RugbyRebels

Per BBC:

Central contracts for top England players are "definitely not right" for the English system, says clubs' boss Mark McCafferty.
England's players are owned by their clubs but the world's top two sides - New Zealand and Ireland - centrally contract them to manage workloads.
But England should still win World Cups under the current model, McCafferty believes.
"This is the right system for England," Premiership Rugby's McCafferty said.
He told BBC Sport: "England should still be successful within this system, because it has other advantages: size of the playing base, the quality and number of teams that are playing at the top level.
"So it has different assets compared with other countries, and it needs to deploy those assets fully to its advantage.

Ireland and New Zealand, who both centrally contract their players, are ranked as the top two nations in the world
"There are different systems in different countries but this one is definitely capable of producing World Cup and sustained international success. There is no reason why it shouldn't be able to."
However Ben Ryan, who led Fiji to sevens gold at Rio 2016 after more than 10 years in the English coaching system, says the competing demands of club and country are damaging players.
"The Premiership is becoming wealthier and more valuable and pulling the strings, but ultimately, if England had centralised their players like New Zealand and Ireland, everything would be a lot simpler," he told 5 live's Friday Sports Panel.
"The best decisions are not going to come because everyone round the table has vested interests - either in filling the stadiums in the Premiership or filling the seats at Twickenham, and they are not thinking about the players.
"Physically we are having the equivalent of a serious car crash for each player each weekend and we are asking them to do that 35 times over 11 months. It's too much."
The power-brokers of English rugby reached agreement this week on the structure for the next three domestic campaigns, with the season extended outside World Cup years to limit overlaps with the international game.
Players will now have pre-planned breaks factored into their schedules, although this does not apply to top England internationals, who will get their rest on an ad hoc basis.
A leading England player could still feature in as many as 35 high-intensity matches in a season.
Playing numbers among leading rugby nations
Nations
Registered players/
Total players
South Africa
530,393
603,455
England
359,447
2,116,897
France
273,095
548,403
Australia
272,792
604,440
New Zealand
155,934
155,934
Argentina
109,357
143,770
Ireland
103,044
195,744
Wales
94,000
94,000
Scotland
47,703
180,534
Statistics showed England's British and Irish Lions contingent on average played far more minutes following the tour last season than their Scottish, Welsh and Irish counterparts, and former players such as World Cup winning scrum-half Matt Dawson have voiced their concerns.
Managing England players' workload centrally could be a radical solution to player burnout, but McCafferty believes discussions around central contracts are "over-simplified".
"It is definitely not right for the English system and definitely the clubs would be opposed to it," he said.
"You've got 12 clubs across the Premiership who week in week out have 70-75% English-qualified players from which the England head coach can choose, and when he doesn't have availability for one player he can go in and take another one.
"That is very different to some of those countries who have centrally contracted players with a much smaller player base. They don't have that freedom of choice.
"Our belief is different systems are applicable to different countries."

Well he would say that, wouldnt he?

Trotting out the playing numbers is just meaningless. Its what you have at the top level of the game that really matters. And there is simply no way that there are more than 2 million rugby players in England.

fivepointer wrote: Trotting out the playing numbers is just meaningless. Its what you have at the top level of the game that really matters.

What! Don’t say that. I thought I would be in with a chance of making the RWC squad once I started playing again in Jan.

I doubt you'd get much agreement on objectives. Clubs v country. Pro level v amateur etc. We suffer by comparison with NZ in the fundamental issue of international rugby having the right level of priority.

Of course, it is all cloudy at the moment anyway with our international team under-performing. How can anyone know to what extent our performance is enhanced or harmed by the system? Maybe, that is the message behind the publicity.

I would not be surprised if after some talk between themselves the players direct the RPA to go back and tell the IRB to do one

Which could well make Hopley continuing as is untenable

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/extended ... andy-goode

Goode focusing on the mental impact of a prolonged season. I think he's got a very good point.

fivepointer wrote:https://www.rugbypass.com/news/extended ... andy-goode

Goode focusing on the mental impact of a prolonged season. I think he's got a very good point.

What I find amazing is that the implication from this article is that players have not been consulted (apart from their representative body, presumably). Surely, a starting point in the pre-negotiation stage would be to give all players a suggestion opportunity.

fivepointer wrote:https://www.rugbypass.com/news/extended ... andy-goode

Goode focusing on the mental impact of a prolonged season. I think he's got a very good point.

He's far from wrong. There just needs to be fewer games to fit the quart into the pint pot. The Prem either needs to be smaller or go into conferences.

Puja

Let’s give it a whirl shall we. Goode may be against the new format but Ben Kay thinks it’s a good compromise.

Mellsblue wrote:Let’s give it a whirl shall we. Goode may be against the new format but Ben Kay thinks it’s a good compromise.

Stephen Jones doesn’t like the new format, either ......I’m on Ben Kay’s side.

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:https://www.rugbypass.com/news/extended ... andy-goode

Goode focusing on the mental impact of a prolonged season. I think he's got a very good point.

He's far from wrong. There just needs to be fewer games to fit the quart into the pint pot. The Prem either needs to be smaller or go into conferences.

Puja

Why just cut the Prem, why not cut European and test games too?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

fivepointer wrote:https://www.rugbypass.com/news/extended ... andy-goode

Goode focusing on the mental impact of a prolonged season. I think he's got a very good point.

He's far from wrong. There just needs to be fewer games to fit the quart into the pint pot. The Prem either needs to be smaller or go into conferences.

Puja

Why just cut the Prem, why not cut European and test games too?

Because we've already cut down the European competition recently and I doubt they'd go for more just to solve our problems. Plus that's the best preparation for internationals and the highest domestic level, so I'm not sure that's where I'd want to cut.

We could cut the internationals, but there's no obvious fat to be cut. The 6N is the most successful thing in the NH, the 3 standard autumn internationals are what keep the RFU in profit, the 4th is what pays for the bribes to the clubs that help keep some of them somewhere close to breaking even, and the summer tour pays the SH's bills and they'd be unlikely to tour us if we don't reciprocate.

Plus the internationals are a guaranteed money-spinner and would probably be low on the list to be cut.

Puja

If we cut the test games that drops funding across the board which lowers wage inflation too, and games don't have a requirement to be test games or prep for test games

Digby wrote:If we cut the test games that drops funding across the board which lowers wage inflation too, and games don't have a requirement to be test games or prep for test games

I'm sorry, is your theory that is we reduce the money coming in, clubs will reduce their outgoings? What in your experience of the clubs makes you think that they live within their current means, let alone that they would cut their cloth to meet reduced ones?

Puja

If they don't worry about cutting cloth it follows they don't need to worry about falling revenues. If they do care the relative position wouldn't worsen for English clubs, and very likely it'd improve

Out of interest, which of the competitions/tournaments etc were the most recent to expand/shrink?

How long has the prem been 22+2, Euro 6+3, 6N 5, AIs 3/4, summer 2/3, AW/LV/Prem cup?

Stom wrote:The Lions is one of the things that sets rugby apart. To lose it would be a disaster, imo.

I'm not sure my attention will remain if rugby moves in the same direction football has over the past 20 years. There's a difference between growing the game and rampant capitalism.

I only came back to the sport because of the '09 Lions. Events are what grabs the world and the Lions is a fairly unique event in sporting terms.

I'm also not sure how much of my attention rugby is going to maintain like this, simply because I'm not interested in it for 11 months a year and dipping in and out isn't as fun. I get why the Premiership don't want to play second fiddle to the international game, but right now its like two fat guys trying to squeeze through a narrow door. Its not big enough for both to exist comfortably.

Raggs wrote:Out of interest, which of the competitions/tournaments etc were the most recent to expand/shrink?

How long has the prem been 22+2, Euro 6+3, 6N 5, AIs 3/4, summer 2/3, AW/LV/Prem cup?

Premiership grew in 2008ish by adding the playoffs. Before that, it shrank by 4 games when they stitched up London Scottish and Richmond. That was about... I want to say 2000?

Summer games went from 2 to 3 about 3 years ago, at the behest of the IRB. Autumn went from 3 to 4 about 6 years ago, but that was because the clubs wanted a 4th international to pay them money as part of the EPS deal.

Puja

The clubs didn’t want a 4th AI game they simply wanted more money and unless your name is Jeremy it doesn't grow on trees. Also London Scottish and Richmond weren't stiched up, they were just badly run

That said I'd support scrapping the playoffs in the name of reducing the length of the season

We could also scrap groups in Europe and play knockout from the start

Digby wrote:The clubs didn’t want a 4th AI game they simply wanted more money and unless your name is Jeremy it doesn't grow on trees. Also London Scottish and Richmond weren't stiched up, they were just badly run

That said I'd support scrapping the playoffs in the name of reducing the length of the season

They were very far from alone or even the worst, just the ones unlucky enough to be without a chair at the moment the music stopped.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:The clubs didn’t want a 4th AI game they simply wanted more money and unless your name is Jeremy it doesn't grow on trees. Also London Scottish and Richmond weren't stiched up, they were just badly run

That said I'd support scrapping the playoffs in the name of reducing the length of the season

They were very far from alone or even the worst, just the ones unlucky enough to be without a chair at the moment the music stopped.

Puja

In a competition there are losers

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:The clubs didn’t want a 4th AI game they simply wanted more money and unless your name is Jeremy it doesn't grow on trees. Also London Scottish and Richmond weren't stiched up, they were just badly run

That said I'd support scrapping the playoffs in the name of reducing the length of the season

They were very far from alone or even the worst, just the ones unlucky enough to be without a chair at the moment the music stopped.

Puja

In a competition there are losers

I think it's the fact that no-one declared that there was a competition until it was announced they had lost which galled their fans.

Puja