Which championship teams CAN qualify to play in Aviva?

Just noticed the pirates are topping the championship table so far.

Last season we saw a situation where one team could have won the playoffs, but still failed to qualify due to not meeting premiership relegations.

Are there any teams in the Championship besides Bristol and Leeds that currently meet Premiership criteria? (or will by the end of this season).

Don't think so, last season on Worcester and Bristol could have been promoted. Teams like Bedford, Pirates and Nottingham just don't have the facilities or if they do don't have the required degree of control over them. What would be more interesting is to survey the AP teams and find out which of those actually meets the regulations.

I think I read somewhere that London Welsh could have a ground share option with Brentford FC, moving their prem games away from Old Deer Park.

London Scots would have to move as the Council ownes the RA Ground and have previously refused development - Hence a large part of Richmond RFC going bust when they were in the prem.

I dont know what the situation is with Esher RFC - I think they own their ground and there is plenty of space to develop there. I suppose its not beyond the realms of posibility for any rugby club to go into a ground share with a FC if needed.

I think there are rules around ground sharing though David. Nottingham share with Notts County and Meadow Lane is a sufficiently big enough and nice enough ground to host Premiership rugby but as far as I know Nottingham didn't bother applying because they knew they couldn't qualify last season.

Ah, yes - dont clubs have to have back-up grounds aswell if pitched are unplayable!

I wonder what the rules are for ground shares - I thought this was the reason that Sale played a lot of Friday night matches (making their ground available for other weekend matches).

It's odd that prem teams have to have a stadium with 10k capacity when a lot of the smaller clubs dont get those numbers on a weekly basis - surely that rule in itself is unsustainable.

Its all a bit of a farce isnt it, the RFU has madde it very hard for anyone else to break into the elite.

Out of interest, does anyone know if anything has happened to Bedfords ground since they were in the premiership or is it just that the rules have been tighened since?

From Premier Rugby's FAQ:

Clubs wishing to play in the Premiership must fulfil a list of criteria set down by the Professional Game Board and agreed with the RFU Championship. This covers areas such as stadia, club administration and other key roles, community development programmes, ground tenure and ground moves, facilities, medical and safety, marketing, plans to increase attendances, adherence to the squad cap and playing and contractual commitments. The purpose of the minimum criteria is to set a standard for all clubs to operate by, which all will benefit from.

Stadium must be capable of holding 10,000 as outlined in BBC article with Pirates chaiman:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/13079067.stm


I have also found this 60 page document outlining the Minimum Standards Criteria in Sarries planning application portal. I am too lazy to read it at the moment

http://www.copthall-application.co.uk/Barnet%20Copthall/Appendix%20E%20-%20PGB%20Criteriax.pdf

Basically the criteria braks down ito the following sections:

- Management and Administration
- Ground Tenure and Ground Moves
- Facilities (excluding medical and safety
facilities)
- Medical and Safety
- Commercial and Contractual undertakings
- Club Representation

Overall it does make sense, and much of it is stuff like minimum number of toilets etc.

Existing Premiership Clubs can be fined (cash or points) for failing to meet the standards, while championship clubs are only permitted entry if they meet the standards.

The biggest sticking points for most clubs would be Primacy of Tenure (ie having first call on when matches are played at a ground - NOTE this does not mean they have to own the ground) and minimum size which is 10k. Clubs like London Welsh may also have fallen foul of the ownership rules.

A sugar daddy for Cornish Pirates would be good - I'm surprised that there is nowhere in Corwall that meets the requirements.

propdavid_london wrote:A sugar daddy for Cornish Pirates would be good - I'm surprised that there is nowhere in Corwall that meets the requirements.

I do not think Cornwall has a professional football team, and with a population of just 500k (which when you consider that in terms of land area Cornwall is one of the biggest couunties is not a lot) in the whole county, it is no surprise that there is no stadium of the size needed.


With no big towns (Pirates are based in Camborne with a population of about 25k - even adding in Redruth and surrounding villages the population is only about 55k) it is hard to raise the money to build a stadium capable of holding 10,000.

Personally I feel this requirement should be reduced. In the minimum criteria it states that:

"The minimum Total Licensed Capacity must include a minimum of 3,500 seats."

and

The minimum Total Licensed Capacity must include a minimum number of covered spaces of 2,500

Thus perhaps it would be better to continue to insist on these criteria but only inisit that plans are in place to develop the ground to 10,000 as demand requires.

The Pirates do have plans to develop a stadium which would satisfy the requirements. But how long before it is ready? A fair few years you would think:

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=27288

London Irish, should they be relegated would not be allowed back into the Premiership under their current agreement to play at the Madejski, despite it being one of, if not the best stadium in the league in terms of facilities.

The criteria is ridiculous. I believe for other reasons that Sale Sharks would be in the same position as ourselves and unable to gain promotion as they currently stand.

Ozzy3213 the worrying thing about London Irish is you are stuck at the Madejski for a long time. To become financially sustainable every rugby club needs their own stadium.

Why do you think Saracens are so desperate to acquire Barnet Copthall?

It's all to do with having final say on the use of the ground should a television company decide it wants to televise your game. All clubs are at the whim of Sky and ESPN in that respect. Sale actually do quite well out of it as not many other teams play on a Friday night.

Tigers tried to do a ground share deal with Leicester City but City would not budge on that respect as it would potentially cause a lot of trouble if they gained promotion to the Premiership which is even more demanding when it comes to television scheduling. Hence why AP clubs aren't allowed to enter in to a long term agreement with a Premiership football club.

We have a long term agreement with them but it does have a get out clause.

We are currently awaiting a final decision from the Secretary of State on our planning application for Sunbury. It has been going for a while now and we should know the outcome on 30th November.

If we get permission to build on our true home the club will go from strength to strength, if not, who knows what will happen.

I hope it does go through Ozzy as Beschocked it right, the teams with their own grounds are normally the ones that have the best economic situation. Well as long as you can get the crowd to fill it anyway.

I thought the Sunbury application was for a training ground rather than a stadium. What are the plans?

My understanding is it is for the whole shebang Dave. Ground, training facilities and will encompass the professional and amatuer sides.

LondonTiger wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Corwall that meets the requirements.

I do not think Cornwall has a professional football team, and with a population of just 500k (which when you consider that in terms of land area Cornwall is one of the biggest couunties is not a lot) in the whole county, it is no surprise that there is no stadium of the size needed.

Plymouth albion have got a Decent sized football stadium, im not sure about how far away the two clubs are but a ground share could be possible

EngInAuck wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Corwall that meets the requirements.

I do not think Cornwall has a professional football team, and with a population of just 500k (which when you consider that in terms of land area Cornwall is one of the biggest couunties is not a lot) in the whole county, it is no surprise that there is no stadium of the size needed.

Plymouth albion have got a Decent sized football stadium, im not sure about how far away the two clubs are but a ground share could be possible

My bad i ment Plymouth Argyle

Ozzy3213 wrote:We have a long term agreement with them but it does have a get out clause.

We are currently awaiting a final decision from the Secretary of State on our planning application for Sunbury. It has been going for a while now and we should know the outcome on 30th November.

If we get permission to build on our true home the club will go from strength to strength, if not, who knows what will happen.

What will happen to the more recently aquired fans from around the reading area? will they travel to sunbury? LI could lose fans if they move.

I don't think it will be an issue to be honest. It's not that much of a trek from Reading to Sunbury in truth, and I think i will be a real positive if it happens.

Only problem with that is Plymouth is on the other side of the Tamar and in Devon. Any such relocation would damage the identity of the club.

Which Prem Clubs own their own ground and who are beholden to the LA's?

Tigers - Own welford rd

Gloucester - Own Kingsholm

Quins - ? They have expanded but I dont know if they got permission to do it or not!

Wasps - NO

LI - NO

Bath - NO (Local Authority)

what is the situation with others?

Saracens - Secondary tenants, planning to move to own ground.
Tigers - Own
Saints - Own - but want to expand
Gloucester - Own
Quins - Own
Chiefs - Own
Worcester - Own
Falcons - Own
Bath - Complicated
Sale - Ownish (Brian Kennedy owns the ground Sale and Stockport lease) looking to move to Salford
LI - lease
Wasps - lease

I think that Rotheram would meet the criteria to enter the premiership?

LondonTiger wrote:Saracens - Secondary tenants, planning to move to own ground.
Tigers - Own*
Saints - Own - but want to expand
Gloucester - Own
Quins - Own
Chiefs - Own
Worcester - Own
Falcons - Own
Bath - Complicated
Sale - Ownish (Brian Kennedy owns the ground Sale and Stockport lease) looking to move to Salford
LI - lease
Wasps - lease

* According to draft plans for the RWC 2015, WR was supposedly being extended to 30000 capacity. But this whole issue has gone dead silent. Any news? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Rugby_World_Cup#Venues )
Apologies for digressing.

Cheers London Tiger - so the majority of the Prem teams own their own grounds and have a viable business model whereby they can expand if they want to and eventually may make some profit if they manage to fill the stands.

Its not as bad as I thought it was - LI are probably happy where they are at Mad Stad but I guess a lot of their income must go on the lease. Ozzy - I thought that their application for developing Sunbury had been rejected several times by the local residents. Thought it was just for new training facilities too.

Wasps are in big trouble if they cant move or develop Adams Park (another local authority rejection i think). I dont understand that decision as the ground is surrounded by fields on 3 sides!

Bath is complicated - but you can kind of understand them not wanting to rip up a Roman town to build a bigger stadium!

propdavid_london wrote:Cheers London Tiger - so the majority of the Prem teams own their own grounds and have a viable business model whereby they can expand if they want to and eventually may make some profit if they manage to fill the stands.

Its not as bad as I thought it was - LI are probably happy where they are at Mad Stad but I guess a lot of their income must go on the lease. Ozzy - I thought that their application for developing Sunbury had been rejected several times by the local residents. Thought it was just for new training facilities too.

Wasps are in big trouble if they cant move or develop Adams Park (another local authority rejection i think). I dont understand that decision as the ground is surrounded by fields on 3 sides!

Bath is complicated - but you can kind of understand them not wanting to rip up a Roman town to build a bigger stadium!

It's what the Romans would've done!!

propdavid_london wrote:Bath is complicated - but you can kind of understand them not wanting to rip up a Roman town to build a bigger stadium!

It think it's Georgian (18th century?) not Roman (unless they're planning on expanding the Roman baths and playing there).

HammerofThunor wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:Bath is complicated - but you can kind of understand them not wanting to rip up a Roman town to build a bigger stadium!

It think it's Georgian (18th century?) not Roman (unless they're planning on expanding the Roman baths and playing there).

The way some of them go on, you'd be forgiven for thinking that thats the plan.

Ha - Cheers Hammer. I suspect Bath can be considered a bit of a hodge podge of history. Dig down deep enough and you will probably find some burial ground that stops any development!

propdavid_london wrote:Ha - Cheers Hammer. I suspect Bath can be considered a bit of a hodge podge of history. Dig down deep enough and you will probably find some burial ground that stops any development!

I lived there for a year and there was big deal about the Georgian stone work (maybe they just meant labourers from Georgia had built it).

LondonTiger wrote:Saracens - Secondary tenants, planning to move to own ground.
Tigers - Own
Saints - Own - but want to expand
Gloucester - Own
Quins - Own
Chiefs - Own
Worcester - Own
Falcons - Own
Bath - Complicated
Sale - Ownish (Brian Kennedy owns the ground Sale and Stockport lease) looking to move to Salford
LI - lease
Wasps - lease

The Falcons don't own Kingston Park, they sold it to the University of Northumbria but they are the primary (only I think) tenants.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:I think that Rotheram would meet the criteria to enter the premiership?

Their current ground wouldn't meet the criteria but they have:
1. Long term plans to move to Rotherham Utd's old ground Millmoor.
2. In the short term if they won promotion they could use the Don Valley as Rotherham Utd will be moving from there to their own new ground in the near future.

LondonTiger wrote:Basically the criteria braks down ito the following sections:

- Management and Administration
- Ground Tenure and Ground Moves
- Facilities (excluding medical and safety
facilities)
- Medical and Safety
- Commercial and Contractual undertakings
- Club Representation

Overall it does make sense, and much of it is stuff like minimum number of toilets etc.

Existing Premiership Clubs can be fined (cash or points) for failing to meet the standards, while championship clubs are only permitted entry if they meet the standards.

The biggest sticking points for most clubs would be Primacy of Tenure (ie having first call on when matches are played at a ground - NOTE this does not mean they have to own the ground) and minimum size which is 10k. Clubs like London Welsh may also have fallen foul of the ownership rules.

That rule is unenforcable! The OFT have already said that it constitutes a "restraint of trade" as some of the existing AP clubs do not meet it. It would not stand up in court if challenged by a promoted club!

Ozzy3213 wrote:London Irish, should they be relegated would not be allowed back into the Premiership under their current agreement to play at the Madejski, despite it being one of, if not the best stadium in the league in terms of facilities.

The criteria is ridiculous. I believe for other reasons that Sale Sharks would be in the same position as ourselves and unable to gain promotion as they currently stand.

See above post.

According to draft plans for the RWC 2015, WR was supposedly being extended to 30000 capacity. But this whole issue has gone dead silent. Any news?

Crumbie stand to be re-developed next summer with a multi-storey car park and hotel being built behnid it. The plans for the standing area of the Crumbie are currently under review as Tigers want to leave that as is and therefore avoid the reduction in standing capacity that would apply should it be changed (rules are in place for old stadiums but stricter regulations apply to new ones).