What is the essential purpose of the Jeff?

I ask this as this season is the 10th anniversary of the playoff winners being declared champions. (To aid your research and arguments may be helped by http://www.statbunker.com/rugby/)

Please no brokenrecord smileys.

A straight question as to whether the Jeff should be designed to provide a platform to English success or maximizing club ambitions.

The two can conflict each other.

You probably all know that I've always been against the playoffs, but equally I've supported any team that wins the league and have proposed a separate gong for a subsidiary title. Those people that know my views will acknowledge that I am not a one-eyed Tiger - just a rugby fan that wants to see the Jeff played on an equitable basis.

Port,

I feel the ulitmate goal of the Jeff and the Rabo is to help produce players for the respective countries and make the respective National squads better.

BUT ever since the game went pro and was so badly handled by most Unions in the NH the club owners have avary right to look at the clubs as a business, after all its their money being ploughed into them.

What has the question you asked got to do with whether the playoffs exist or not anyway?

They are a win for everyone. They help balance the effects of the international callups, help finance the club game, help ensure that Englands best players get highly comeptitive rugby outside the internationals, give the club game a higher profile, and give the supporters a fantastic finale to the season. The only losers are old farts who blindly cling to a "tradition" which only ran a few years before the playoffs anyway or who beleive because soccer doesnt have them that its not valid.

As for the actual question you asked, the puprose of the Jeff should be as a club competition to add structure and meaning to games, not as a training ground for England players. That is one of the secondary aims along with generating profit to maintian and expand the club game.

It has to do with the acknowledgement of Jeff sides to the English cause.

There are two main extreme paths:

Bring on English players to the hilt and lose them during the IWs.

Buy in SH players to avoid the IWs losses.

I can fully understand why the club onwer would buy oreign players (especially big names) if they got them the trophies and bums on seats etc.

But that then would stiffle younger English playes coming through or force them overseas.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I can fully understand why the club onwer would buy oreign players (especially big names) if they got them the trophies and bums on seats etc.

But that then would stiffle younger English playes coming through or force them overseas.

How many young english players do we need playing here?

Please not this ridiculous argument again.

If we cant get a decent team from the best 200 english players what are the chances of the next best 100 being any better just by being different people?

Anyway the Jeff and club rugby does not exist as the lapdog of the england team. Thats what the age grade academies, sides and saxons exist for. Club rugby was here first, and it has every right to exist and be taken seriously. If it can ( and does) contribute toiward the success of teh national side then thats great, but it shouldnt be at the expense of its viability and interest to the fans who turn up week after week.
Why should the weekly club game be rdamaged for the benefit of 12 (mostly friendly) international games each year.

The Jeff exists to give a strong comeptition and structure for English club rugby.

Thats the price we have to pay for the game going professional unless we want the clubs and regions to go bust. Sport is a business and professional leagues are there (in the eyes of club owners) to win trophies and make money. Cant really blame them tbh

And what was the purpose when it was ameteure, aside from an excuse for drinking?

Playing rugby is the purpose of a rugby club. The big professional clubs in England do this in the Jeff.
The Jeff is there for them to play rugby in.

Admitedly the development of teh league system came along with the shift toward professionalism, but the purpose of teh Jeff itself isnt solely to enable professionalism...its there to enable clubs to play club rugby. Something they should want to do regardless of players being paid and people making money form teh club ( which could also happen in an ametuere game, infact it would be a hell of a lot easier)
Not all the Jeff clubs are run for profit anyway, even then they still ( as they did in the days before professionalism and commercialism) have to break even at least (just like the Union owned frnachises in other leagues) to exist.

They also have to be playiong in a worthwhile comeptition to justify that existance and people going to see them, so again I forward that notion that the primary purpose of the Jeff is to provide that.

The clubs main ambition is to win trophies and silverware and to win you need money.
If were being real here I really dont think that the majority of the Jeff club coaches care about it being a platform for the English national teams success to be honest nor the Welsh regions or French clubs in particular. The RFU, WRU and FFR obviously think of it as that but if you were a club coach wouldn't you rather win with a lot of foreigners than lose with a lot of young English/Welsh talent.

I take back the needing money to win part.

I wonder : could anyone suggest a single mechanism introduced since 2001 which has been agreed between and/or by the RFU and the PRL which has been passed to promote both the English side and the Englishness of the Jeff?

Just one.

I don't buy a season ticket every year to fund England! As an English team, I want Glaws to be producing English talent and when players do represent England there is definitely a sense of pride, but Glaws' main goal should be their own success.

If it were to focus purely on England they should ring fence it and make it franchised, which would be a very sad day.

[quote="
If we cant get a decent team from the best 200 english players what are the chances of the next best 100 being any better just by being different people?

Anyway the Jeff and club rugby does not exist as the lapdog of the england team. Thats what the age grade academies, sides and saxons exist for. Club rugby was here first, and it has every right to exist and be taken seriously. If it can ( and does) contribute toiward the success of teh national side then thats great, but it shouldnt be at the expense of its viability and interest to the fans who turn up week after week.
Why should the weekly club game be rdamaged for the benefit of 12 (mostly friendly) international games each year.

The Jeff exists to give a strong comeptition and structure for English club rugby.[/quote]

Agree entirely. I personally think test match rugby is treated like a moneymaking cash cow for the RFU whereas I feel it should be more 'special'. Obviously though money talks and although being part of 80,000 at Twickenham is a great day out, I don't agree that the whole season should be built around the national team.

Port, seems to me you actually asked two big questions:
1. How do the clubs exist vis-a-vis England?
2. Is there value to the playoffs?

I think Seabiscuit answered the club v. England question well. The clubs exist. England/RFU exist. Both are separate entities. The clubs exist for players to play Rugby and for fans to watch and enjoy. At the pro level(s), it gives players a chance to earn money doing what they love. The clubs have no real responsibility, out side of what is contracted with the RFU, to provide support and development for England. And England don't have much responsibility to the clubs, except again what is contracted. The RFU provide seed money and trundle money into the grass roots because it feeds England. The clubs provide players to England because they get money. So they need each other, but the relationship is poor because they don't share common goals. And to head off the question, no, I don't think central contracts are necessary, or even needed, to align goals.

Regarding playoffs, I thoroughly enjoy them. I like teams who can sustain good performance over a long period, but still raise their level of play for that one special moment. Sport has always been about moments. Special moments when everything is on the line. A long slog which simply peters out when a team stumbles over the finish line doesn't do it for me anymore. Look at the NFL's Super Bowl, America's biggest event of the year. That is worth aspiring to. And yes, playoffs makes a ton of dough for the clubs. Ain't nothing wrong with that either.

HongKongCherry wrote:I don't buy a season ticket every year to fund England! As an English team, I want Glaws to be producing English talent and when players do represent England there is definitely a sense of pride, but Glaws' main goal should be their own success.

If it were to focus purely on England they should ring fence it and make it franchised, which would be a very sad day.

But that attitude prepresumes that the two ideals are mutually exclusive HKC.

doctor_grey wrote:Port, seems to me you actually asked two big questions:
1. How do the clubs exist vis-a-vis England?
2. Is there value to the playoffs?

I think Seabiscuit answered the club v. England question well. The clubs exist. England/RFU exist. Both are separate entities. The clubs exist for players to play Rugby and for fans to watch and enjoy. At the pro level(s), it gives players a chance to earn money doing what they love. The clubs have no real responsibility, out side of what is contracted with the RFU, to provide support and development for England. And England don't have much responsibility to the clubs, except again what is contracted. The RFU provide seed money and trundle money into the grass roots because it feeds England. The clubs provide players to England because they get money. So they need each other, but the relationship is poor because they don't share common goals. And to head off the question, no, I don't think central contracts are necessary, or even needed, to align goals.

Regarding playoffs, I thoroughly enjoy them. I like teams who can sustain good performance over a long period, but still raise their level of play for that one special moment. Sport has always been about moments. Special moments when everything is on the line. A long slog which simply peters out when a team stumbles over the finish line doesn't do it for me anymore. Look at the NFL's Super Bowl, America's biggest event of the year. That is worth aspiring to. And yes, playoffs makes a ton of dough for the clubs. Ain't nothing wrong with that either.

Sorry, Portnoy, but this is another - you've written about the unfairness of the playoffs several times before. You've also written about the unfairness of continuing the AP during intl windows, and the answer to that problem is ... the playoffs! As for clubs vs country, England chose/had forced on it a particular path, and its going to take one helluva shift to change the existing balance

Portnoy wrote:I wonder : could anyone suggest a single mechanism introduced since 2001 which has been agreed between and/or by the RFU and the PRL which has been passed to promote both the English side and the Englishness of the Jeff?

Just one.

Aside from the EPS?

doctor_grey wrote:Port, seems to me you actually asked two big questions:
1. How do the clubs exist vis-a-vis England?
2. Is there value to the playoffs?

I think Seabiscuit answered the club v. England question well. The clubs exist. England/RFU exist. Both are separate entities. The clubs exist for players to play Rugby and for fans to watch and enjoy. At the pro level(s), it gives players a chance to earn money doing what they love. The clubs have no real responsibility, out side of what is contracted with the RFU, to provide support and development for England. And England don't have much responsibility to the clubs, except again what is contracted. The RFU provide seed money and trundle money into the grass roots because it feeds England. The clubs provide players to England because they get money. So they need each other, but the relationship is poor because they don't share common goals. And to head off the question, no, I don't think central contracts are necessary, or even needed, to align goals.

Regarding playoffs, I thoroughly enjoy them. I like teams who can sustain good performance over a long period, but still raise their level of play for that one special moment. Sport has always been about moments. Special moments when everything is on the line. A long slog which simply peters out when a team stumbles over the finish line doesn't do it for me anymore. Look at the NFL's Super Bowl, America's biggest event of the year. That is worth aspiring to. And yes, playoffs makes a ton of dough for the clubs. Ain't nothing wrong with that either.

Whilst relegation exists the number of dead rubbers is reduced to pretty much a minimum.

But as I see it the Jeff and England are in a symbiotic relationship whilst the Jeff exploits purely parasitic functions.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Portnoy wrote:I wonder : could anyone suggest a single mechanism introduced since 2001 which has been agreed between and/or by the RFU and the PRL which has been passed to promote both the English side and the Englishness of the Jeff?

Just one.

Aside from the EPS?

Which distributes the funds equally to clubs irrespective of contribution whilst the Jeff rolls on relentlessly through the IWs.

Portnoy wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Port, seems to me you actually asked two big questions:
1. How do the clubs exist vis-a-vis England?
2. Is there value to the playoffs?

I think Seabiscuit answered the club v. England question well. The clubs exist. England/RFU exist. Both are separate entities. The clubs exist for players to play Rugby and for fans to watch and enjoy. At the pro level(s), it gives players a chance to earn money doing what they love. The clubs have no real responsibility, out side of what is contracted with the RFU, to provide support and development for England. And England don't have much responsibility to the clubs, except again what is contracted. The RFU provide seed money and trundle money into the grass roots because it feeds England. The clubs provide players to England because they get money. So they need each other, but the relationship is poor because they don't share common goals. And to head off the question, no, I don't think central contracts are necessary, or even needed, to align goals.

Regarding playoffs, I thoroughly enjoy them. I like teams who can sustain good performance over a long period, but still raise their level of play for that one special moment. Sport has always been about moments. Special moments when everything is on the line. A long slog which simply peters out when a team stumbles over the finish line doesn't do it for me anymore. Look at the NFL's Super Bowl, America's biggest event of the year. That is worth aspiring to. And yes, playoffs makes a ton of dough for the clubs. Ain't nothing wrong with that either.

Whilst relegation exists the number of dead rubbers is reduced to pretty much a minimum.

But as I see it the Jeff and England are in a symbiotic relationship whilst the Jeff exploits purely parasitic functions.

What on earth does that mean, Portnoy?

Portnoy,

Lets see how well the England team got on if there was no Jeff. Its ridiculous to suggest its purely parasitic.

I know youre trying to make a point based on a decision youve made before examing the facts rationaly but trying to make spurious logical leaps to prove it is getting tiresome now.

The Jeff doesnt exist purely to benefit "team England". It does however provide some benefit. Relegation has it pros and cons for both the club game and the national side, not to mention the fans.

Im happier with th system as is than one where we scrap the traditional clubs and force the sides to play alomost half their games in another country.

I would rather see the Jeff cut to 10 sides than have the playoffs scrapped, a matter that isnt on anyones agenda aside from those who oppose them on principle rather than any rational grounds.

Not once. Not once since 2001 As,

Have the PRL agreed any thing to promote English rugby without compromising club success.

Playoffs. Caps (irrespective of affordability). IWs Jeff games. Playing seven games during RWCs.

Everything is set to preclude English-based sides to succeed.

Again I ask what particle of RFU and/or PRL initiatives have been set in place to promote both club and national success?

c.f. Ireland, NZ, Aus and SA...

Port,
Both sides, the clubs and England (PRL and RFU, if you prefer) are both equally failing as applies to a good equitable working relationship. Both need each other and now both only tolerate each other. I don't see the clubs as having the larger portion of blame.

All England supporters want to see England succeed. All club supporters want to see their club succeed. In a proper Rugby world, this should never be in conflict. No one really likes top level club matches when the best players are away with their national clubs. This has to be negotiated.

And to make Rugby grow, the clubs and all national unions need money. Playoffs generate that. Larger gates, more tv money, more excitement. Even matches with playoff implications generate money. Imagine no playoffs: All those meaningless matches except for a rare few surrounding the top and bottom teams.

In 2001 the Jeff consisted of ten of the current twelve incumbents (Leeds/Bristol replaced by Worcs/Exeter). That's the final outcome of a ten-year churn.

The playoffs were introduced largely to protect fledgeling professional sides by providing a life-line through the playoffs.

In those days of course England were riding high in the World rankings and English clubs regularly won the HEC.

But since then salary caps on an absolute (regardless of affordability) level, EPS payments which favour those sides who have little-or no interest in the English cause. etc.

Indeed clubs are rewarded in the Jeff for opting for squads heavily-based on SH players in order to avoid IW windows losses. i.e. a prescription to simulate a virtually potless FA Premiership - with similar national results.

I'm pretty confused what this is all based on. The Jeff is there for the top clubs in England to compete in to see who's best. The genius structure means that the 'best' club not only has to compete over the whole season but also they need to win the big knockout games? What better way is there to determine the best team?

Where's the 'genius' you speak of Thunor?

I'd agree with you if you were talking of the IRFU where both sides and nation have hoiked themselves up from nowhere men to NH leaders.

With potentially more to come...

France?

Clearly, the purpose of the Jeff ... is to annoy you, Portnoy

Have you been on the cooking sherry again Portnoys?

Howdy As,
Clearly the Premeirship pisses Portnoy off to no end. But I agree with Port in a way. Our sport, I believe, is growing in spite of itself. Not the best boys and girls at the top managing the business.

Imagine if we had a real global big picture view. Crickey, we could do anything.

But the Premeirship (can't call it the Jeff), is not too bad. Nor are any of our pro leagues.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Clearly, the purpose of the Jeff ... is to annoy you, Portnoy

Might as well be As.

There are precious few other suggestions being offered (apart from unsubstantiated references and blind kow-towing to the status quo)which has overseen the decline of England from a World power to a moderate NH one and clubs reduced to also-rans in the European game.

Hey-ho.

Portnoy wrote:Where's the 'genius' you speak of Thunor?

Whoever came up with the playoffs. I think they're a great idea.

I'd agree with you if you were talking of the IRFU where both sides and nation have hoiked themselves up from nowhere men to NH leaders.

With potentially more to come...

Huh? What have the IRFU got to do with anything? I thought this was about the premiership? The IRFU top level don't play in the equivalent so I don't see the relevance. If anything the IRFU did the opposite of what I said and turned the club competition in the second tier with the vast majority of funding going to the provincial sides. Really confusing me now. It's almost as though there's an alternative thread going on that I can't see.

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Clearly, the purpose of the Jeff ... is to annoy you, Portnoy

Might as well be As.

There are precious few other suggestions being offered (apart from unsubstantiated references and blind kow-towing to the status quo)which has overseen the decline of England from a World power to a moderate NH one and clubs reduced to also-rans in the European game.

Hey-ho.

In the early 2000s, England were indeed a world rugby power, but was that the norm or an aberration from the norm? Isn't the reality that the wealthiest union in the world, with the largest number of adult players has always struggled to convert hat into success on the field. With the dawn of professionalism, the IRFU realised that the way to wrestle control from the clubs was to back the provincial game with centrally contracted players. I'm not sure that option was really available to the RFU, the clubs held the power and the support. Rugby is a business at the end of the day and has to be run as such

HammerofThunor wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Where's the 'genius' you speak of Thunor?

Whoever came up with the playoffs. I think they're a great idea.

I'd agree with you if you were talking of the IRFU where both sides and nation have hoiked themselves up from nowhere men to NH leaders.

With potentially more to come...

Huh? What have the IRFU got to do with anything? I thought this was about the premiership? The IRFU top level don't play in the equivalent so I don't see the relevance. If anything the IRFU did the opposite of what I said and turned the club competition in the second tier with the vast majority of funding going to the provincial sides. Really confusing me now. It's almost as though there's an alternative thread going on that I can't see.

Allow me to expand my argument to clarify and rationalise my thoughts.

1. Ultimately the growth and popularity of RU in England depends on the shop front : i.e. England team success. Therefore clubs depend in one way or another on the national side doing well.

2. The clubs have a League which rather than encouraging sides to promote participation of their players in the England set-up have collectively taken every opportunity to make it worthwhile to promote survival over national interest. Microeconomic interest over macroeconomic ones. The result has been that although the League itself has thrived thus far, it has been achieved through misguided self-interest.

When I refer to the Irish, I do so because they have a coherent structure (OK, theirs is top-down than our bottom-up) which has resulted in exceptional successes at national and European level over the past decade and more - in stark contrast to English trends.

Whilst every hurdle and barrier is placed on English clubs to succeed and promote English national success, it ironically actively disincentivises clubs from promoting English national interests upon which their income depends.

You talk of playoffs as a touch of genius - but why? What benefit are they apart from putting the skids under the very sides that ultimately contribute most to national cause.

In non-RWC years there is no reason to play league games during IWs, but it convenient for the weak to outvote the strong at every initiative.

Compare the Jeff tables at the end of the RWC against English club national commitments and you'll see an inverse relationship.
The perfect example of how the PRL works - seven Jeff matches whilst the cats are away so that the mice can play.

They could have reduced that number quite easily to two and play irrelevant stuff like the LV or a Jeff equivalent of a League Cup etc.

But no. The PRL prefers to bite the very hands that feed them.

Sometimes I wish that I hadn't been born in Leicester as I don't say all this as a Tigers' fan but a sportsman.

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm pretty confused what this is all based on. The Jeff is there for the top clubs in England to compete in to see who's best. The genius structure means that the 'best' club not only has to compete over the whole season but also they need to win the big knockout games? What better way is there to determine the best team?

Completely agree. The AP is first and foremost a competition for the benefit of the clubs, the principal aim being to find the best team in the land. The current system means the teams have to perform week in and week out, but also prove their mettle in high pressure knockout matches, whilst also taking account of the international & European disturbances.

Hi Portnoy,

I suggest you are complicating the issue.

Victory for the clubs will strenghten England. English teams won the Heineken Cup three times on the trot in 2000 2001 and 2002. The national team also did very well at this time winning multiple Six Nations and the Rugby World Cup.

Let the clubs go ahead and try their hardest to win every game. There isn't enough money in the English game to deprive the domestic players IMO. Win a few trophies and you'll see a rise in the stakes of the national team.

You mention playoffs as an issue stifling English teams. . . . . . .they have them in the Top 14, Rabo Direct Pro 12 and the Super 15 too.

But that is not a cogent argument if you accept my premise that club rugby and its expansion is dependent on national success.

There is absolutely no reason during normal (non-RWC) seasons to play Jeff games whilst players are on-call to meet international commitments.

Wage caps should be equated to affordability and club sustainability. (that should help with Euro success).

Twenty-four games in all weathers and conditions should be enough to sort out the best side of the season (plus with the current system it's only the top for that stand to benefit from the so-called financial bonanza).

Relegation, League leadership, Amlin and HEC placings keep virtually every season minimally affected by dead rubbers.

EPS payments should be paid pro-rata to encourage maximum participation and English development.

red_stag wrote:Hi Portnoy,

I suggest you are complicating the issue.

Victory for the clubs will strenghten England. English teams won the Heineken Cup three times on the trot in 2000 2001 and 2002. The national team also did very well at this time winning multiple Six Nations and the Rugby World Cup.

Let the clubs go ahead and try their hardest to win every game. There isn't enough money in the English game to deprive the domestic players IMO. Win a few trophies and you'll see a rise in the stakes of the national team.

You mention playoffs as an issue stifling English teams. . . . . . .they have them in the Top 14, Rabo Direct Pro 12 and the Super 15 too.

Stag, I have been converted (long ago) to the benefit playoffs in franchise leagues where relegation is not an issue.

That leaves the T14 which has an unsustainable business model.

"Let the clubs go ahead and try their hardest to win every game. There
isn't enough money in the English game to deprive the domestic players
IMO. Win a few trophies and you'll see a rise in the stakes of the
national team."

Sorry mate, I'm struggling to understand your point there.

Portnoy wrote:Twenty-four games in all weathers and conditions should be enough to sort out the best side of the season

The best side should be able to win the most games over the season and the one-offs, particularly as they'll have home advantage during part of the play-offs. If you look at some of the criticism directed at the All Blacks over the last couple of decades, it was that they may have the best win rate, but they choked in the big pressure games come the WC.

Consider also a situation where it is the end of the season and the top two teams in the league are only a point apart. They've played identical matches, but the top side were fortunate to face a couple of the better teams whilst they were in the middle of an injury crisis, allowing them to gain bonus point wins and deny the LBP. Are they really the best team that season?

hawalsh wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Twenty-four games in all weathers and conditions should be enough to sort out the best side of the season

The best side should be able to win the most games over the season and the one-offs, particularly as they'll have home advantage during part of the play-offs. If you look at some of the criticism directed at the All Blacks over the last couple of decades, it was that they may have the best win rate, but they choked in the big pressure games come the WC.

Consider also a situation where it is the end of the season and the top two teams in the league are only a point apart. They've played identical matches, but the top side were fortunate to face a couple of the better teams whilst they were in the middle of an injury crisis, allowing them to gain bonus point wins and deny the LBP. Are they really the best team that season?

That's sport. You can never cater for injuries at any point in the season (including at the fag-end).

Are you suggesting that is some way better than playing full available/selected sides unencumbered by international calls?

Portnoy wrote:But that is not a cogent argument if you accept my premise that club rugby and its expansion is dependent on national success.

There is absolutely no reason during normal (non-RWC) seasons to play Jeff games whilst players are on-call to meet international commitments.

Wage caps should be equated to affordability and club sustainability. (that should help with Euro success).

Twenty-four games in all weathers and conditions should be enough to sort out the best side of the season (plus with the current system it's only the top for that stand to benefit from the so-called financial bonanza).

Relegation, League leadership, Amlin and HEC placings keep virtually every season minimally affected by dead rubbers.

EPS payments should be paid pro-rata to encourage maximum participation and English development.

Portnoy, you really are a WUM - you know as well as I that you couldn't fit in a full season without playing league games during IWs - so let's get to your real point = IT'S NOT FAIR ON THE TIGERS :yawn:

My point is that a pure league doesn't necessarily deliver the 'best' team of the season. The play-offs at least force the champion to perform in multiple measures. A team that can perform over the course of the season and win a high pressure final in the big arena is a more worthy champion of all comers.

hawalsh wrote:My point is that a pure league doesn't necessarily deliver the 'best' team of the season. The play-offs at least force the champion to perform in multiple measures. A team that can perform over the course of the season and win a high pressure final in the big arena is a more worthy champion of all comers.

Perhaps we could have a huge knockout round and at the end have the top two play each other seven times.

We could call it the World Series and be guaranteed the best team of the league.

Or just not bother and accept that each team plays each other over the season home and away with the absolute min (just for As - even though he's wrong) of games played outside International weekends.

Portnoy wrote:

hawalsh wrote:My point is that a pure league doesn't necessarily deliver the 'best' team of the season. The play-offs at least force the champion to perform in multiple measures. A team that can perform over the course of the season and win a high pressure final in the big arena is a more worthy champion of all comers.

Perhaps we could have a huge knockout round and at the end have the top two play each other seven times.

We could call it the World Series and be guaranteed the best team of the league.

Or just not bother and accept that each team plays each other over the season home and away with the absolute min (just for As - even though he's wrong) of games played outside International weekends.

hmm, sounds familiar? ... Oh, that cos its what we do already - in one season, fit in AIs, 6Ns, summer tours, European competition, LV= nonsense and league action

As, if you shifted the dross like LV= into International windows, cut out one of the two rest weeks in the 6Ns and played AIs on three consecutive weekends then I think that you'd find there would be plenty of time.

But it's convenient to overlook that as it would make a level playing field.

How many times do I have to stress that I have to repeat this - it's not because I'm a Tiger, I like the best team to win - and it doesn't need a playoff to prove it.

You don't want a level playing field, you want the old order to persist - but it's not going to

I want the best team to win and for English national rugby to succeed and not to handicap the main contributors to be penalised. That is the sum total of it.

It has nothing to do with the old order. But the faux arguments of supporters to justify the current status quo have failed to present any coherent rationale which justifies each and all of The playoffs, Equal EPS payments (irrespective of contribution) and An absolute wage cap as a package.

But I have to reiterate that this presupposes an agreement with my fundamental premise that all/any medium to long term success of English club rugby (at all levels) is underpinned by the achievement of the national side.

Portnoy wrote:As, if you shifted the dross like LV= into International windows, cut out one of the two rest weeks in the 6Ns and played AIs on three consecutive weekends then I think that you'd find there would be plenty of time.

But it's convenient to overlook that as it would make a level playing field.

You're forgetting that England requires its players from between 1-2 weeks prior to the international set of games, so thats an additional 3-6 weeks to the overall schedule when you factor in the 6N, AIs and summer tours. Also I don't think you could really expect the AP to hold 24 games sequentially. Pretty much every competition (mostly shorter than 24 games) has a couple of bye weeks built in for player sustainability.

The LV doesn't really have any additional effect. There are 4 rounds and in a normal year the first 2 rounds are during the AIs, the third round is the weekend prior to the 6N when teams are without their international players anyway, and the 4th round is during the 6N.

Even if you had all the tournaments fully seperated, except the LV solely during the 6N, you'd have to do away with the AIs or the summer tour or not give the players their summer rest to make it all fit.

Portnoy wrote:and played AIs on three consecutive weekends

The matches usually are consecutive weekends. Certainly were last year, the year before that and the year before that.

Portnoy wrote:I wonder : could anyone suggest a single mechanism introduced since 2001 which has been agreed between and/or by the RFU and the PRL which has been passed to promote both the English side and the Englishness of the Jeff?

Just one.

I think that the organisation of club academies/colts structure into the 14 England Regional Academies affiliated to the clubs, and partially funded by RFU, benefits both club and country. All academicians are required to be EQP, their development is monitored on both regional and national levels and it has led to particularly successful England age grade teams, and plenty of young (and cheap) players coming into club squads.

Fecks up the lower clubs, though, when, for example, Pirates and Albion have their local youing talent siphoned off to the Chiefs, albeit getting some back through loans and DR's. However, the evil PRL sucking all the money out of professional club rugby and using miscellaneous, sometimes illegal, means to stifle the lower clubs is another discussion entirely.