RugbyRebels

The RFU are in no position to start strong arming PRL. The 2 are intrinsically intertwined and the RFU nailed their colours to the PRL mast a long time ago.

Who said anything about strong arming? I was just responding to the assertion that the RFU have no say in the academy system by pointing out that they do have a say in the academy system.
Regardless, are you saying the PRL clubs won’t want to change the EPS agreement that links funding to COVID decimated RFU turnover and that they don’t want ring fencing? Are you also saying the PRL wouldn’t want to at least consider the cost saving if academies were no longer under their control whilst creating the potential revenue stream of a draft?
All of the above sounds very much up PRL’s street.

Withdrawing, or threatening to withdraw, funding for academies would be a ‘strong arm’ kind of strategy as far as I can see.

From what I have read it looks as though the EPS central funding will reduce for a year and then all parties will re-evaluate.

Yes, I imagine a minority of clubs could be persuaded to give up their academies as a cost saving measure, but I know for a fact that the likes of Saracens, Sale, Worcester and others pour plenty of their own money into youth development because they believe it gives them the best chance of producing a competitive team. I don’t see Prem teams giving up their academies ultimately.

Besides, doesn’t this proposal state that initially PRL and the RFU would need to fund the championship to the tune of £16m for the first couple of seasons? Any savings will be swallowed (and then some) on getting this project off the ground.

There is certainly a decent chance we come out of this (if we come out of it and rugby's even still a thing) with a lot of anger on all sides. And really there don't seem any obvious good ideas about what to do next.

I was hoping that the glib remark about bank managers and sticky points might show it was a silly analogy, rather than a prediction of the future, used to make the point that the RFU are in a position to decide whether the current academy structure stands or falls, that it doesnt just rest on the clubs.
However, there will be negotiations in which the PRL are desperate for more money and the RFU will need to cut costs. Given how COVID has affected income streams and schedules, those negotiations could be imminent and, given the size of the recent upheaval, I'm sure everything will be on the table.
I'm sure plenty of teams view their academies as the best way to build their clubs, and rightly so in my opinion, but pouring plenty of their own money in might no longer be an option. Goodness knows how Worcester have ever afforded it. I've no idea on finances but if running six regional academies is cheaper in the medium term it may interest the RFU. I'm sure there are plenty of unis desperate for funding who would give the RFU very favourably terms for facilities in the next few years.
To be honest, I've no interest in debating the ifs and maybe of future RFU & PRL negotiations, and I do doubt the academy structure will change (something I've already posted on this thread if you look back), but I just thought I'd post an update by the BBC and then subsequently pointed out that the RFU do have a say in the academy structure.

I'm curious. Anyone know are the academies fully funded by the RFU, or do the clubs make a contribution?

What conditions are attached to the funding. Is there some kind of requirement to have a certain percentage in the club's senior squad, or in matchday 23's? Is there a bonus for bringing someone through the academy to representative rugby?

On the broader issue, are the Prem clubs the best environment for nurturing young talent. Could players be better served with close connections to a University/Championship club. Would they get better coaching, more game time and would their opportunities be greater?

fivepointer wrote:I'm curious. Anyone know are the academies fully funded by the RFU, or do the clubs make a contribution?

What conditions are attached to the funding. Is there some kind of requirement to have a certain percentage in the club's senior squad, or in matchday 23's? Is there a bonus for bringing someone through the academy to representative rugby?

On the broader issue, are the Prem clubs the best environment for nurturing young talent. Could players be better served with close connections to a University/Championship club. Would they get better coaching, more game time and would their opportunities be greater?

Some good questions there, 5P! Can't help with the answers, though.

fivepointer wrote:I'm curious. Anyone know are the academies fully funded by the RFU, or do the clubs make a contribution?

What conditions are attached to the funding. Is there some kind of requirement to have a certain percentage in the club's senior squad, or in matchday 23's? Is there a bonus for bringing someone through the academy to representative rugby?

On the broader issue, are the Prem clubs the best environment for nurturing young talent. Could players be better served with close connections to a University/Championship club. Would they get better coaching, more game time and would their opportunities be greater?

It's a mix of
RFU
PRL
Club
Government body performance related funding.

There is a annual audit but not 100% sure what it entails.

See this is what i'm really unsure of what age is this meant to be targeting?
Academies ATM go 14 - 18
College drafts is mainly 20-22
is there meant to be 14-22 all at the same facility for this new structure? How many uni's can handle that workload.
Is this meant to be 18-22 if so what happens at the younger ages.

Too put it this way Tigers alone have.
8 DPP centres covering 13-15
4 DPG centre covering 15-16
ACE School which has around 60 players for the 6th form.

Who is going to be covering that size? let alone adding what Northampton, Worcester and Wasps catchments in it.
The RFU haven't exactly shined with things currently (Yorkshire anyone)
The Championship is talking about being part time league for the next 4 years.

Like all things central contracts wise it's really too late to be doing it, you need money and no one has the money.

I have a visceral dislike of this idea. It might be galling watching Saracens win with Itoje, Kruis, George, Farrell, Goode, et al, but they earned those players. They put in the hard work in youth development and are reaping the rewards. Same with Nowell, Slade, LCD, O'Flaherty, Maunder, etc. There's a correlation between hard work in the local area and reward. Divorcing clubs from academies means that your crop of youngsters comes down to luck of the draft picks and reduces the connection between club and area.

Plus there is the joy of seeing youngsters come through a club's systems - Saracens fans are excited for Manu Vunipola, Leicester for Steward/Martin, Wasps for Barbeary, Quins for Cleaves, etc. Will it be the same for a player ported in without any connection just because no-one else had picked him by the time your club got to their pick in the draft?

Puja

Tigersman wrote:

fivepointer wrote:I'm curious. Anyone know are the academies fully funded by the RFU, or do the clubs make a contribution?

What conditions are attached to the funding. Is there some kind of requirement to have a certain percentage in the club's senior squad, or in matchday 23's? Is there a bonus for bringing someone through the academy to representative rugby?

On the broader issue, are the Prem clubs the best environment for nurturing young talent. Could players be better served with close connections to a University/Championship club. Would they get better coaching, more game time and would their opportunities be greater?

It's a mix of
RFU
PRL
Club
Government body performance related funding.

There is a annual audit but not 100% sure what it entails.

See this is what i'm really unsure of what age is this meant to be targeting?
Academies ATM go 14 - 18
College drafts is mainly 20-22
is there meant to be 14-22 all at the same facility for this new structure? How many uni's can handle that workload.
Is this meant to be 18-22 if so what happens at the younger ages.

Too put it this way Tigers alone have.
8 DPP centres covering 13-15
4 DPG centre covering 15-16
ACE School which has around 60 players for the 6th form.

Who is going to be covering that size? let alone adding what Northampton, Worcester and Wasps catchments in it.
The RFU haven't exactly shined with things currently (Yorkshire anyone)
The Championship is talking about being part time league for the next 4 years.

Like all things central contracts wise it's really too late to be doing it, you need money and no one has the money.

I guess the younger lads, 14-18, will be linked to a Championship club and then graduate to a Uni once they reach 18.

The prospect of lads in a university setting like Exeter, Loughborough or Durham is an appealing one, though i don't doubt there would be complicated issues to resolve.

I 'm just wondering whether the cost of running an academy is worth what most of the clubs get out of it. Just how many youngsters make it to the senior squad every year for instance. Its not as if most clubs show a serious intent to fully utilise their academies. They might lose the odd diamond, but they wouldnt have to fund the development of the great majority of players who never make it to a senior squad.

fivepointer wrote: I guess the younger lads, 14-18, will be linked to a Championship club and then graduate to a Uni once they reach 18.

The prospect of lads in a university setting like Exeter, Loughborough or Durham is an appealing one, though i don't doubt there would be complicated issues to resolve.

I 'm just wondering whether the cost of running an academy is worth what most of the clubs get out of it. Just how many youngsters make it to the senior squad every year for instance. Its not as if most clubs show a serious intent to fully utilise their academies. They might lose the odd diamond, but they wouldnt have to fund the development of the great majority of players who never make it to a senior squad.

I mean you have to factor in that Griffiths wants 15 million for the first year from the PRL clubs and he doesn't mention how much per year it will cost the clubs after though.
Half the squads in the league have 50% or more of their total squad from their academy and the likes of bath and Bristol have only recently properly invested in their academies.

Here is a question why would the Championship clubs be better than the premiership clubs until 18's?

Personally I think it might be more realistic and cost effective if the Prem clubs just linked up with a uni and have the BUCS replace the A league basically.
Work out a deal with the uni for tuition fees.
Get rid of U18's being the final year, have that whole year go to uni (If they want too) those who would rather learn a trade could link up with a "partnered" championship squad earlier.
Maybe 2nd and 3rd year of uni the best players go to the a partnered championship club along with doing their degree.
Clubs can still give senior contract to the exceptional players.

A lot of clubs already scout their local uni's for A league players it would just be taking up a level.

Just a draft system will never work for UK team sports like it does america.
In america it works because despite it being a team sport it is still very individually focused.

Tigersman wrote:

fivepointer wrote: I guess the younger lads, 14-18, will be linked to a Championship club and then graduate to a Uni once they reach 18.

The prospect of lads in a university setting like Exeter, Loughborough or Durham is an appealing one, though i don't doubt there would be complicated issues to resolve.

I 'm just wondering whether the cost of running an academy is worth what most of the clubs get out of it. Just how many youngsters make it to the senior squad every year for instance. Its not as if most clubs show a serious intent to fully utilise their academies. They might lose the odd diamond, but they wouldnt have to fund the development of the great majority of players who never make it to a senior squad.

I mean you have to factor in that Griffiths wants 15 million for the first year from the PRL clubs and he doesn't mention how much per year it will cost the clubs after though.
Half the squads in the league have 50% or more of their total squad from their academy and the likes of bath and Bristol have only recently properly invested in their academies.

Here is a question why would the Championship clubs be better than the premiership clubs until 18's?

Personally I think it might be more realistic and cost effective if the Prem clubs just linked up with a uni and have the BUCS replace the A league basically.
Work out a deal with the uni for tuition fees.
Get rid of U18's being the final year, have that whole year go to uni (If they want too) those who would rather learn a trade could link up with a "partnered" championship squad earlier.
Maybe 2nd and 3rd year of uni the best players go to the a partnered championship club along with doing their degree.
Clubs can still give senior contract to the exceptional players.

A lot of clubs already scout their local uni's for A league players it would just be taking up a level.

Just a draft system will never work for UK team sports like it does america.
In america it works because despite it being a team sport it is still very individually focused.

Doesn't work with players who are completely unsuited to a university education.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Tigersman wrote:

fivepointer wrote: I guess the younger lads, 14-18, will be linked to a Championship club and then graduate to a Uni once they reach 18.

The prospect of lads in a university setting like Exeter, Loughborough or Durham is an appealing one, though i don't doubt there would be complicated issues to resolve.

I 'm just wondering whether the cost of running an academy is worth what most of the clubs get out of it. Just how many youngsters make it to the senior squad every year for instance. Its not as if most clubs show a serious intent to fully utilise their academies. They might lose the odd diamond, but they wouldnt have to fund the development of the great majority of players who never make it to a senior squad.

I mean you have to factor in that Griffiths wants 15 million for the first year from the PRL clubs and he doesn't mention how much per year it will cost the clubs after though.
Half the squads in the league have 50% or more of their total squad from their academy and the likes of bath and Bristol have only recently properly invested in their academies.

Here is a question why would the Championship clubs be better than the premiership clubs until 18's?

Personally I think it might be more realistic and cost effective if the Prem clubs just linked up with a uni and have the BUCS replace the A league basically.
Work out a deal with the uni for tuition fees.
Get rid of U18's being the final year, have that whole year go to uni (If they want too) those who would rather learn a trade could link up with a "partnered" championship squad earlier.
Maybe 2nd and 3rd year of uni the best players go to the a partnered championship club along with doing their degree.
Clubs can still give senior contract to the exceptional players.

A lot of clubs already scout their local uni's for A league players it would just be taking up a level.

Just a draft system will never work for UK team sports like it does america.
In america it works because despite it being a team sport it is still very individually focused.

Doesn't work with players who are completely unsuited to a university education.

Puja

Hence why I said
"Get rid of U18's being the final year, have that whole year go to uni (If they want too) those who would rather learn a trade could link up with a "partnered" championship squad earlier."

Tigersman wrote:

Puja wrote:

Tigersman wrote:
I mean you have to factor in that Griffiths wants 15 million for the first year from the PRL clubs and he doesn't mention how much per year it will cost the clubs after though.
Half the squads in the league have 50% or more of their total squad from their academy and the likes of bath and Bristol have only recently properly invested in their academies.

Here is a question why would the Championship clubs be better than the premiership clubs until 18's?

Personally I think it might be more realistic and cost effective if the Prem clubs just linked up with a uni and have the BUCS replace the A league basically.
Work out a deal with the uni for tuition fees.
Get rid of U18's being the final year, have that whole year go to uni (If they want too) those who would rather learn a trade could link up with a "partnered" championship squad earlier.
Maybe 2nd and 3rd year of uni the best players go to the a partnered championship club along with doing their degree.
Clubs can still give senior contract to the exceptional players.

A lot of clubs already scout their local uni's for A league players it would just be taking up a level.

Just a draft system will never work for UK team sports like it does america.
In america it works because despite it being a team sport it is still very individually focused.

Doesn't work with players who are completely unsuited to a university education.

Puja

Hence why I said
"Get rid of U18's being the final year, have that whole year go to uni (If they want too) those who would rather learn a trade could link up with a "partnered" championship squad earlier."

You expect me to read and comprehend things? Madness!

Sorry, missed that entirely. Not sure about creating a 2 tiered system though, especially one split on academic capability.

Puja