There's some caveats to the 35 senior players though. If memory serves a senior player is over the age of 24 or something like that which would make it fairly easy for most current clubs to remain as they are.Banquo wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 11:14 am BTW...in the Beeb article it confirms senior players in the prem will be 35 per club.....which sort of says c 150 will be looking for jobs (allowing for retirements etc between now and 25/26 season), and if the champ is binned off as per the threat, I wonder who will be employing them in England.....the RFU expects the Champ to take the strain. Lol.
Championship Rugby
Moderator: Puja
-
FKAS
- Posts: 7356
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
-
Which Tyler
- Posts: 9358
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Championship Rugby
On the BBC's bullet points themselves:
1. Yes, yes, yes please. But do it properly. Not franchises (an excuse to get Wasps and LIrish (I wish I could include Worcester & Jersey here) fast-tracked back up to the top. A 12 or 14 team Prem 2 (extra matches played during Euro weekends) with decent funding, and sponsorship and TV deals wrapped up together with Prem 1, and a reasonable sharing of those moneys - look to France where they already do that for the top 3 tiers. Proper promotion and relegation will be required, no parachute payments, stadium MSCs set for both, at a level that's achievable for all of the clubs (so none of this 10k rubbish - though I believe that's government imposed, not RFU / PRL)
2. We need to see details on how this is going to work, as it's currently a bugger's muddle of leaks and supposition. It could be great, it could be awful.
3. Terrible idea as a stand-alone. I could see some benefit if it's introduced with #1 being done properly... which it won't be (ie. if it's a way to "release" some higher quality players down to a properly funded and exposed Prem2).
Either way, 35 + academy is too small. 35 + 12 "academy new graduates" + full academy should be fine (if putting artificial limits on the academy, it should be limits of "protected from the draft" not a straight limit on the number as "leaked").
4. Hmmm, interesting idea, and better collaboration is always better. Trouble is, club and country demands on a player are very different.
5. An unqualified "Yes please".
NB: This is so close to what I've been calling for for 20-odd years, and even wrote (with a lot of help from this board) to Rob Andrew in 2006 suggesting, that I am very biased in this direction.
However, I have absolutely zero faith in the RFU to actually enact these properly; and I fully disapprove of their tactics for trying to force them through
1. As part of a landmark new partnership, the Rugby Football Union plans to create a revamped second tier from the 2025-2026 season.
2. Around 25 elite England players to receive hybrid or "enhanced "contracts, giving the RFU closer control over player workload, with improved Individual Development Plans [IDPs].
3. Slimmed-down Premiership squads of around 35 senior players, supported by a dozen or so Academy players, to prevent clubs 'warehousing' talent.
4. A centralised and standardised strength and conditioning database to allow better collaboration between the clubs and national sides.
5. A "consistent and regular" programme of England 'A' matches, including a tour in the summer of 2025.
1. Yes, yes, yes please. But do it properly. Not franchises (an excuse to get Wasps and LIrish (I wish I could include Worcester & Jersey here) fast-tracked back up to the top. A 12 or 14 team Prem 2 (extra matches played during Euro weekends) with decent funding, and sponsorship and TV deals wrapped up together with Prem 1, and a reasonable sharing of those moneys - look to France where they already do that for the top 3 tiers. Proper promotion and relegation will be required, no parachute payments, stadium MSCs set for both, at a level that's achievable for all of the clubs (so none of this 10k rubbish - though I believe that's government imposed, not RFU / PRL)
2. We need to see details on how this is going to work, as it's currently a bugger's muddle of leaks and supposition. It could be great, it could be awful.
3. Terrible idea as a stand-alone. I could see some benefit if it's introduced with #1 being done properly... which it won't be (ie. if it's a way to "release" some higher quality players down to a properly funded and exposed Prem2).
Either way, 35 + academy is too small. 35 + 12 "academy new graduates" + full academy should be fine (if putting artificial limits on the academy, it should be limits of "protected from the draft" not a straight limit on the number as "leaked").
4. Hmmm, interesting idea, and better collaboration is always better. Trouble is, club and country demands on a player are very different.
5. An unqualified "Yes please".
NB: This is so close to what I've been calling for for 20-odd years, and even wrote (with a lot of help from this board) to Rob Andrew in 2006 suggesting, that I am very biased in this direction.
However, I have absolutely zero faith in the RFU to actually enact these properly; and I fully disapprove of their tactics for trying to force them through
-
Banquo
- Posts: 20887
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
Statement by the Championship Clubs – December 22, 2023. For immediate release
The RFU did not inform Championship clubs in advance of publication of the comments that the CEO and others chose to give to the press last week about our collective discussions over the future of the second tier. The game will also have seen the Funding and Growth strategy document which was sent to our clubs and the Council a few days ago containing certain conditional proposals.
We wish to respond on a number of matters.
First, we share the RFU’s desire to build a competitive and valuable second tier with all the ambition you need in a sporting competition. That is not possible for as long as Premiership Rugby Ltd and the RFU choose to maintain the current barriers to entry, which by necessity leaves the Championship as the top of the competitive pyramid in English rugby.
Second, the significant underinvestment in our league over recent times – central funding cut by 75% with no prospect of meaningful improvement – has left us self-reliant, self-funded and self-sustaining. This is the overall backdrop.
The RFU has now chosen to criticise our attitude to their flawed proposals, which we do not believe represent a whole-game solution. Not only do we need a whole-game solution, but we need a whole-game response to the proposals laid out by the RFU, so in the New Year we will be making our views on the details – as far as we can ascertain them – of the Premiership II plan.
For now, we would like to repeat what we said on November 17, that the Championship clubs are not interested in a league that follows a franchise or selection-based model.
That means a league in which clubs are chosen to be part of a new tier two because of a commercial, geographic or financial consideration, rather than gaining membership by virtue of promotion and relegation. Meritocracy is a longstanding principle of rugby in this country, even if franchises might work elsewhere and in other sports. Basing entry to Tier 2 on minimum operating standards or on the perceived importance of their “brand”, rather than merit, would deprioritise the quality of rugby, of coaching and player development in Tier 2 at a time when Tier 1 is already cutting squads back.
However, we fully support the research going on to identify ambition in other parts of the country to assist in growing the game.
We share the RFU’s view that a second tier must be viable and of the highest possible standard. This requires continual improvements over time on and off the field, but the critical point, which the RFU knows, is that these improvements have to be developed and paid for. Unfortunately, while so little funding is allocated towards the second tier in general, our attitude has to be progressive and clubs need time to build a business plan. We have constantly urged earlier disclosure of funding plans to allow time for our clubs to plan with confidence.
We commit totally to an effective player development pathway when PRL and RFU have decided, with us, what they really mean by that. Discussions are ongoing. Gametime and vital life experience is achieved for our young players by meaningful contracts and time spent with our clubs. Our value over the last years is undeniable, with more than 100 International recognitions for players who have been part of the Championship.
Unlike the RFU, we believe that the Championship under our amended proposals is a wholly investible proposition. Indeed, collectively the current clubs’ benefactors have invested some £200 million since this league first came into being. We accept that it would be even more investible if the RFU had not cut funding levels so deeply during the most difficult period for competitive sports clubs in the modern era. They have failed by their own admission to commercialise our business. Now that, at our request, we have been given those rights to exploit, we can try to build separate revenue streams.
Governance of Tier Two is a key consideration here at a time when the whole Union is to be reviewed and upgraded following independent analysis. A joint venture with the RFU is the most appropriate at this time while understandably PRL ensures its own fitness for purpose. This does not mean we cannot formally connect to the very top of the game over time in this area.
A key point is that our clubs have very strong rugby DNA. We believe in that heritage as a force for the future and so do dozens of other clubs in leagues below the Championship who aspire to the top. We are committed to working with the RFU to find ways of preserving that DNA – all that is best about the sport we love – while continuing the vitally important work of creating a strong and sustainable second tier for the good of the whole game.
Our objectives are common and we agree on so much, but our approach is different and based on decades of rugby and business experience. That demands respect and attention and the RFU Board should engage its full effort in listening to us. The Union was set up to be a guardian of the whole game in this country across all ages and talents. It must now fulfil those responsibilities.
We will have more to say on this early in the New Year.
The RFU did not inform Championship clubs in advance of publication of the comments that the CEO and others chose to give to the press last week about our collective discussions over the future of the second tier. The game will also have seen the Funding and Growth strategy document which was sent to our clubs and the Council a few days ago containing certain conditional proposals.
We wish to respond on a number of matters.
First, we share the RFU’s desire to build a competitive and valuable second tier with all the ambition you need in a sporting competition. That is not possible for as long as Premiership Rugby Ltd and the RFU choose to maintain the current barriers to entry, which by necessity leaves the Championship as the top of the competitive pyramid in English rugby.
Second, the significant underinvestment in our league over recent times – central funding cut by 75% with no prospect of meaningful improvement – has left us self-reliant, self-funded and self-sustaining. This is the overall backdrop.
The RFU has now chosen to criticise our attitude to their flawed proposals, which we do not believe represent a whole-game solution. Not only do we need a whole-game solution, but we need a whole-game response to the proposals laid out by the RFU, so in the New Year we will be making our views on the details – as far as we can ascertain them – of the Premiership II plan.
For now, we would like to repeat what we said on November 17, that the Championship clubs are not interested in a league that follows a franchise or selection-based model.
That means a league in which clubs are chosen to be part of a new tier two because of a commercial, geographic or financial consideration, rather than gaining membership by virtue of promotion and relegation. Meritocracy is a longstanding principle of rugby in this country, even if franchises might work elsewhere and in other sports. Basing entry to Tier 2 on minimum operating standards or on the perceived importance of their “brand”, rather than merit, would deprioritise the quality of rugby, of coaching and player development in Tier 2 at a time when Tier 1 is already cutting squads back.
However, we fully support the research going on to identify ambition in other parts of the country to assist in growing the game.
We share the RFU’s view that a second tier must be viable and of the highest possible standard. This requires continual improvements over time on and off the field, but the critical point, which the RFU knows, is that these improvements have to be developed and paid for. Unfortunately, while so little funding is allocated towards the second tier in general, our attitude has to be progressive and clubs need time to build a business plan. We have constantly urged earlier disclosure of funding plans to allow time for our clubs to plan with confidence.
We commit totally to an effective player development pathway when PRL and RFU have decided, with us, what they really mean by that. Discussions are ongoing. Gametime and vital life experience is achieved for our young players by meaningful contracts and time spent with our clubs. Our value over the last years is undeniable, with more than 100 International recognitions for players who have been part of the Championship.
Unlike the RFU, we believe that the Championship under our amended proposals is a wholly investible proposition. Indeed, collectively the current clubs’ benefactors have invested some £200 million since this league first came into being. We accept that it would be even more investible if the RFU had not cut funding levels so deeply during the most difficult period for competitive sports clubs in the modern era. They have failed by their own admission to commercialise our business. Now that, at our request, we have been given those rights to exploit, we can try to build separate revenue streams.
Governance of Tier Two is a key consideration here at a time when the whole Union is to be reviewed and upgraded following independent analysis. A joint venture with the RFU is the most appropriate at this time while understandably PRL ensures its own fitness for purpose. This does not mean we cannot formally connect to the very top of the game over time in this area.
A key point is that our clubs have very strong rugby DNA. We believe in that heritage as a force for the future and so do dozens of other clubs in leagues below the Championship who aspire to the top. We are committed to working with the RFU to find ways of preserving that DNA – all that is best about the sport we love – while continuing the vitally important work of creating a strong and sustainable second tier for the good of the whole game.
Our objectives are common and we agree on so much, but our approach is different and based on decades of rugby and business experience. That demands respect and attention and the RFU Board should engage its full effort in listening to us. The Union was set up to be a guardian of the whole game in this country across all ages and talents. It must now fulfil those responsibilities.
We will have more to say on this early in the New Year.
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
-
Puja
- Posts: 18180
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
I'm just loving the quote from Bill Sweeney about, "We've shown that if you pour money into the existing structure of the Championship, it just doesn't deliver. That's not being disrespectful, it just doesn't."
I'm wondering exactly when he considers this pouring of money to have occurred, as I think we all missed that.
Puja
I'm wondering exactly when he considers this pouring of money to have occurred, as I think we all missed that.
Puja
Backist Monk
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
It’s an ongoing theme. When they slashed the funding he said that the Champ hadn’t hit any of its targets it had set in the funding deal. The big problem, at best, was that those targets were never communicated to the Champ or, at worst, didn’t exist until an excuse was needed to cut the funding.Puja wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 2:14 am I'm just loving the quote from Bill Sweeney about, "We've shown that if you pour money into the existing structure of the Championship, it just doesn't deliver. That's not being disrespectful, it just doesn't."
I'm wondering exactly when he considers this pouring of money to have occurred, as I think we all missed that.
Puja
I also manically lol at the idea that despite actually having poured money in to the Prem, and repeatedly increasing the quantity of that flow, the Prem is delivering…
-
fivepointer
- Posts: 6486
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
Have the RFU actually engaged the Champ clubs in discussions about where the elite game is heading? It seems not. I find that utterly baffling.
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
From what I’ve been told and what I’ve read, they have been included but in the way you include young children in discussions about where to go on holiday…
but Banquo will know the dynamics a lot better than I do.
but Banquo will know the dynamics a lot better than I do.
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
https://x.com/champrugby/status/1738662 ... MV3j-SK8yQ
You don’t get entertainment like this in the Prem.
#delivering
You don’t get entertainment like this in the Prem.
#delivering
-
Mr Mwenda
- Posts: 2537
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:42 am
Re: Championship Rugby
Pity to have missed the battle of Bedfordshire today, we went to the panto.
-
Banquo
- Posts: 20887
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
they have, but what tends to happen is that they go into huddle after discussions, and produce their own version fitting the preconceived direction of travel; Champ clubs also are excluded from conversations between PRL and the RFU, so that's a bit of a void. Their public statements tend to just rile the Championship Pro clubs who have been badly burned. In truth, there is not a million miles between the visions...the issue is getting there.fivepointer wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 7:54 am Have the RFU actually engaged the Champ clubs in discussions about where the elite game is heading? It seems not. I find that utterly baffling.
Anyway, our first W yesterday, hurrah!
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
-
Banquo
- Posts: 20887
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
not a subscriber, what's he saying now ?
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
https://x.com/ampthillrufc/status/17414 ... MV3j-SK8yQ
-
Banquo
- Posts: 20887
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
yep, RFU haven't quite thought through what happens if they relegate 11/2 clubs from Champ to NL1. Its possible they have 12 'new' clubs lined and ready to go from 25/26 with near prem quality MOS I supposeMellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:20 amhttps://x.com/ampthillrufc/status/17414 ... MV3j-SK8yQ
. Alternatively, their grand plan may actually be to have only 8-10 fully pro teams ringfenced into an B and I league (s).-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
Warburton was putting the case for this in The Times last week. He’s on the board at Cardiff…Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:55 amyep, RFU haven't quite thought through what happens if they relegate 11/2 clubs from Champ to NL1. Its possible they have 12 'new' clubs lined and ready to go from 25/26 with near prem quality MOS I suppose
If they’re determined to go down the ring fencing route, I actually think a Eng & Wales league would be very beneficial for both parties.
I hate the idea of a B and I and I and SA league.
-
Puja
- Posts: 18180
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:16 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
Feels like it was a missed opportunity back when Cardiff and Swansea tried to break away and join the Prem (1997, maybe?) If the Welsh and English leagues had combined at that point, there could be two strong divisions already and no need for the Welsh to set up regions to consolidate talent - just let promotion and relegation winnow down the top teams while still keeping alive brands and fanbases such as Pontypridd, etc.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:39 amWarburton was putting the case for this in The Times last week. He’s on the board at Cardiff…Banquo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:55 amyep, RFU haven't quite thought through what happens if they relegate 11/2 clubs from Champ to NL1. Its possible they have 12 'new' clubs lined and ready to go from 25/26 with near prem quality MOS I suppose
If they’re determined to go down the ring fencing route, I actually think a Eng & Wales league would be very beneficial for both parties.
I hate the idea of a B and I and I and SA league.
Puja
Backist Monk
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
Not Champ rugby but more fallout from Sweeney’s scorched earth policy;
https://x.com/therpa/status/17426188251 ... MV3j-SK8yQ
https://x.com/therpa/status/17426188251 ... MV3j-SK8yQ
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
It turns the England team voted for the removal of the RPA. My sincere apologies to Mr Sweeney who I know reads RR every morning before starting work.
-
FKAS
- Posts: 7356
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:10 pm
Re: Championship Rugby
There's been murmurings before about the RPA and how it doesn't really stand up to the RFU as the RFU fund it so it's always slightly compromised.
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Championship Rugby
The article states that the main gripe is that the players were blindsided over the Netflix 6N doc and blamed the RPA but the RPA were also blindsided as the RFU RFU’d and had just plowed on without involving any interested parties. Reading between the lines the players want a more commercially minded body acting for them - the RPA retort is that they won plenty of player ‘welfare’ rights on rest periods etc and, reading between the lines again, question whether a different rep for the players would concentrate or achieve this in the future.
The funded by the RFU argument is always a strange one as that funding* is to sit on a RFU convened body to thrash out the international/test ‘space’ (I hate how we know yes the word space in this context) and I assume whoever replaces the RPA will receive similar funding - not that I can see the RFU being happy with giving a sports agency a big wod of cash. I wonder if ROC Nation will be the new rep? I’d imagine Twickers would implode, if so!
*obvs not true in the early years when the RPA was in its formative stages.
The funded by the RFU argument is always a strange one as that funding* is to sit on a RFU convened body to thrash out the international/test ‘space’ (I hate how we know yes the word space in this context) and I assume whoever replaces the RPA will receive similar funding - not that I can see the RFU being happy with giving a sports agency a big wod of cash. I wonder if ROC Nation will be the new rep? I’d imagine Twickers would implode, if so!
*obvs not true in the early years when the RPA was in its formative stages.
-
Mellsblue
- Posts: 16083
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am