The major problem you have is that for the club owners, what is the problem? So European success has been rare this season but there are still plenty of paying customers coming through the turnstiles and its a successful league in that respect. Why change - the plight of the English team probably won't cause them to have too many sleepless nights.

Oh well, I happen to think one solution would be a senior player, let's say Farrell or Youngs or George, having the balls to say no to the Lions with the backing of his club and despite the RFU backing for the jamboree. Basically, other than the 2003 'fluke', it has and always will be a case of maximum WRU effort or Lions tour. IMO, there can't be both as things stand with player injury/burn-out.

Sandydragon wrote:Would a player agreeing to take a 15% drop in salary (for example) be enough to fund a reasonable replacement to give them some rest periods? Arguably, you would need a number of players to agree to this to bring in one half decent player who could provide some cover. And then run the risk of players heading over the channel for a mega bucks payout if they think that they have no England career.

The major problem you have is that for the club owners, what is the problem? So European success has been rare this season but there are still plenty of paying customers coming through the turnstiles and its a successful league in that respect. Why change - the plight of the English team probably won't cause them to have too many sleepless nights.

Also the last time they really helped the England side out with access they were rather hoping the England side would repay the favour with driving interest in the game to new heights. But of course that was the 2015 WC and all England managed was to shit the bed. So they might want some convincing they need to roll over for some peoples idea of the greater good.

Which leagues generate the money and profile rugby enjoys?

Well apparently the Vunipolas are negotiating with Saracens now, so let's see.

pandion wrote:Which leagues generate the money and profile rugby enjoys?

A little bit the Rugby Championship, but mainly the 6N

Sandydragon wrote:Would a player agreeing to take a 15% drop in salary (for example) be enough to fund a reasonable replacement to give them some rest periods? Arguably, you would need a number of players to agree to this to bring in one half decent player who could provide some cover. And then run the risk of players heading over the channel for a mega bucks payout if they think that they have no England career.

The major problem you have is that for the club owners, what is the problem? So European success has been rare this season but there are still plenty of paying customers coming through the turnstiles and its a successful league in that respect. Why change - the plight of the English team probably won't cause them to have too many sleepless nights.

Depends how they schedule it. A squad player over a full year to cover sporadic windows where the player is away or rested and I doubt the figures would add up. Perhaps a short a term contract to cover a single but longish rest period might add up. For example, Watson gives up 15% of his Lions fee - somewhere between £11 - 15k - Bath match it plus whatever they think the replacement is worth, and hire Savea/Dagg/Folau for the period between the AIs and the new year. Watson gets a rest, Bath get a quality replacement and a marketing opportunity. They’re also more likely to get Watson for the end of season run-in, which they now don’t have.

Raggs wrote:Well apparently the Vunipolas are negotiating with Saracens now, so let's see.

It’ll be interesting to see if Billy puts his money where his mouth is.

Rich wrote:English rugby needs restructuring. The club system is not working and is not strong enough to produce top class test players.

All the little Englander club fans will scream in horror at the prospect but England needs to divide into about 6 rugby "provinces" each with an RFU funded and owned franchise.
The clubs would play in a club league within that franchise area.

That would give 10 domestic games per year and an average of about 8 European games for an average of about 18 first class games per year.

The season could then start the first week in September and be over by the May Day holiday and still allow for the two international seasons (AI's and 6N) without having to field weakened teams.

A for the Lions, I think that whilst support is still very strong it offers absolutely no benefits to NH rugby and just makes a lot of money for the big SH unions.

I don't have any particular objections to this, and indeed have worked through the hypothetical here before a few time (eg here). If we have to go with franchises, then, rather than playing with themselves, a B&I league becomes viable. Quite honestly, the way to do it would be for the RFU to give up on cooperating with PRL, and go to war instead. Buy 4-6 clubs (from whichever levels they can, but spread geographically). Then at least they've got players. Ask to join the Pro14, and rely on all that goodwill we betrayed when setting up the revamped European Cups.
This would not be accepted by fans (see the Welsh example, and then multiply by the 6-7 times larger fan bases). This will be fought by the clubs, and possibly kill the European Cup, as the French clubs won't want to encourage this behaviour. Players would become pieces on the board, and I think we'd essentially have 3 codes of rugby in the British Isles, albeit that 2 of them use the same laws (initially).



I may have said this before, but 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 half a 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-slaying options, and that ring-fence means 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 they'd 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), 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.

Interesting perspective from Jimmy Gopperth.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... -gopperth/

Very measured from Dai Young too "I heard [Saracens'] Billy Vunipola say that he’d play for less money if it meant fewer games. I’ve not had many coming through my door saying that. Look, if England were like this for two or three more seasons, then you would probably have to look at the reasons why.”

England could make clear they'd pick players who moved to Ireland and were managed in similar fashion to the Irish lads.

Digby wrote:England could make clear they'd pick players who moved to Ireland and were managed in similar fashion to the Irish lads.

They could - it would signal the end of the EPS agreement though

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:England could make clear they'd pick players who moved to Ireland and were managed in similar fashion to the Irish lads.

They could - it would signal the end of the EPS agreement though

If the contention is the clubs aren't looking after the players anyway what does it matter?

There's more to the EPS than player Welfare (and ever less of that it appears)

The accept the status quo

Or, work with the clubs to inculcate the idea that what they want is 10-15 high quality performances from the players in the EPS. That's an aim which may never be realised, and it'll be slow going were it ever realised

Were any shellfish harmed in the course of this thread...?.