RugbyRebels

They’re pretty much a closed shop so only have themselves to blame. They’ve brought it upon themselves by trying to compete with the French and either Munster/Leinster. They’ve had years to get their house in order but haven’t. I’ve no sympathy with a bunch that’ve used their financial muscle on those weaker than them but then shout foul when one/two/three of their number use the same tactic. I’ve no issue with them chucking their financial weight around, that’s the way of the world, but will lol when market forces comes back to bite then on the arse. May be if they’d fully embraced market forces, ie those that might upset their cosy cartel, they might be in better health for it.
They won’t find any sympathy in the Champ, SA, NZ along with Bristol, Exeter and Bath.
Tbh, I’m looking forward to a comp featuring more young EQP with the odd smattering of top class Kiwis.

Tigersman wrote:If clubs don’t have to spend to the salary cap and should spend what they want then maybe the cap shouldn’t exist?

I've asked that question before without getting an answer. Maybe, instead of tinkering with existing (failed) regulations the bodies concerned should start with a clean sheet of paper. Starting with a clear strategy for prioritising country/club might help. An in-depth investigation of the number of sustainable clubs could be another idea. Also, anathema to some I know, has there been a real check on whether fans would support an upper tier of regions? Plenty of club supporters make a noise but are they definitely as anti as portrayed or is it a vociferous minority?

Our player pool is too large for a simple regionalised set-up IMO.

On the one hand, you could argue that this would mean 4 very strong teams, on the other, it would severely limit the careers of those players just outside of this ‘elite’.

How do you propose it would work?

You'll all be surprised to hear me suggest this - but how about 8 teams at the top, and aproperly financed championship?

Which Tyler wrote:You'll all be surprised to hear me suggest this - but how about 8 teams at the top, and aproperly financed championship?

Shocked, shocked I am.

Which Tyler wrote:You'll all be surprised to hear me suggest this - but how about 8 teams at the top, and aproperly financed championship?

You know what, I think I might agree with you!

Puja

As long as I get to choose the 8, which is actually not that easy if you start with the intent to exclude Leicester, Bath and Quins

Which Tyler wrote:You'll all be surprised to hear me suggest this - but how about 8 teams at the top, and aproperly financed championship?

That seems rather more sensible than the possibility of all top tiers having 14 as I saw proposed the other day.

Should the 8 figure be adopted, are you suggesting 8 for the championship as well? An overall total of 16 professional clubs might be about the sustainability limit perhaps.

Oakboy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:You'll all be surprised to hear me suggest this - but how about 8 teams at the top, and aproperly financed championship?

That seems rather more sensible than the possibility of all top tiers having 14 as I saw proposed the other day.

Should the 8 figure be adopted, are you suggesting 8 for the championship as well? An overall total of 16 professional clubs might be about the sustainability limit perhaps.

Yeah, we've had this before.

It makes perfect sense. 8+8, or even 8+10. Ring fencing below the Championship, joint broadcast deals.

With the current table, we'd be looking at:

Exeter, Sale, Bristol, Saints, Wasps, Bath, Quins, Irish.

And in the Champ:

Glos, Tigers, Wuss, Sarries, Falcons, Ealing, Cornish, Cov.

Per The Times - the RPA are threatening legal action if the clubs attempt to make current pay cuts permanent.
Anger amongst players that initial 25% cut was decided without consultation but was accepted as a necessity and on the understanding it was temp. Anger has resurfaced with some clubs contacting agents to say they would like to make the cuts permanent.
Given the RPA faces a start up rival who claims they are too close the RFU and PRL, due to funding, I can see them looking to make a point.
Tricky times lie ahead.

Digby wrote:As long as I get to choose the 8, which is actually not that easy if you start with the intent to exclude Leicester, Bath and Quins

Seems like a good start - add in Sarries and you're sorted.

Mellsblue wrote:Per The Times - the RPA are threatening legal action if the clubs attempt to make current pay cuts permanent.
Anger amongst players that initial 25% cut was decided without consultation but was accepted as a necessity and on the understanding it was temp. Anger has resurfaced with some clubs contacting agents to say they would like to make the cuts permanent.
Given the RPA faces a start up rival who claims they are too close the RFU and PRL, due to funding, I can see them looking to make a point.
Tricky times lie ahead.

One thing that's interesting is that the RPA and Genge's new startup are both fronted by a LHP (Lambert for RPA).

I agree with the players, tbh. You can't just renege on contracts like that.

Yes. I have some sympathy with the players on how this has been handled. On the other hand, being paid 75% of something vs. the real threat of 100% of nothing if clubs go out of business. If a couple of clubs were to go under, there would be a lot of players who’d be unemployed and less clubs with the ability to employ them.

From the Telegraph:
"Premiership players are considering strike action as clubs engage in a “stampede” to impose long-term deals before June 18 to take advantage of the new salary-cap regulations.

Mark Lambert, the chairman of the Rugby Players’ Association, said that he could not rule out a strike with several clubs attempting to impose permanent 25 per cent paycuts. Telegraph Sport has learnt that there has also been an unprecedented storm of contract negotiations in the last 48 hours with Premiership Rugby finally announcing its reforms of the salary cap, including reducing the senior ceiling from £6.4 million to £5m for the 2021-22 season.

As Telegraph Sport first revealed on Monday, there is a clause that allows existing contracts to only count for 75 per cent of their overall value within the salary cap for the 2021-22 season. The cut-off date for a contract to count as “existing” is June 18. Effectively, clubs who get the bulk of their squad tied down on three or four-year deals before that date would be operating with an additional 33 per cent headroom within the 2021-22 salary cap – yet those savings are not being passed on to the players."

Not sure what's going on Bristol, but rumour is that Gloucester is one of the clubs trying to make the CoVid pay cut permenant. It also seems that season long loans don't count towards the cap as the offical site states that from 21-22 seaon the exemption will be removed. Which I think means Earl and Malins will have no effect on Bristol's cap.

Scrumhead wrote:Yes. I have some sympathy with the players on how this has been handled. On the other hand, being paid 75% of something vs. the real threat of 100% of nothing if clubs go out of business. If a couple of clubs were to go under, there would be a lot of players who’d be unemployed and less clubs with the ability to employ them.

I’m sure they understand that. It seems the lack of consultation is the main issue. As always with PRL they like throwing their weight around when they’re the big fish in the pond. There are also accusations that players are being offered these new contracts with an arbitrary 18th June deadline to agree or face the consequences.

Scrumhead wrote:Yes. I have some sympathy with the players on how this has been handled. On the other hand, being paid 75% of something vs. the real threat of 100% of nothing if clubs go out of business. If a couple of clubs were to go under, there would be a lot of players who’d be unemployed and less clubs with the ability to employ them.

Thats the way i'm looking at this. I do think the players have to show a bit of realism here. The game cannot go on with the wages being paid, either in the short or longer term. Something has to give. No one wants to take a pay cut but that is surely an inevitably of the games finances.

Anyone have a view on what you think a player SHOULD be paid?

My feeling is that an academy player should get 20-25K, an established pro 50-60K, an international 100-130K and a star player no more than 200K.

jimKRFC wrote:

Digby wrote:As long as I get to choose the 8, which is actually not that easy if you start with the intent to exclude Leicester, Bath and Quins

Seems like a good start - add in Sarries and you're sorted.

I'd certainly want a London team and I'd pick Sarries. Not fussed about having more teams in the South-West than Exeter and Glaws, why I'd opt for keeping Glaws rather than Bath and Brizzle I don't specifically know but I would. Teams like Brizzle and Quins could still make my 8 as I'd have

Sarries
Glaws
Exeter
Newcastle
Wasps
Northhampton
Sale

and then one from Leicester, Quins, Brizzle, Bath and Iris. As amused as I'd be not to have them I'd almost certainly include Leicester from that lot

Why would you choose a team who are proven cheats and have very few fans?

fivepointer wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Yes. I have some sympathy with the players on how this has been handled. On the other hand, being paid 75% of something vs. the real threat of 100% of nothing if clubs go out of business. If a couple of clubs were to go under, there would be a lot of players who’d be unemployed and less clubs with the ability to employ them.

Thats the way i'm looking at this. I do think the players have to show a bit of realism here. The game cannot go on with the wages being paid, either in the short or longer term. Something has to give. No one wants to take a pay cut but that is surely an inevitably of the games finances.

Anyone have a view on what you think a player SHOULD be paid?

My feeling is that an academy player should get 20-25K, an established pro 50-60K, an international 100-130K and a star player no more than 200K.

5P, I can't begin to rate their worth but there has to be some sort of worldwide scale. Do you think that flat rate plus bonus is the way to go? Maybe a flat rate for a club's first team squad with bonuses made up from a club's 'success' payments (i.e. actual league position winnings, increased sponsorship, higher TV rating etc.) is the way to go. The pool/share could offset injuries. International players earn extra from those appearances anyway. I still think no clashes of top club games with internationals is the most important factor all round.

fivepointer wrote:

Scrumhead wrote:Yes. I have some sympathy with the players on how this has been handled. On the other hand, being paid 75% of something vs. the real threat of 100% of nothing if clubs go out of business. If a couple of clubs were to go under, there would be a lot of players who’d be unemployed and less clubs with the ability to employ them.

Thats the way i'm looking at this. I do think the players have to show a bit of realism here. The game cannot go on with the wages being paid, either in the short or longer term. Something has to give. No one wants to take a pay cut but that is surely an inevitably of the games finances.

Anyone have a view on what you think a player SHOULD be paid?

My feeling is that an academy player should get 20-25K, an established pro 50-60K, an international 100-130K and a star player no more than 200K.

Depends really. Not saying you are wrong at all but giving those sort of wages may see a reduction in the quality of rugby (and lead to further issues). Unless of course a thorough education programme was available and players were allowed to cash in on image rights etc without fear of a salary cap issue.

£20-25k is a lot less than we are paying our 20-21 year old graduates this year.

£50-60k is a good wage, but what is an established pro 22-30 year old? You might find the premiership level quality player who isn't good enough for international level might think it isn't worth it.

What about regional variations? 50-60k in Newcastle is worth a lot more than 50-60k for a Quins player.

it as less than 10 years ago that I know some good domestic players in Scotland were refusing contracts at English Championship clubs because they were making more money working in Edinburgh and turning out for the local Edinburgh clubs. It isn't a stretch to envisage that sort of problem in the top leagues if there were those sorts of wages were on offer.

Scrumhead wrote:Why would you choose a team who are proven cheats and have very few fans?

I like watching them play, I like how they're coached. To me they're one of the most interesting sides around even if hard to like.

Scrumhead wrote: Why would you choose a team who are proven cheats and have very few fans?

Allianz Park is full for most Premiership matches and for away games, they usually have more supporters present than most away teams do at Saracens home matches. The fan base is strong and very active as is the community work being carried out. The limit of 12,500 attending is the size of the stadium as decreed by the Local Authority.

As for 'proven cheats': a policy decision was taken by a relatively few people that, with hindsight, was deemed as being incorrect. Most people , including Saracens fans have accepted this. To brand the entire Saracens team - players coaches, medical staff, admin staff etc etc as 'proven cheats' is getting to be a little tedious. If other Premiership teams had been subjected to the same forensic accounting evaluation as Saracens were, I suspect some of the revelations may have been similar to at least a degree.

The punishment has been accepted by the management, the 'team' and the supporters. Can we please move on!

And I agree with Digby - well except for the last five words. But how many successful teams are popular with the fans of rival teams?

Haha. Bait taken. Actually took a bit longer than I thought