Squad size limits

[Which Tyler]

https://archive.is/dtpNN

Premiership clubs to face squad limits under new regulations to cut costs
Exclusive: Professional Game Partnership proposal would reduce senior squads to 35 players plus 12 more from the academy
Maximum squad sizes will be imposed upon Premiership clubs as part of the new Professional Game Partnership with the Rugby Football Union, Telegraph Sport can reveal.
While discussions are continuing, the leading proposal will limit clubs to a maximum senior squad of 35 players with a further 12 players in a ‘transition’ group from their academy.
Capping the number of senior and academy players a club can carry was understood to be a key recommendation of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport advisers, Ralph Rimmer and Chris Pilling, who were appointed last summer by the government to create a more sustainable league after the loss of three Premiership clubs to administration last season.
...
ARTICLE CONTINUES

Looks like a solution looking for a problem, and then failing to address the one it's imagined.

ETA: Aha, "recommendation of the DCMS" - so it's the politicians' answer - so yeah, an idea imposed on the sport from someone with neither knowledge of, nor skin in, the game.

[Oakboy]

Within the article it says that following the loss of three clubs there are no more country/club fixture clashes. Is that right?

[Which Tyler]

The article is from a VERY lazy journalist.

Should be much fewer clashes though, none this 6N, but we did clash with the RWC KO-rounds, and unless there's an earlier start to the season, will be the odd clash in November. Also clashes with England training.
Of course, we're also still mostly hoping that the cross-tier PRC will continue and evolve, creating new clashes for the deeper end of the squads.

[fivepointer]

35 players plus a 12 strong senior academy group is surely enough for any club? If you are carrying more than that, it does strike me as excessive.
You would have thought the clubs would have worked this out for themselves, but if not, i'm not against such a restriction coming in.
The article also mentions a draft in academy recruitment, which would be a very good move i think.

[Danno]

The article is from a VERY lazy journalist.

Yeeesh. I thought Charles Richardson was bad enough.

[Stom]

35 players plus a 12 strong senior academy group is surely enough for any club? If you are carrying more than that, it does strike me as excessive.
You would have thought the clubs would have worked this out for themselves, but if not, i'm not against such a restriction coming in.
The article also mentions a draft in academy recruitment, which would be a very good move i think.

So what happens if you lose 2 THP to injury? You play the kids? Even if they're not just ready, but it's potentially damaging to their long term health?

35 is just two full teams plus 3 players. It's tiny in rugby terms considering the amount of injuries suffered in a regular season...

Ideally, you want 10 or 11 front row forwards.

You'll need 5 or 6 locks.

7 or 8 backrows.

3 SH

3 FH

10 centres and outside backs, maybe you can get away with 9.

That's 39 already.

Quins aren't known for big squad sizes, but our squad is 41, and once you add in the kids who have played this season already, it's 45, I think. And we're not at Christmas yet.

[Banquo]

https://archive.is/dtpNN

Premiership clubs to face squad limits under new regulations to cut costs
Exclusive: Professional Game Partnership proposal would reduce senior squads to 35 players plus 12 more from the academy
Maximum squad sizes will be imposed upon Premiership clubs as part of the new Professional Game Partnership with the Rugby Football Union, Telegraph Sport can reveal.
While discussions are continuing, the leading proposal will limit clubs to a maximum senior squad of 35 players with a further 12 players in a ‘transition’ group from their academy.
Capping the number of senior and academy players a club can carry was understood to be a key recommendation of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport advisers, Ralph Rimmer and Chris Pilling, who were appointed last summer by the government to create a more sustainable league after the loss of three Premiership clubs to administration last season.
...
ARTICLE CONTINUES

Looks like a solution looking for a problem, and then failing to address the one it's imagined.

ETA: Aha, "recommendation of the DCMS" - so it's the politicians' answer - so yeah, an idea imposed on the sport from someone with neither knowledge of, nor skin in, the game.

This has been trailed for ages- they expect the Championship to pick up the spare players, yeah cos we are awash with cash- and there is DCMS skin in the game, namely chunky loans to clubs via the RFU. So skin in the game of sorts, but no knowledge I agree.

[Banquo]

Of course, we're also still mostly hoping that the cross-tier PRC will continue and evolve, creating new clashes for the deeper end of the squads.

still up in the air, and if it happens, be later in the season.

[Margin_Walker]

35 players plus a 12 strong senior academy group is surely enough for any club? If you are carrying more than that, it does strike me as excessive.
You would have thought the clubs would have worked this out for themselves, but if not, i'm not against such a restriction coming in.
The article also mentions a draft in academy recruitment, which would be a very good move i think.

So what happens if you lose 2 THP to injury? You play the kids? Even if they're not just ready, but it's potentially damaging to their long term health?

35 is just two full teams plus 3 players. It's tiny in rugby terms considering the amount of injuries suffered in a regular season...

Ideally, you want 10 or 11 front row forwards.

You'll need 5 or 6 locks.

7 or 8 backrows.

3 SH

3 FH

10 centres and outside backs, maybe you can get away with 9.

That's 39 already.

Quins aren't known for big squad sizes, but our squad is 41, and once you add in the kids who have played this season already, it's 45, I think. And we're not at Christmas yet.

With 12 additional players allocated for 20 - 24 age bracket there's no reason why you couldn't still be covered for me.

I'd guess 6 or more of the 41 in that Quins list will be 24 or under now anyway

[Puja]

I will note, on further examination of the details, the proposal is 35 players in senior squad, 12 players in 20-24 age group (which would have its own salary cap, separate to the main squad) and then 15 players in a "rookie" age group of 18 and 19 year olds.

So that's basically a squad size of 47, with the yoof underneath that. I don't think that's too unreasonable. Feels like a weird set of constraints, put in for the sole purpose of artificially making teams have a chunk of their squad be young players, and will end up with some players becoming unemployed on their 25th birthday for what would seem to be an arbitrary reason, but it's hardly impossible to work with.

ETA. Leicester's squad has 32 players who are aged 24+, and 13 who are 20-23 (who have played in the period of the season outside of the RWC)

Puja

[Banquo]

I will note, on further examination of the details, the proposal is 35 players in senior squad, 12 players in 20-24 age group (which would have its own salary cap, separate to the main squad) and then 15 players in a "rookie" age group of 18 and 19 year olds.

So that's basically a squad size of 47, with the yoof underneath that. I don't think that's too unreasonable. Feels like a weird set of constraints, put in for the sole purpose of artificially making teams have a chunk of their squad be young players, and will end up with some players becoming unemployed on their 25th birthday for what would seem to be an arbitrary reason, but it's hardly impossible to work with.

ETA. Leicester's squad has 32 players who are aged 24+, and 13 who are 20-23 (who have played in the period of the season outside of the RWC)

Puja

Its more/also about DCMS trying to make clubs live within their means so they have some chance of getting loans and interest repaid. They are also looking at some loan restructuring apparently, which is possibly ominous.

[Puja]

I will note, on further examination of the details, the proposal is 35 players in senior squad, 12 players in 20-24 age group (which would have its own salary cap, separate to the main squad) and then 15 players in a "rookie" age group of 18 and 19 year olds.

So that's basically a squad size of 47, with the yoof underneath that. I don't think that's too unreasonable. Feels like a weird set of constraints, put in for the sole purpose of artificially making teams have a chunk of their squad be young players, and will end up with some players becoming unemployed on their 25th birthday for what would seem to be an arbitrary reason, but it's hardly impossible to work with.

ETA. Leicester's squad has 32 players who are aged 24+, and 13 who are 20-23 (who have played in the period of the season outside of the RWC)

Puja

Its more/also about DCMS trying to make clubs live within their means so they have some chance of getting loans and interest repaid. They are also looking at some loan restructuring apparently, which is possibly ominous.

Why they didn't make them grants or 0% long-term loans or something, I'll never know. The chances of them ever seeing that money again was always functionally zero, in the same way that I don't expect Bruce Craig or Steve Lansdown to get their money back from "loans". The DCMS either recognised that it was an emergency subsidy to keep professional clubs alive in the time of COVID or they were complete fucking idiots who actually thought that there was a genuine commercial business case for making those loans.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Its more/also about DCMS trying to make clubs live within their means so they have some chance of getting loans and interest repaid. They are also looking at some loan restructuring apparently, which is possibly ominous.

How does this help though?
Why is spending £6.4M on 35 players more sustainable than spending £6.4M on 40 players?

If you want something like that, then bring in some sort of financial fair-play scheme, get the money to pay the squad for the season isolated out ahead of the season, the sort of thing we see working elsewhere - not an artificial cap on the number of players you're allowed in a way that won't make any difference beyond making more players unemployed.

[Banquo]

Its more/also about DCMS trying to make clubs live within their means so they have some chance of getting loans and interest repaid. They are also looking at some loan restructuring apparently, which is possibly ominous.

How does this help though?
Why is spending £6.4M on 35 players more sustainable than spending £6.4M on 40 players?

If you want something like that, then bring in some sort of financial fair-play scheme, get the money to pay the squad for the season isolated out ahead of the season, the sort of thing we see working elsewhere - not an artificial cap on the number of players you're allowed in a way that won't make any difference beyond making more players unemployed.

Its wielding power more than anything else, but don't be surprised if they don't also try to lower the cap (and workarounds). Why do you think the PGB agreement hasn't been signed? (two months after it was meant to be). There are too many pro players, I think we all know that.

Anyway, only passing on what appears to be happening, rather than trying to make sense of it, there lies madness

[Banquo]

I will note, on further examination of the details, the proposal is 35 players in senior squad, 12 players in 20-24 age group (which would have its own salary cap, separate to the main squad) and then 15 players in a "rookie" age group of 18 and 19 year olds.

So that's basically a squad size of 47, with the yoof underneath that. I don't think that's too unreasonable. Feels like a weird set of constraints, put in for the sole purpose of artificially making teams have a chunk of their squad be young players, and will end up with some players becoming unemployed on their 25th birthday for what would seem to be an arbitrary reason, but it's hardly impossible to work with.

ETA. Leicester's squad has 32 players who are aged 24+, and 13 who are 20-23 (who have played in the period of the season outside of the RWC)

Puja

Its more/also about DCMS trying to make clubs live within their means so they have some chance of getting loans and interest repaid. They are also looking at some loan restructuring apparently, which is possibly ominous.

Why they didn't make them grants or 0% long-term loans or something, I'll never know. The chances of them ever seeing that money again was always functionally zero, in the same way that I don't expect Bruce Craig or Steve Lansdown to get their money back from "loans". The DCMS either recognised that it was an emergency subsidy to keep professional clubs alive in the time of COVID or they were complete fucking idiots who actually thought that there was a genuine commercial business case for making those loans.

Puja

the former, but as with most covid emergency funding perforce rushed through without thinking about the long term. (think its about 260m from memory btw, with about £120m in the Prem clubs).

[Puja]

Its more/also about DCMS trying to make clubs live within their means so they have some chance of getting loans and interest repaid. They are also looking at some loan restructuring apparently, which is possibly ominous.

How does this help though?
Why is spending £6.4M on 35 players more sustainable than spending £6.4M on 40 players?

If you want something like that, then bring in some sort of financial fair-play scheme, get the money to pay the squad for the season isolated out ahead of the season, the sort of thing we see working elsewhere - not an artificial cap on the number of players you're allowed in a way that won't make any difference beyond making more players unemployed.

I think the emphasis is on trying to enforce the use of young players by ringfencing the section of the salary cap for the 20-24 year olds. I would imagine it's the optics of "See, we're making sure that they're developing youngsters rather than wasting the government's money on buying overseas players. We're making them responsible!"

Because Worcester were well known for not developing young players and that was why they weren't sustainable.

Puja

[Captainhaircut]

Worcester were just terribly run.

Hard to say Wasps and Irish shouldn’t have been more frugal with their money though- how much did Wasps pay Beale, Piatau, Le Roux, Koch, Shields, Minozzi, Fekitoa? Irish were paying Coleman ludicrous money plus Simmons, Creevy, Rona, Jackson etc.

Limiting the amount of overseas players and making sides back their youth will be very effective at both making clubs spend money more wisely and also helping England be more successful (which in turns feeds more money into the game).

It really pisses me off when I hear that players like Willis had to sign for Toulouse because prem clubs couldn’t afford him, all the while they are spending endless cash on South African, Argentinian and Welsh players.

Look at the Itoje situation too- we’re told Saracens can’t afford his contract and he might have to leave. Whilst they spend money on a massively bloated squad full of overseas players blocking young English talent. Other than Dan, the last time Sarries brought through a player who went on to play for England was Isiekwe/Earl who both made their Sarries debut in 2016.

[Epaminondas Pules]

Saracens have what, 10 foreign players in their squad, some of which were picked up on a steal because of clubs going bust. Out of interest though who are they blocking? Just because Sarries haven't produced an England international since Earl doesn't mean they are getting blocked. Tigers didn't for an age and then had one super successful age group. There's a lot to factor from being good at school to being a full international.

[Which Tyler]

It really pisses me off when I hear that players like Willis had to sign for Toulouse because prem clubs couldn’t afford him, all the while they are spending endless cash on South African, Argentinian and Welsh players.

Hardly apples to apples is it?
How many of those South African, Argentinian and Welsh players are signed mid-season after the salary cap had already been allocated?
After that, you're banking on having enough wriggle room under the cap to allow mid-season signings (Bath) or a long term injury in the right position to bring that allowance in.

[Captainhaircut]

Maybe true of Willis but certainly not true of the Itoje situation.

It’s not a massively complex process is it- we look at the england team and bemoan the players going to France and the lack of props/tight locks and clubs are throwing money at overseas players. I appreciate the argument for a better league but significantly reducing the number of overseas players it hasn’t really hurt Ireland has it?

[Epaminondas Pules]

Ireland only has four teams, and central contracts.

[Which Tyler]

Maybe true of Willis but certainly not true of the Itoje situation.

OK, so moving the goal posts, to a player who doesn't want to play for any other English club.
Again though - remind me which South African, Argentinian and Welsh locks are being hired in preference to Itoje?
How many of those are on the £800k or so that English can't afford to offer a player who'd refuse that contract anyway?

That annoyance is with the entire purpose of the marquee player exemption (new shiny toy / preventing anyone else in England from stealing your existing shiny toy), not the blocking of his place by imports.

[Captainhaircut]

Not sure I can make sense of that- work Xmas do and too May drinks.

If people think English rugby is well served by the amount of imports then so be it. Guess we’ll see what will happen if they make the change.

[Which Tyler]

Out of interest, and because I'm apparently less lazy than a journalist who's job is to do this (took me about 15 minutes). And because Bath were used as the example of the grossly inflated squad size.

As of September 1st 2023, Bath squad had
27 players aged 24+
25 aged 20-23 (of whom 6 are match-day regulars, so not exactly "transition")
19 aged 18-19


Had these regulations been in place ahead of this season, then realistically, we wouldn't have picked up Faiva and Owens both from being unemployed, probably wouldn't have been able to sign Stooke.

Realistically then, to fit the senior squad into 35+12, we'd have had to lose 4-5 "senior" players (depending on Stooke) - who'd have ended up unemployed. I fail to see why losing players to the sport is for the good of the sport. I also fail to see how spending £6.4M on 47 players is more sustainable for the club than spending £6.4M on 52 players. The chances are, those 5 would have been recent graduates from the academy (or players still in the academy), and probably front row players, because they just take longer to mature, and are more unpredictable for success aged 19. Hell, we'll be supposed to know by the age of 17 - so no on-time bloomers allowed, let alone late-bloomers.

Then we'd have to cull 10 from the academy - to what benefit? where would they go to?


ETA: Sorry, we started the season with 28, I forgot about Piers Francis
ETA2: Before anyone brings up the "from their academy" bit of the "transition" group, we can hit a full 12 who are still IN the academy.

[Stom]

I will note, on further examination of the details, the proposal is 35 players in senior squad, 12 players in 20-24 age group (which would have its own salary cap, separate to the main squad) and then 15 players in a "rookie" age group of 18 and 19 year olds.

So that's basically a squad size of 47, with the yoof underneath that. I don't think that's too unreasonable. Feels like a weird set of constraints, put in for the sole purpose of artificially making teams have a chunk of their squad be young players, and will end up with some players becoming unemployed on their 25th birthday for what would seem to be an arbitrary reason, but it's hardly impossible to work with.

ETA. Leicester's squad has 32 players who are aged 24+, and 13 who are 20-23 (who have played in the period of the season outside of the RWC)

Puja

That is better, but still, wtf. Creating problems, not solving them.

And doesn't this just mean a raise in the cap? Seems like it...