I'm disturbed....

...by the number of Englands World Cup players who have come back from NZ and said that they are relieved to be back playing for their clubs again. Apparently, Ben Youngs says "...the smile is back on his face playing for Leicester Tigers after disappointment of World Cup failure with England..."

Although I'm sadly not surprised....

If we are not careful, our wonderful game will turn into Wendyball, with players putting their clubs before international duty because of the overinflated expectations of the press and rugby following public. They will be crippled with fear of failure and playing for England will become a chore....

It will break my heart if this happens. The pinnacle of every rugby players career should be playing for their country.

I have to say I'm worried...

Wouldn't worry about it. The Irish players were the same when they got back from 2007 RWC. A few months later Munster won the HEC and a year later Ireland had a Six Nations Grandslam and Leinster won their first HEC.

England will be fine in time.

cabbages so hard to resist the temptation to add: '... yes, we know' - but I'll resist

I'll say it again. Until England players are contracted to the RFU and not their clubs then there is little hope for England in the future. Yes there may be the odd blip of success sometime but generally the clubs dominate rugby in England and their players. Currently, when a player leaves their club to train with England they know its just a temporary thing and no matter what happens they will go back to their clubs and pick up their salaries.

England will tend to become more of a Barbarians side compared to the top teams in the world.

englandglory4ever wrote:I'll say it again. Until England players are contracted to the RFU and not their clubs then there is little hope for England in the future. Yes there may be the odd blip of success sometime but generally the clubs dominate rugby in England and their players. Currently, when a player leaves their club to train with England they know its just a temporary thing and no matter what happens they will go back to their clubs and pick up their salaries.

England will tend to become more of a Barbarians side compared to the top teams in the world.

englandglory, you may well be right, but what kind of total revolution would it take to wrest the power away from the clubs - can't see it happening anytime soon?

"englandglory, you may well be right, but what kind of total revolution would it take to wrest the power away from the clubs - can't see it happening anytime soon?"

Not easy by any means I will agree. BUT unless it is done England will slide off down the road to Barbarian rugby and be left further and further behind by all the other countries with the centrally contracted business model.

There's room for different models tho - NZ and Ireland follow the classic centrally-contracted one, but in Wales and South Africa, for example, the players are employed by clubs but released for internationals. I honestly believe that both models can be made to work as long as you have the right people and right set-up in place to support that

englandglory4ever the RFU are incompetent and discredited why would Premier Rugby bow down to their wishes?

The main thing the RFU needs to do is get their house back in order and become creditable (ok virtually impossible but more creditable would be a start).

All the old farts need to go. That includes Martyn Thomas and Rob Andrew. They need to be replaced by business men who are passionate about rugby - who know how to run businesses successful but also keep the soul of rugby intact.

There has to be a balance between traditional values and progression.

Once/if the RFU is run better then they can get players centrally contracted but to get there they need to sort themselves out.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:There's room for different models tho - NZ and Ireland follow the classic centrally-contracted one, but in Wales and South Africa, for example, the players are employed by clubs but released for internationals. I honestly believe that both models can be made to work as long as you have the right people and right set-up in place to support that

and there is the next challenge!

The players at their clubs are encouraged to play THEIR GAME.
With England, they tend to be more restricted.

flankertye wrote:The players at their clubs are encouraged to play THEIR GAME.
With England, they tend to be more restricted.

I agree but just don't understand the difference.

Why do they feel restricted? Is it the old regime?

I think youre taking such comments out of context,

Its being away form teh pressure cooker of england and the media circus thatw as the world cup, as well as being back in their comfortable home environment.
At the world cup any loss was seen as a national disatser, back with their clubs its a case of "oh well theres always next week".

Its much easier to enjoy your rugby when you dont get salughtered for every small faliure ( compare that to Wales where losing 3 is considered a cause for national celebration )


As for central contarcts England have them through the EPS, France dont. The Unions that franchised/regionalised and centralised their club game did so because it was failing and usnsutainable, not because they needed it to support the national side. Theres no real evidence that England would benefit from further undermining the club game and giving even greater precednce to the few international players and fixtures.
The superstar culture would only get worse under a system whereby senior squad players are and international fixtures are elevated to an even higher pedastal.
The idea that clubs are somehow activly working against the interests of rugby in this country is pretty bizzre really. Recent events have certainly shown they are more worthy custodians of the game than many at the RFU, which many have argued for a long time is run for self interest of a few individual adminstartors than the greater good of the game.

France haven't won a RWC either.

We are stuck with the greedy club owners calling the shots and then moaning about the RFU. Franchises are working in NZ, Australia, SA, Ireland and even Wales who have a minuscule budget and player base compared with England.

People can stick their head in the sand all they like. Its their head after all. BUT England will become more and more of a Barbarian side in the future with the resulting slide down the IRB table to match. Whilst the clubs will get even stronger as fans turn to them at England's expense.

It won't be long before players will shun an invitation from England in preference to playing for their clubs.

englandglory4ever do you work for the RFU or something?

The RFU itself is the problem. Who isn't moaning about the RFU or are you part of the delusional few who think the RFU are doing a decent job?

Why would the players want to be involved with the England rugby team when it is currently going through so much trouble?

It's simple - hire competent people and the results will come.

well youre a ray of sunshine arent you?

Certainly jollier than you rain clouds and the resident RFU member, englandglory4ever.

Just simplify things. Overcomplicating things is how the RFU works.

WHAT? You read but don't understand. I am no fan of the RFU whatsoever. I'm a fan of the England team however and that is why I want things to change. The RFU elite rugby model is flawed because it won't matter a fig who is in charge of the system. The system will always give us what we already have unless its changed. Whether we have a Thomas or a Baron or Uncle Tom Cobbly at the top means jack shyte for the England team.

englandglory4ever wrote:Whether we have a Thomas or a Baron or Uncle Tom Cobbly at the top means jack shyte for the England team.

Disagree. A badly run union leads to a badly run team.

I think one of the reasons the likes of ben youngs was glad to get back to leicester tigers was that when he came back from the rugby world cup he was unfit.

Their needs to be some kind structure in the England team, the players need to be able to play their own game,need to be better coached.

If you take note what the coaches was up to at the rugby world cup, playing golf rather than on the training field with the England team.

No player should get into the England team on reputation, if they are niot on form and the best in their posistion they shopuld not get a look in.

And yes the rfu does need to be sorted out first. before the England team gets sorted out.

EG4E,

Club contracts in the AP do not pay anywhere near enough money for players to refuse to play for England on financial grounds. The main part of an EPS players earnings come from being in that squad - from match fees, performance bonuses and endorsments.

The clubs and the players need a successful England, England need the clubs and the players.

Personally I think the current structure can work - but it needs competent people involved. With incompetent people no structure stands a chance.

Ive said this before...many of the england players recently have looked like joining the england camp was not an enjoyable experience...which is odd as its the pinacle of and England lads aspirations...

This suggests that the whole England experience is more suffocating and exasperating...which is what many of the players have actually come out and said.

We dont need radical changes to the team and squad.

We need a coach who has vision and experience, who knows how to play good rugby...but is not afraid to make big calls (dropping players off form) and disciplining them if required.

Once he is in place...put a top coaching team around him...the grey clouds will lift from the camp and watch the results come.

Why not have 6 or 8 regional teams of England qualified players and play them in a British & Irish league. Wales and Ireland do it and compete extremely well considering their budgets and player base is minuscule compared to England.

The benefits for the England coach will be huge in that the best players across the 6 squads will stand out.

Ireland do it because they have always had the regions as the pinnacle of their game with feeder clubs.
Wales are still struggling a little to implement regional rugby.

Why would the Pro12 teams want to admit English regions to a B&I league? Which would leave the newly set up English regions to play each other repeatedly in a meanigless competition.

Last time we tried the Divisional thing it was a disaster.

englandglory4ever thanks but no thanks.

The emphasis needs to be on helping the clubs. More incentives on producing talented youngsters. More emphasis on having a higher proportion of English players in one's squad.

More support in expanding and building rugby stadiums for clubs.

Strong English clubs means more quality to choose from.

Re-structuring the RFU. Make the RFU creditable then it will have more bargaining power. Make it less about the prawn sandwich brigade and more about the true rugby fans.

Many English clubs have existed for over 100 years. You can't just destroy them on a whim.

LondonTiger wrote:Ireland do it because they have always had the regions as the pinnacle of their game with feeder clubs.
Wales are still struggling a little to implement regional rugby.

Why would the Pro12 teams want to admit English regions to a B&I league? Which would leave the newly set up English regions to play each other repeatedly in a meanigless competition.

Last time we tried the Divisional thing it was a disaster.

Exactly, 6 English regional sides with all the same AP feeder clubs remaining in tact.

The Welsh have been keen for years to join with England in a competitive league and I suspect Ireland too. I don't believe the Welsh regions are 'failing' either. Their national team is getting better because of it.

The last time we tried the 'divisional thing' was in the amateur days pre-1995. Its no wonder it failed is it!

Without English rugby regions we are heading fast and furious towards the Football model and I hate what I see there.

Still it will never happen. Too much vested interest and short-sightedness to overcome.

And just what would these regions be?

GeordieFalcon wrote:And just what would these regions be?

Poorly supported, controversial, divisive, badly run, resposible for taking away eve more form the club games soul, and a great place for quality players to sit on the bench looking peed off.

North - comprising Newcastle/Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds

East Midlands - Leicester/Northampton/Nottingham/Bedford

West Midlands - Birmingham/Gloucester/Worcester

South West - Cornwall/Devon/Somerset & Avon

London North

London South



The whole thought fills me with dread

No way. Franchises would not be good for England. The club game is strong and deeply embedded. Possibly they should consider ring fencing the top division like I think McGeechan suggested a while ago. The removal of the threat of relegation would encourage more ambitious play and less fear of developing young players earlier. But it would inevitably reduce the intensity of the league which I'm sure English club fans would be unhappy about.

People see the Irish system working well and think it should be copied. To be honest I think the IRFU is just run relatively more competently and professionally than the 3 British Unions in the last 10 years. A different strategy could be made to work if done competently. There was a little article in the Sunday Times at the weekend on how English cricket was transformed from a national joke into the worlds number 1, while keeping the club game intact. It did involve centrally contracting the English test players.

We are pretty close to having centrally contracted players with the EPS arrangements. Certainly more could and should be done here - but if the wrong players are identified and selected in the EPS there is still an issue.

The biggest thing for the Cricket has been that the players hardly ever play for their counties once centrally contracted. This is not an issue as there are so many days on England duty - but would be an issue in Rugby.

I still think that in England the club structure is the way forward. After all England/France have appeared in all but one of the World Cup finals using a club structure.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:And just what would these regions be?

Poorly supported, controversial, divisive, badly run, resposible for taking away eve more form the club games soul, and a great place for quality players to sit on the bench looking peed off.

LondonTiger wrote:North - comprising Newcastle/Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds
East Midlands - Leicester/Northampton/Nottingham/Bedford

West Midlands - Birmingham/Gloucester/Worcester

South West - Cornwall/Devon/Somerset & Avon

London North

London South



The whole thought fills me with dread

Ok purely on a personal note...where are the games going to be played? I'd put my mortgage on it that it wouldnt be in Newcastle!...so where does that leave all of us fans in Newcastle. We now have to support the "feeder" club???

Erm no thanks....i'd rather watch them in the championship (which is where they'll be next season) than have a region that'll i'll never see play anyway...

GF,

Sunderland of course

Nottinghams in the North as far as Im concerned, they could host it there. It would save money for all the Tigers travelling support who are the only people who ever go to Sale, Leeds and Newcastle games anyway

Right you can both join the rapidly growing "off the christmas card list" brigade.......

Currently we have a similar system to the Welsh regions. Heavy union subsidies result in additional time with the players but not total control. The only real difference is that the Welsh players are focused in a smaller number of teams. If it's a choice between destroying the clubs to produce a smaller number of regional teams then I'd rather it stay as it is. The international game isn't the be all and end all (this from someone who doesn't support any particular club)

I've always wondered is Rob Andrew actually culpable for anything that happens in English rugby?

Well given that even he couldnt explain what his job is its hard to pin anything on the teflon donut

There's room for different models tho - NZ and Ireland follow the classic centrally-contracted one, but in Wales and South Africa, for example, the players are employed by clubs but released for internationals

The Welsh regions are largely funded by the WRFU. Take away the WRFU funding and they'd go under. Hence why the WRFU have so much control over the regions.

Why not have 6 or 8 regional teams of England qualified players and play them in a British & Irish league. Wales and Ireland do it and compete extremely well considering their budgets and player base is minuscule compared to England.

The Welsh/Irish regions/provinces have similar budgets to the AP teams, the bigger Irish provinces (Leinster and maybe Munster) have bigger budgets due to the central contract that is paid on top of the club contract, especially when you add in the massive tax break they recieve once they retire.

I'm disturbed by people blaming the club culture for the so-called fiasco of a given national team...
I might be from a different planet (well sort of) but without clubs there is no national team. clubs are as important as the national team from where I am from and this starts from the deepest amateur level (neighbouring village teams facing each other) up to the T14 which is the pinnacle of the club system and a stand-alone business.
there is fine balance between both powers but clearly none of them should control the other. I would be sad to see the AP turn into a sort of soulless region or franchise system although I must admit it should be none of my business.