Forget Parliament - English Club Rugby needs to be reformed

With this season's Heineken Cup quarter final line-up being dominated by RaboDirect Pro 12 teams, and the obvious strength of the French Top 14, given the money available to clubs there, serious questions are being raised by some Aviva Premiership club chairmen and Directors of Rugby as to whether their clubs are hamstrung when it comes to European competition, primarily by the salary cap. For those who are not aware, Aviva Premiership clubs wage budgets are capped at £4.1 million pounds per year, which when you consider an average senior playing squad size of around 40, does not leave much wiggle room for attracting star turns to England's showpiece league.

But is it really as simple as available cash being the issue? It may be a factor, but there are other areas that in my view impact equally as much, with the main one being the spread of quality players around the teams. Within both Wales and Ireland, all of the best players are condensed within four regional/provincial squads, as opposed to the twelve Aviva Premiership teams currently competing to sign the best English players. The maths are pretty simple really. If you have an senior elite international playing squad of 32 players, it averages out that for the Celtic sides that each region/province would have 8 internationals in it. For the premiership clubs, it would be around 2.5.

What this means is that Premiership squads are often filled with good solid pros, who can compete at that level but not above, and the odd foreign import who if of top quality is usually past his best and chasing the Northern Hemisphere cash. Would increasing the salary cap really change this dramatically? Possibly for the top few clubs who can afford to pay more, such as Bath, Leicester, Northampton and Saracens, but you would then have the scenario whereby they would be able to buy up all of the domestic talent, in effect creating a two tiered Premiership, where those four teams would always be at the top, and others would find it difficult to break into the top tier.

It would also be likely to see the end of stories like the Exeter Chiefs, where a solid business model has allowed them to progress from the Championship and have a realistic chance of breaking into the top half of the Premiership table and qualifying to compete at Heineken Cup level.

For me the solution to the quality issue is a simple one. We currently have a 12 team Premiership, and a professional 12 team Championship below it. There is a massive split in quality between the top 8 teams and the bottom 4 in the Championship. There are also only two teams currently in that division who have the facilities in place to be promoted. A streamlining of the top two tier of English domestic rugby would for me go some way to assisting with improving the quality at the top end of our domestic game.

I would have a 10 team Premiership, and 10 team Championship. All of the top players would want to play in the top tier, which means they would be condensed into 10 teams rather 12, which albeit that is a small change, would have the effect of improving the quality of those sides. Likewise the Championship would become more competitive with the loss of the bottom four teams to National League One. This would of course mean a loss of gate receipts from 2 home games for the clubs, which would be unacceptable to some, but for the good of the game I cannot see any reason why the RFU could not cover this for the clubs from their considerable coffers.

There would still be promotion and relegation, of one team per year, but the promotion place would be more hotly contested with perhaps up to 6 or 7 sides having a realistic chance of winning the competition, as opposed to the 2 or 3 that do under the current system. Competition to not be relegated would also become fiercer, thereby raising the standard of the Premiership as well. There are those that would argue that this is not what is required in order to advance the Premiership teams chances in Europe, and would cite no relegation and the opportunity to rest players in the RaboDirect Pro12 as a large contributory factor in their sides' successes in Europe, to advance their claim. However, the smaller league would allow an additional 4 weekends which could be used to rest players, and having them used to playing at a higher intensity can only be a positive when it comes to facing Heineken Cup opponents.

I would also do away with the Anglo-Welsh Cup, which serves very little purpose in terms of improving standards and assisting with the English sides aims of winning the Premiership or Heineken Cup. That would give an additional 6 weekends without matches; thereby completely negating the "lack of rest-periods for players" arguments.

Given the inclemency of a Northern Hemisphere winter, there could be a reasoned argument for a mid season break when it is likely to be at it's worst, which could also give rise to more expansive rugby being played more often, with more games played in better conditions than is the current case. The fact of the matter is that in terms of our domestic game, and our clubs chances in Europe, and even our national teams chances of tournament success, that something has got to change, as what is happening at present is not good enough. At the top end, interim England head coach Stuart Lancaster is making the right noises about standards and picking on form, which should give players the motivation to up their games at club level, but that is not enough. You have to build from the bottom up, not the top down, and getting the domestic structure right is key to success at every level.

Throwing cash at the problem is not the answer, as it will only benefit a very small elite, and smacks of short-termism, with the ever constant threat of it all going wrong should the money man disappear. Summing up, attitudes and structures need to change. I see a smaller league making the game more intense, but with more rest periods and respite allowing players to remain fresh for Heineken Cup and international matches. It is unlikely to happen in the near future though; as teams towards the bottom of the Premiership would be unlikely to vote in a system that would risk them being demoted to the Championship, and the loss of income of two home matches would have chairmen everywhere shaking and worrying about balancing the books. The fact remains though that recent (the last couple of years) European results show that something is not working, and until change is embraced by all that is likely to remain the case.

One question I would have.

One of the often touted reasons that the English fare badly on the European levels is down to the tough and competitive Premiership.

Is making the Premiership tougher and more competitive likely to spark the problem off again.

By removing 10 weeks worth of what are ultimately meaningless fixtures, you have the counter balance that people are looking for (the rest periods).

You have to be competitive, you cannot go from not being comeptitive to taking on the best of Europe, that will not work, but you also need the rest periods, which at present we just do not have.

Actually thats quite true. I forgot your rest periods.

All in all it sounds like a winning formula to me.

I follow your logic, but...

...Wales responded to similar problems just after professionalism by going to an 8 team league. It was a disaster. Mess around with the pattern of your domestic league (by reducing the amount of home games) at your peril. Some of the best rugby I've seen this year has been in the LV cup and that competition is starting to earn its corn. 8K at PYS for the LI game, last year you could expect the same for the Leinster league match.

Once your die hard fans take the wife shopping or the kids to a soccer match on their hallowed rugby day because there isn't a game on look out. With less teams you become hamstrung by TV revenue and scheduling.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but I am asking, is it the problem you think it is? Is it a bad thing that your teams have to turn to their academies to look for cheap home grown players?

I would hang on in there and wait to see if French Club rugby goes bust in the next three years.

Glas

I have no problem with clubs looking to their academies, that is how it should be and I see evidence of it working when I watch my own team. However the quality player base is spread to thin for the clubs to be comeptitive a tthe very top end at present.

i do take your point about rest weekends , but there is the counter argument that you may gain supporters (season ticket holders at least) who couldn't commit to the current guaranteed 16 home matches in all competitions, but could do for 12 (AP and European pool stages).

In relation to what the problem is I do believe that too many games is very much part of it. In the Rabo, only the Welsh have the additional LV Cup fixtures, and other than the trophy itself there is nothing riding on it for them. For English clubs it is another route to the Heineken Cup, and as such clubs who are striving to be in that have put out strong sides and not used academy players as they are unsure about qualification through the league. That has an impact on fatigue and subsequent quality. It is definitely and issue for the English clubs.

Im just not buying in to all this doom and gloom about English rugby.

The academies are producing players...and our clubs will be stronger again especially for not playing average joe journeymen!

England will get better aswell...once we get a top manager in again...not inexperienced, or simply poor standard ones.

The Irish are doing well at the moment. The region setup hasnt done much for Scotland or Wales has it?

Scotlands problems are numerous.

Wales, whilst not having produced a region who has won the Heineken Cup, are seeing the benefits of their regional system now on the international stage and are laying some excellent rugby as a result.

Pete, I see what you are saying, but is your comparison of England with Wales and Ireland valid? Shouldn't you really be comparing England with France? They have far more similar adult playing populations. There are rumours in France of expanding the T14 to 15 or 16 teams rather than retracting it, and they seem to have no problem with qualifying for the HEC quarters?

The real problem that I can see with English rugby is that dominance at U20 level is not translated to senior rugby - there is a significant drop in standards after this point, and that is where some careful thought and reform are most needed. Success for the England senior team has to be a priority - we just have to look at the upsurge after WC 2003 for proof

All valid opinions guys, and I take from what people are saying that all seem to agree that something needs to change for England and English clubs to be successful, it's just what that change is that people disagree on.

As,

What can be done in your mind to get the U20 dominance translating to senior level?

Ozzy3213 wrote:With this season's Heineken Cup quarter final line-up being dominated by RaboDirect Pro 12 teams, and the obvious strength of the French Top 14, given the money available to clubs there, serious questions are being raised by some Aviva Premiership club chairmen and Directors of Rugby as to whether their clubs are hamstrung when it comes to European competition, primarily by the salary cap. For those who are not aware, Aviva Premiership clubs wage budgets are capped at £4.1 million pounds per year, which when you consider an average senior playing squad size of around 40, does not leave much wiggle room for attracting star turns to England's showpiece league.

But is it really as simple as available cash being the issue? It may be a factor, but there are other areas that in my view impact equally as much, with the main one being the spread of quality players around the teams. Within both Wales and Ireland, all of the best players are condensed within four regional/provincial squads, as opposed to the twelve Aviva Premiership teams currently competing to sign the best English players. The maths are pretty simple really. If you have an senior elite international playing squad of 32 players, it averages out that for the Celtic sides that each region/province would have 8 internationals in it. For the premiership clubs, it would be around 2.5.

What this means is that Premiership squads are often filled with good solid pros, who can compete at that level but not above, and the odd foreign import who if of top quality is usually past his best and chasing the Northern Hemisphere cash. Would increasing the salary cap really change this dramatically? Possibly for the top few clubs who can afford to pay more, such as Bath, Leicester, Northampton and Saracens, but you would then have the scenario whereby they would be able to buy up all of the domestic talent, in effect creating a two tiered Premiership, where those four teams would always be at the top, and others would find it difficult to break into the top tier.

It would also be likely to see the end of stories like the Exeter Chiefs, where a solid business model has allowed them to progress from the Championship and have a realistic chance of breaking into the top half of the Premiership table and qualifying to compete at Heineken Cup level.

For me the solution to the quality issue is a simple one. We currently have a 12 team Premiership, and a professional 12 team Championship below it. There is a massive split in quality between the top 8 teams and the bottom 4 in the Championship. There are also only two teams currently in that division who have the facilities in place to be promoted. A streamlining of the top two tier of English domestic rugby would for me go some way to assisting with improving the quality at the top end of our domestic game.

I would have a 10 team Premiership, and 10 team Championship. All of the top players would want to play in the top tier, which means they would be condensed into 10 teams rather 12, which albeit that is a small change, would have the effect of improving the quality of those sides. Likewise the Championship would become more competitive with the loss of the bottom four teams to National League One. This would of course mean a loss of gate receipts from 2 home games for the clubs, which would be unacceptable to some, but for the good of the game I cannot see any reason why the RFU could not cover this for the clubs from their considerable coffers.

There would still be promotion and relegation, of one team per year, but the promotion place would be more hotly contested with perhaps up to 6 or 7 sides having a realistic chance of winning the competition, as opposed to the 2 or 3 that do under the current system. Competition to not be relegated would also become fiercer, thereby raising the standard of the Premiership as well. There are those that would argue that this is not what is required in order to advance the Premiership teams chances in Europe, and would cite no relegation and the opportunity to rest players in the RaboDirect Pro12 as a large contributory factor in their sides' successes in Europe, to advance their claim. However, the smaller league would allow an additional 4 weekends which could be used to rest players, and having them used to playing at a higher intensity can only be a positive when it comes to facing Heineken Cup opponents.

I would also do away with the Anglo-Welsh Cup, which serves very little purpose in terms of improving standards and assisting with the English sides aims of winning the Premiership or Heineken Cup. That would give an additional 6 weekends without matches; thereby completely negating the "lack of rest-periods for players" arguments.

Given the inclemency of a Northern Hemisphere winter, there could be a reasoned argument for a mid season break when it is likely to be at it's worst, which could also give rise to more expansive rugby being played more often, with more games played in better conditions than is the current case. The fact of the matter is that in terms of our domestic game, and our clubs chances in Europe, and even our national teams chances of tournament success, that something has got to change, as what is happening at present is not good enough. At the top end, interim England head coach Stuart Lancaster is making the right noises about standards and picking on form, which should give players the motivation to up their games at club level, but that is not enough. You have to build from the bottom up, not the top down, and getting the domestic structure right is key to success at every level.

Throwing cash at the problem is not the answer, as it will only benefit a very small elite, and smacks of short-termism, with the ever constant threat of it all going wrong should the money man disappear. Summing up, attitudes and structures need to change. I see a smaller league making the game more intense, but with more rest periods and respite allowing players to remain fresh for Heineken Cup and international matches. It is unlikely to happen in the near future though; as teams towards the bottom of the Premiership would be unlikely to vote in a system that would risk them being demoted to the Championship, and the loss of income of two home matches would have chairmen everywhere shaking and worrying about balancing the books. The fact remains though that recent (the last couple of years) European results show that something is not working, and until change is embraced by all that is likely to remain the case.

Less than half of the teams in the Championship are fully pro.

Most of the clubs have gates of around 2K or less and receive a pittance form the RFU. Being fully pro is unsustainable for pretty much all of them except Bristol, without a sugar daddy or a AP relegation parachute payment.

andyi

Even more reason for reducing the number of teams in the Championship in order to make it an even playing field and allow the RFU to offer funding to those teams.

Ozzy3213 wrote:andyi

Even more reason for reducing the number of teams in the Championship in order to make it an even playing field and allow the RFU to offer funding to those teams.

Why? They don't fund them sufficiently now!!!

It was the RFU who thought up the "Chumpionship" in the first place. They vastly overestimated the level of support for club RU in England when they sold the clubs the idea of fully pro second tier. They cant even find it a sponsor after 3 years.

You want to reduce the number of home league games to 9 a season from the present 14. How is that sustainable?

I'd suggest you take a look here to gauge the level of support you'd receive:
http://www.rolling-maul.com/default.asp?C=1&title=league-rugby-wwwleaguerugbycouk

Some interesting ideas on there.

Some seeing increasing the number of teams in the Championship as the best way forward for that division and others seeing decreasing it and doing away with the B & I cup and replacing it with an English knockout cup given them a chance of giant killing one of the Prem teams as a way forward.

Thanks for pointing me in the direction of that site.

A very well put argument, however, one that I feel is flawed for 2 reasons. As Red Stag has pointed out the perceived failure of the Premiership is its overtly competitive nature, this type of league would encourage even more defensively minded teams. Ultimately the teams would become risk averse and when translated to European and National arenas this would heavily impact upon the success of the sides.

Secondly, I can’t see the PRL ever voting for this structure. Numerous of the big sides have had dodgy seasons in recent years which has seen them finish 11th (Bath, Saints, Quins, Sale, etc.) and I can’t see any openly agreeing to removing the safety blanket of 11th.

Personally, I feel the more likely option is for the league to be increased to 14 sides with the removal of the LV Cup. There would be no relegation, but the teams’ status would be reviewed every few years based upon a series of KPIs both financial and performance.

I know it's an American model and thus unpopular, but if we are going to have a Premiership play-off between finalists, might we not as well split the Premiership into divisions? Add the teams from the Championship that are viable and competitive at the top level perhaps. Or drop the non competitive teams in the Premiership to the Championship and do a similar thing with them.

2 divisions then the top 2 from each play each other in semis and the winners play the grand final. Randomise who is in which division each season. If, say, we have 20 teams in total and split into 2, we have saved time without dropping the LV Cup. Or split the teams into 4 and base it on the NHL model , say, playing each division member twice and some or all teams outside the division once. Then it makes meetings between clubs outside the division bigger affairs and could act as a bigger draw.

Just a thought

The RFU have no interest in helping out teams below the Premiership. That is why parachute payments exist. It is ring fencing by another name. Until that payment is removed the Championship can never be a level playing field. Most of the clubs in the Championship barely survive on the income from the 11 home games we get. The team relegated from the Premiership has a huge advantage. Not just the parachute payment but also their Premiership shares and RFU funded academies. Exeter were the exception and good luck to them. Realistically only bad management should prevent the relegated Premiership side going straight back up because the parachute payment enables them to retain any players prepared to play in the lower division.
There is no reason to think the RFU would be prepared to subsidise the Championship regardless of how many teams are in it.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I know it's an American model and thus unpopular, but if we are going to have a Premiership play-off between finalists, might we not as well split the Premiership into divisions? Add the teams from the Championship that are viable and competitive at the top level perhaps. Or drop the non competitive teams in the Premiership to the Championship and do a similar thing with them.

2 divisions then the top 2 from each play each other in semis and the winners play the grand final. Randomise who is in which division each season. If, say, we have 20 teams in total and split into 2, we have saved time without dropping the LV Cup. Or split the teams into 4 and base it on the NHL model , say, playing each division member twice and some or all teams outside the division once. Then it makes meetings between clubs outside the division bigger affairs and could act as a bigger draw.

Just a thought

I've often thought about that type of model, however, I feel there would be real potential for attendances to drop. If there are more games being played, you would fully expect more games to be on TV and this could quite easily have an impact upon attendances, as Iwouldn't expect teams to be supported solely by TV revenue this could have an real averse effect.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Glas

I have no problem with clubs looking to their academies, that is how it should be and I see evidence of it working when I watch my own team. However the quality player base is spread to thin for the clubs to be comeptitive a tthe very top end at present.

i do take your point about rest weekends , but there is the counter argument that you may gain supporters (season ticket holders at least) who couldn't commit to the current guaranteed 16 home matches in all competitions, but could do for 12 (AP and European pool stages).

In relation to what the problem is I do believe that too many games is very much part of it. In the Rabo, only the Welsh have the additional LV Cup fixtures, and other than the trophy itself there is nothing riding on it for them. For English clubs it is another route to the Heineken Cup, and as such clubs who are striving to be in that have put out strong sides and not used academy players as they are unsure about qualification through the league. That has an impact on fatigue and subsequent quality. It is definitely and issue for the English clubs.

But it's funny, amateur clubs could play 60 games a year.

Bleedsgreenandwhite

Firstly, welcome to forum mate. Secondly, I am guessing a Nottingham fan?

Thirdly, what's the solution then, not just for the Championship, but also for the Premiership and English teams European ambitions?

Ozzy3213 wrote:All valid opinions guys, and I take from what people are saying that all seem to agree that something needs to change for England and English clubs to be successful, it's just what that change is that people disagree on.

As,

What can be done in your mind to get the U20 dominance translating to senior level?

Pete, tough one, I'm going to have to think more on that.. Of the top of my head, given that only a small fraction of those that feature at U20 level seem to make it thru to seniors, then somehow that has to be fixed. Would limiting even further the number on non-English qualified (NEQ) players do the trick? Alternatively, rewarding those clubs that are bringing youngsters thru even more than the existing plans do? Essentially, I think these would achieve the same aim, but one i a carrot approach, and one a stick. Anyway, that's just off the top of my head to keep the debate going, but will think thru this some more

Do the clubs currently get a financial incentive for their players to be picked to play for England/Saxons?

HongKongCherry wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I know it's an American model and thus unpopular, but if we are going to have a Premiership play-off between finalists, might we not as well split the Premiership into divisions? Add the teams from the Championship that are viable and competitive at the top level perhaps. Or drop the non competitive teams in the Premiership to the Championship and do a similar thing with them.

2 divisions then the top 2 from each play each other in semis and the winners play the grand final. Randomise who is in which division each season. If, say, we have 20 teams in total and split into 2, we have saved time without dropping the LV Cup. Or split the teams into 4 and base it on the NHL model , say, playing each division member twice and some or all teams outside the division once. Then it makes meetings between clubs outside the division bigger affairs and could act as a bigger draw.

Just a thought

I've often thought about that type of model, however, I feel there would be real potential for attendances to drop. If there are more games being played, you would fully expect more games to be on TV and this could quite easily have an impact upon attendances, as Iwouldn't expect teams to be supported solely by TV revenue this could have an real averse effect.

There are already a lot games played on TV. In order to get a better TV rights deal the last time (45% increase), Premier Rugby increased the number of TV games massively. They sold 69 games a season to ESPN/SKY. That's 69 out of 135 games which is 51.1%!

In contrast the EPL which a lot of people think is overexposed on TV, sells 138 out of 380 games, only 36.3%

ChequeredJersey wrote:Do the clubs currently get a financial incentive for their players to be picked to play for England/Saxons?

My understanding is that each club gets an equal one 12th split of the EPS pot, regardless of how many players they provide.

In any case, even if as an example Leicester who provide a lot of players, were to be paid per player, thus receiving more cash, they probably couldn't use it on wages as it would push them over the cap.

andyi wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I know it's an American model and thus unpopular, but if we are going to have a Premiership play-off between finalists, might we not as well split the Premiership into divisions? Add the teams from the Championship that are viable and competitive at the top level perhaps. Or drop the non competitive teams in the Premiership to the Championship and do a similar thing with them.

2 divisions then the top 2 from each play each other in semis and the winners play the grand final. Randomise who is in which division each season. If, say, we have 20 teams in total and split into 2, we have saved time without dropping the LV Cup. Or split the teams into 4 and base it on the NHL model , say, playing each division member twice and some or all teams outside the division once. Then it makes meetings between clubs outside the division bigger affairs and could act as a bigger draw.

Just a thought

I've often thought about that type of model, however, I feel there would be real potential for attendances to drop. If there are more games being played, you would fully expect more games to be on TV and this could quite easily have an impact upon attendances, as Iwouldn't expect teams to be supported solely by TV revenue this could have an real averse effect.

There are already a lot games played on TV. In order to get a better TV rights deal the last time (45% increase), Premier Rugby increased the number of TV games massively. They sold 69 games a season to ESPN/SKY. That's 69 out of 135 games which is 51.1%!

In contrast the EPL which a lot of people think is overexposed on TV, sells 138 out of 380 games, only 36.3%

It can be misleading to use relative rather than absolute statistics here: Rugby might have a higher percentage of played games shown compared to football but there is still twice as much football on TV and that certainly adds to overexposure

Ozzy3213 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Do the clubs currently get a financial incentive for their players to be picked to play for England/Saxons?

My understanding is that each club gets an equal one 12th split of the EPS pot, regardless of how many players they provide.

In any case, even if as an example Leicester who provide a lot of players, were to be paid per player, thus receiving more cash, they probably couldn't use it on wages as it would push them over the cap.

The clubs do get paid per player, however PRL then evens things up when they divvy up the TV money, so it's effectively split evenly.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Do the clubs currently get a financial incentive for their players to be picked to play for England/Saxons?

My understanding is that each club gets an equal one 12th split of the EPS pot, regardless of how many players they provide.

In any case, even if as an example Leicester who provide a lot of players, were to be paid per player, thus receiving more cash, they probably couldn't use it on wages as it would push them over the cap.

The clubs do get paid per player, however PRL then evens things up when they divvy up the TV money, so it's effectively split evenly.

Socialism at work, great!

Ozzy3213 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Do the clubs currently get a financial incentive for their players to be picked to play for England/Saxons?

My understanding is that each club gets an equal one 12th split of the EPS pot, regardless of how many players they provide.

In any case, even if as an example Leicester who provide a lot of players, were to be paid per player, thus receiving more cash, they probably couldn't use it on wages as it would push them over the cap.

Maybe a small but significant financial incentive for every game an England U20 starts for the Clubs? It's throwing money at the situation but in a different way that directly persuades Clubs to start young English talent

i kinda liked that idea of ChequeredJersey's

Something along the lines of mixing the championship and Prem clubs together and deviding them up into 4 leagues of 8 teams based on location. North conference, middle conference south conference and London conference. Top 2 of each conference play each other of cup, Second 2 for a shield and third 2 for a bowl, bottom team in each conference relagated, (leagues below this are split up into conferences) and top team in that conference promoted.

This way your get a lot more regional derbies, hopefully gaining bigger crowds, and less travelling for fans. There would be more movement as 4 teams are relegated/promoted each year as well.

Many flaws in it as well.

ChequeredJersey wrote:

andyi wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I know it's an American model and thus unpopular, but if we are going to have a Premiership play-off between finalists, might we not as well split the Premiership into divisions? Add the teams from the Championship that are viable and competitive at the top level perhaps. Or drop the non competitive teams in the Premiership to the Championship and do a similar thing with them.

2 divisions then the top 2 from each play each other in semis and the winners play the grand final. Randomise who is in which division each season. If, say, we have 20 teams in total and split into 2, we have saved time without dropping the LV Cup. Or split the teams into 4 and base it on the NHL model , say, playing each division member twice and some or all teams outside the division once. Then it makes meetings between clubs outside the division bigger affairs and could act as a bigger draw.

Just a thought

I've often thought about that type of model, however, I feel there would be real potential for attendances to drop. If there are more games being played, you would fully expect more games to be on TV and this could quite easily have an impact upon attendances, as Iwouldn't expect teams to be supported solely by TV revenue this could have an real averse effect.

There are already a lot games played on TV. In order to get a better TV rights deal the last time (45% increase), Premier Rugby increased the number of TV games massively. They sold 69 games a season to ESPN/SKY. That's 69 out of 135 games which is 51.1%!

In contrast the EPL which a lot of people think is overexposed on TV, sells 138 out of 380 games, only 36.3%

It can be misleading to use relative rather than absolute statistics here: Rugby might have a higher percentage of played games shown compared to football but there is still twice as much football on TV and that certainly adds to overexposure

True, but my point was in relation to the amount of the total AP games available that are shown and the value of those games.

I think the AP has pretty much reached saturation point as far the UK TV rights value is concerned. Their isn't a big enough demand/market for AP games on TV to realize much more money!
The value of each game went down with the last TV deal: a 45% increase in revenue for a 109% increase in televised games.

In terms of Football being overexposed, The EPL is massive (only the NFL is a more valuable league) with a global following and worth that dwarfes the AP. Some may think it overexposed but its value per match went up a lot with the last deal!

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Do the clubs currently get a financial incentive for their players to be picked to play for England/Saxons?

My understanding is that each club gets an equal one 12th split of the EPS pot, regardless of how many players they provide.

In any case, even if as an example Leicester who provide a lot of players, were to be paid per player, thus receiving more cash, they probably couldn't use it on wages as it would push them over the cap.

Maybe a small but significant financial incentive for every game an England U20 starts for the Clubs? It's throwing money at the situation but in a different way that directly persuades Clubs to start young English talent

Maybe a England U20 player in the 1st squad could be semi excluded from the cap for the first couple of years? So say until they were 22/3? I know home developed players are going to have a similar system, so this would have to be on top of that.
Then if a player is in the EPS they should get the RFU payments for that player.


With regards to the whole season,Clubs are in general struggling already, so they are very unlikely to agree to any drop in revenue, unless there is an increase in direct funding from the RFU to compensate. So with that in mind, it would be hard to make the changes I would like to see, which would be dropping the LV in its current format (or at least moving it so all games are played on international weekends), reducing the league to 10 and doing away with parachute payments so that successful and ambitious championship clubs have the chance to move up, rather than certain clubs profiting just from being in the right place at the right time.

However, you would imagine that the AP clubs would rather see an expansion to 14 (Leeds and Bristol as they are the regional academies?) and no relegation to try and increase revenue.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Bleedsgreenandwhite

Firstly, welcome to forum mate. Secondly, I am guessing a Nottingham fan?

Thirdly, what's the solution then, not just for the Championship, but also for the Premiership and English teams European ambitions?

Hi, Great to be here,

Indeed yes. Nottingham for 30 years through thick and thin. Mostly thin.

I cannot claim any kind of expertise on the Prem or Europe but I will give you my thoughts on the Championship.

I would like to see the retention of 12 teams in the Champ. It was only recently reduced from 16. That got rid of the one sided matches which meant the season was over for the bottom half of the league by Christmas. The quality of the division is the highest it has ever been. The gap between top and bottom is fairly small so we have a very competitive division. The play-offs, which are not every bodies cup of tea do at least keep the season alive for everyone regardless of league position. They also make up for the fixtures lost in the league reduction last time. I would like the top team after the play-offs going up and the bottom team from the Prem coming down as now. It would be nice to see a second play-off between the losing finalist of the Champ play-offs and the team finishing second from bottom of the Prem. This would go a little way to redressing the balance which currently favours the relegated Prem team with their parachute payment.
I would do away with the rubbish B&I cup and bring back the Pilkington cup so the smaller clubs would be incentivised to take the competition seriously with the carrot of a visit from a Premiership side and their attendant fans. It would bring back the romance of the chance of giant killing. Gates for the B&I cup are generally not great because nobody takes it seriously or covers it.

Ozzy3213 wrote:
What can be done in your mind to get the U20 dominance translating to senior level?

Just give it time. This year England have about 30-35 excellent players around the u20 squad, and there's more strength in depth than I've seen before (compare with say the 2010 squad, where Casson was the only IC in the JWC party). OK, they are spread across a couple of years, but if 15 or so high quality players graduate out of the u20 group per year (by turning 20) then in 5 years time there will be another 75 very good players in the system, and many of those they replace who have retired or moved to France will be players with inferior talent and skills. Add in, say, a similar number of players who graduate academies, don't play age-group rugby but are decent club players and I'd just expect the number of good English players avalable to the typical AP club to rise over time. The fact so many of the current u20 side are playing regularly for their clubs tells you the way things are going.

And remember the RFU are reforming kids rugby, with more emphasis on skills. The money and the numbers will count in the end, but remember 2008 was the first year where the academies managed to produce a really high quality age-group side so it will take time to feed through.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Within both Wales and Ireland, all of the best players are condensed within four regional/provincial squads, as opposed to the twelve Aviva Premiership teams currently competing to sign the best English players. The maths are pretty simple really. If you have an senior elite international playing squad of 32 players, it averages out that for the Celtic sides that each region/province would have 8 internationals in it. For the premiership clubs, it would be around 2.5.

How do you condense world class (or at least International class) players into four provinces/regions?

You don't really. You can't plan to do that as in countries so small (numberwise more than territory) you have to accept what you have. You don't condense International standard or HC standard players into those 4 provinces/regions. Life isn't that generous. You have to try to create them, from that small pool.

The difference in those two ways of looking at it are immense. Looking at the problem in the right way would help the Premiership manage their sides better and even extract better Internationals from the club sides.