Prem will be 14 team league, no ring fence from 22-23

[16th man]

All my immediate reactions are pretty negative.

Have the people who wrote this plan must never have watched the County Championship cricket and witnessed the diabolical level of quality in 80% of it as its the closest I can think of to their model.

Where are all these EQP coming from? We're already seeing more early retirements as lower funding = lower wages = players deciding its not worth the concussions and ligament damage.

The above point exacerbated by either having to play more games, or bigger squads being needed to fulfill fixtures so funds being spread across more players.

[fivepointer]

14 teams is at least 2 too many for a top league, so inevitably the talent is going to be spread thin. The idea of having 15 EQP in a matchday squad of 23 is a sound one. Its the kind of ratio that we should be hitting now. That would still allow for quality imports, the sort that should be the only ones employed as others have noted.
14 teams would require larger squads, or more likely, better use of the existing squad. You only have to look at the roster's of the clubs to see that a number of players get to play very little rugby over the course of a season. That will have to change.
The real problem with these proposals is that it basically bakes in a ringfenced top 14, as the Championship wont get extra funding and there seems little hope that the league will develop into a competitive one capable of preparing for life in the Premiership. Unless there is some sort of funding pledge, greater sponsorship and some sort of tv deal then clubs are going to rely on a very rich benefactor.
The possibility of a greater gap opening up between the Prem and Champ seems very real.

[Mellsblue]

If we’re trying to look for positives (might struggle to make it plural), as Owen Slot states in The Times, at least the Champ will now be a competitive comp rather than a race for second.
It’ll be interesting to watch Ealing, Doncaster and Pirates battle for that golden ticket of being the 14th team (struggling to think of another club with the £££ to go for it) and the recruitment over the summer to facilitate it. It’s pretty much do or die for those teams that want in to the top flight.

[Digby]

A positive for one season then, which is at least longer than the positive impact on the top flight

[Puja]

If we’re trying to look for positives (might struggle to make it plural), as Owen Slot states in The Times, at least the Champ will now be a competitive comp rather than a race for second.
It’ll be interesting to watch Ealing, Doncaster and Pirates battle for that golden ticket of being the 14th team (struggling to think of another club with the £££ to go for it) and the recruitment over the summer to facilitate it. It’s pretty much do or die for those teams that want in to the top flight.

I have to say I'd like to see Doncaster get in. We could do with another northern team and they appear ideally placed to build something there with no other top-flight clubs in the town and to take advantage of the RFU youth development in Yorkshire (and no doubt they'd *love* to be able to take "Yorkshire Carnegie" on as a feeder club!). They'd be my favourite side to see, followed by Pirates.

However, let's face it - it's gonna be Ealing, isn't it. Money will talk.

Puja

[Doorzetbornandbred]

I like the 15 EQP player ruling, I wonder if it has some financial reasoning behind it tbh. Longterm I think its for the best for England. I would like to see 2 up 2 down though as I feel that EQP ruling will eventually be a 'leveller' of sorts and not for the worse. The Championship will end up with more EQP, clubs will have to improve skills of players if they want the best not just get them setting pb's in the gym. I think financially its going to see less overseas players as the salary cap reduces. Japan Top League and MLR has all the money now it seems and probably will do for the forseeable.
With the size of our player base why cant we produce more top quality players?

[Puja]

I like the 15 EQP player ruling, I wonder if it has some financial reasoning behind it tbh. Longterm I think its for the best for England. I would like to see 2 up 2 down though as I feel that EQP ruling will eventually be a 'leveller' of sorts and not for the worse. The Championship will end up with more EQP, clubs will have to improve skills of players if they want the best not just get them setting pb's in the gym. I think financially its going to see less overseas players as the salary cap reduces. Japan Top League and MLR has all the money now it seems and probably will do for the forseeable.
With the size of our player base why cant we produce more top quality players?

MLR's still a loooong way from troubling the Prem financially. It's still a good get for them to have Chris Robshaw who would've struggled for a Prem contract this season. Give it another 10 years and we'll see.

I think it's a big ask to have us produce 210 first division quality players for each week (so, with rotation and injuries, probably more like 350), no matter what changes you make to the talent pathway. New Zealand doesn't have 350 professional players simultaneously despite providing for half the world, and they have the first pick of every sporting talent in their country (plus a couple of others as well, let's be honest) as well as the world's best production line. We're bigger than NZ, but we're a smaller fish in the English sporting landscape and our vaunted player numbers are a result of our robust community game, not a wealth of untapped talent.

Besides, we can only have 15 on the pitch at any time. Wouldn't it be better to have fewer EQP in a higher quality competition?

Puja

[Doorzetbornandbred]

I like the 15 EQP player ruling, I wonder if it has some financial reasoning behind it tbh. Longterm I think its for the best for England. I would like to see 2 up 2 down though as I feel that EQP ruling will eventually be a 'leveller' of sorts and not for the worse. The Championship will end up with more EQP, clubs will have to improve skills of players if they want the best not just get them setting pb's in the gym. I think financially its going to see less overseas players as the salary cap reduces. Japan Top League and MLR has all the money now it seems and probably will do for the forseeable.
With the size of our player base why cant we produce more top quality players?

MLR's still a loooong way from troubling the Prem financially. It's still a good get for them to have Chris Robshaw who would've struggled for a Prem contract this season. Give it another 10 years and we'll see.

I think it's a big ask to have us produce 210 first division quality players for each week (so, with rotation and injuries, probably more like 350), no matter what changes you make to the talent pathway. New Zealand doesn't have 350 professional players simultaneously despite providing for half the world, and they have the first pick of every sporting talent in their country (plus a couple of others as well, let's be honest) as well as the world's best production line. We're bigger than NZ, but we're a smaller fish in the English sporting landscape and our vaunted player numbers are a result of our robust community game, not a wealth of untapped talent.

Besides, we can only have 15 on the pitch at any time. Wouldn't it be better to have fewer EQP in a higher quality competition?

Puja

Yes I get that Puja, Without doing a search I wonder as of now how many EQP players there are spread across the 13 Prem sides?
Our vaunted player numbers actually are taking a hiding and from 2015 to 2020 there was a 19% drop in playing numbers, a lot that was due to GMS being cleaned up and players who had long retired being taken off the system. When you consider the growth in womens rugby over that time it could have been a lot worse tbh.
I know theres 153 Aussies playing Pro rugby outside of Australia, I'd hazard a guess NZ might be similar probably more. SA certainly have a lot overseas.
So in regards to fewer EQP players in a supposedly higher quality competition, yes thats fine but is it sustainable? Why should the RFU fund it? Will it improve the England Rugby Team? Does it just become cheque book rugby at the whim of mega rich owners?

[Puja]

I like the 15 EQP player ruling, I wonder if it has some financial reasoning behind it tbh. Longterm I think its for the best for England. I would like to see 2 up 2 down though as I feel that EQP ruling will eventually be a 'leveller' of sorts and not for the worse. The Championship will end up with more EQP, clubs will have to improve skills of players if they want the best not just get them setting pb's in the gym. I think financially its going to see less overseas players as the salary cap reduces. Japan Top League and MLR has all the money now it seems and probably will do for the forseeable.
With the size of our player base why cant we produce more top quality players?

MLR's still a loooong way from troubling the Prem financially. It's still a good get for them to have Chris Robshaw who would've struggled for a Prem contract this season. Give it another 10 years and we'll see.

I think it's a big ask to have us produce 210 first division quality players for each week (so, with rotation and injuries, probably more like 350), no matter what changes you make to the talent pathway. New Zealand doesn't have 350 professional players simultaneously despite providing for half the world, and they have the first pick of every sporting talent in their country (plus a couple of others as well, let's be honest) as well as the world's best production line. We're bigger than NZ, but we're a smaller fish in the English sporting landscape and our vaunted player numbers are a result of our robust community game, not a wealth of untapped talent.

Besides, we can only have 15 on the pitch at any time. Wouldn't it be better to have fewer EQP in a higher quality competition?

Puja

Yes I get that Puja, Without doing a search I wonder as of now how many EQP players there are spread across the 13 Prem sides?
Our vaunted player numbers actually are taking a hiding and from 2015 to 2020 there was a 19% drop in playing numbers, a lot that was due to GMS being cleaned up and players who had long retired being taken off the system. When you consider the growth in womens rugby over that time it could have been a lot worse tbh.
I know theres 153 Aussies playing Pro rugby outside of Australia, I'd hazard a guess NZ might be similar probably more. SA certainly have a lot overseas.
So in regards to fewer EQP players in a supposedly higher quality competition, yes thats fine but is it sustainable? Why should the RFU fund it? Will it improve the England Rugby Team? Does it just become cheque book rugby at the whim of mega rich owners?

153 Aussies playing pro rugby outside of Australia, sure. But that includes the likes of Nathan De Hoedt and Maclean Jones playing in MLR - hardly names which would enable Australia to start a 6th Super Rugby side if they were to bring them back home. There's not 153 top-division professionals. I've no doubt we *can* find the players. But will they be the same quality as the current Premiership, which is a tad weak already in places?

On the latter questions, I have proposed the 16/18 professional teams split into 2 divisions of 10 and 6/8 before (link to a very old version of it here - I believe I have refined it more recently and taken on board criticisms, but I can't find it on the board and won't bore people by rewriting it here) - I am aware it will never happen, but it is my answer to "Well, what would *you* do?" It would inevitably involve a reduction in the number of home games, because I am not a sadist who thinks the players can keep being beaten like cash-filled pinatas, however I would argue that not playing games during international periods, having "Big Games" in large stadia immediately following the 6N to capitalise on fan interest, and generally treating the Prem like a premium product where the best play (rather than a county-cricket thing where it's fitted in amongst tests and you might see an international if you're lucky) would provide greater value than more games = more money. I am aware that that is untested as a proposition.

Puja

[Doorzetbornandbred]

MLR's still a loooong way from troubling the Prem financially. It's still a good get for them to have Chris Robshaw who would've struggled for a Prem contract this season. Give it another 10 years and we'll see.

I think it's a big ask to have us produce 210 first division quality players for each week (so, with rotation and injuries, probably more like 350), no matter what changes you make to the talent pathway. New Zealand doesn't have 350 professional players simultaneously despite providing for half the world, and they have the first pick of every sporting talent in their country (plus a couple of others as well, let's be honest) as well as the world's best production line. We're bigger than NZ, but we're a smaller fish in the English sporting landscape and our vaunted player numbers are a result of our robust community game, not a wealth of untapped talent.

Besides, we can only have 15 on the pitch at any time. Wouldn't it be better to have fewer EQP in a higher quality competition?

Puja

Yes I get that Puja, Without doing a search I wonder as of now how many EQP players there are spread across the 13 Prem sides?
Our vaunted player numbers actually are taking a hiding and from 2015 to 2020 there was a 19% drop in playing numbers, a lot that was due to GMS being cleaned up and players who had long retired being taken off the system. When you consider the growth in womens rugby over that time it could have been a lot worse tbh.
I know theres 153 Aussies playing Pro rugby outside of Australia, I'd hazard a guess NZ might be similar probably more. SA certainly have a lot overseas.
So in regards to fewer EQP players in a supposedly higher quality competition, yes thats fine but is it sustainable? Why should the RFU fund it? Will it improve the England Rugby Team? Does it just become cheque book rugby at the whim of mega rich owners?

153 Aussies playing pro rugby outside of Australia, sure. But that includes the likes of Nathan De Hoedt and Maclean Jones playing in MLR - hardly names which would enable Australia to start a 6th Super Rugby side if they were to bring them back home. There's not 153 top-division professionals. I've no doubt we *can* find the players. But will they be the same quality as the current Premiership, which is a tad weak already in places?

On the latter questions, I have proposed the 16/18 professional teams split into 2 divisions of 10 and 6/8 before (link to a very old version of it here - I believe I have refined it more recently and taken on board criticisms, but I can't find it on the board and won't bore people by rewriting it here) - I am aware it will never happen, but it is my answer to "Well, what would *you* do?" It would inevitably involve a reduction in the number of home games, because I am not a sadist who thinks the players can keep being beaten like cash-filled pinatas, however I would argue that not playing games during international periods, having "Big Games" in large stadia immediately following the 6N to capitalise on fan interest, and generally treating the Prem like a premium product where the best play (rather than a county-cricket thing where it's fitted in amongst tests and you might see an international if you're lucky) would provide greater value than more games = more money. I am aware that that is untested as a proposition.

Puja

We could go round in circles on the subject Puja. Im with you on flogging the players to death. I think we have some interesting times ahead of us with regards to finances etc and the knock on effect of that on the game.