London Welsh win appeal

by tigerleghorn Fri 29 Jun 2012, 6:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Well done Welsh, tough luck Falcons.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/9365484/London-Welsh-to-join-Aviva-Premiership-after-winning-appeal-against-decision-to-deny-them-promotion.html

by doctor_grey Sat 30 Jun 2012, 10:00 pm

Couldn't agree more, PJ. And I bet the existing clubs who don't conform to the current promotion requirements will have special fun heaping points on LW. No one wins in that scenario. But you are right. Its coming.

by HammerofThunor Sat 30 Jun 2012, 10:40 pm

I'm hoping they go down the franchise route rather than ring-fence completely. Assess all the professional clubs against some scoring system, performance, attendance, turnover, location, etc and the best 10/12 are put in the premiership for 3 or 4 years. After the 3 or 4 years the teams are re-scored and the lowest in the premiership is relegated with the best in the lower promoted.

It can heavily weighted towards the performance on the field but it would need to be performance over several years rather than a one off. It would also give the lower clubs a target date, but they still need to perform in the mean time. Of course if a team goes down they would be stuck down for several years, which could kill some clubs.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 01 Jul 2012, 12:11 am

Does anyone know much about how the rugby league franchising system works? Is it largely ferret based?

by HammerofThunor Sun 01 Jul 2012, 9:36 am

I think it involves pints of bitter as well.

by Guest Sun 01 Jul 2012, 12:41 pm

Just read a report that London Welsh are considering opening talks with Gavin Henson.

I know Henson was a good player during Lyn Jones's early years as head coach at the Ospreys, but isn't this carrying nostalgia too far?

Although Jones's comments after Cardiff sacked Henson showed his sympathy for the player, I strongly doubt that Lyn could re-establish the rapport they once had. Henson seems to be a different person now!

by Smirnoffpriest Sun 01 Jul 2012, 12:52 pm

There's been a lot of unfounded rumours flying around about Henson (when is there not!), saying he was going to LW, then LW denied it then another rumour saying if LW didn't stay up then Henson would sign for the Scarlets - the last one is almost 100% total bull doody.

I'd wait for more concrete news - but saying that for a team likely to be fighting around the bottom of the AV he wouldn't be that bad a signing (IF Lynn can sort his head out) as he looked decent for the Blues last season even though he was blatantly not up to the required fitness levels.

by Portnoy Sun 01 Jul 2012, 1:48 pm

Smirnoffpriest wrote:There's been a lot of unfounded rumours flying around about Henson (when is there not!), saying he was going to LW, then LW denied it then another rumour saying if LW didn't stay up then Henson would sign for the Scarlets - the last one is almost 100% total bull doody.

I'd wait for more concrete news - but saying that for a team likely to be fighting around the bottom of the AV he wouldn't be that bad a signing (IF Lynn can sort his head out) as he looked decent for the Blues last season even though he was blatantly not up to the required fitness levels.

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/166366.html
renewed Henson interest.

by BigTrevsbigmac Sun 01 Jul 2012, 2:10 pm

Portnoy wrote:
Smirnoffpriest wrote:There's been a lot of unfounded rumours flying around about Henson (when is there not!), saying he was going to LW, then LW denied it then another rumour saying if LW didn't stay up then Henson would sign for the Scarlets - the last one is almost 100% total bull doody.

I'd wait for more concrete news - but saying that for a team likely to be fighting around the bottom of the AV he wouldn't be that bad a signing (IF Lynn can sort his head out) as he looked decent for the Blues last season even though he was blatantly not up to the required fitness levels.

http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/166366.html
renewed Henson interest.

Not much concrete there....John Taylor,
'It is certainly possible that we may be in touch again....'

Sounds airy fairy to me.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 04 Jul 2012, 8:46 am

The judgement in full has now been published: http://rfu.com/news/2012/june/newsarticles/~/media/Files/2012/DISCIPLINE/Judgements/LONDON/london_welsh_final_%20appeal_judgment_full_jul12.ashx

by **LondonTiger** Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:25 am

So basically it seems like LW threatened to take the case to court over EU competition law, which would have lasted months and prevented the start of the season.

LW have accepted they did not complete the application on time and that they do not meet the requirements over Primacy of Tenure.

I guess this now mean that both the deadline and PoT have to be dropped.

RFU were cowards (pragmatic though) and LW were bullies to compensate for their own incompetence.

Only Falcons come out of that judgement with any honour.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:30 am

A few points of interest:

1. So, if any of Wasps, Sarries or Irish had finished bottom, there was a provision in the Minimum Standards Criteria (MSC) for a play-off between them and the Championship champions.

2. London Welsh failed to meet any of the required dates for MSC assessment.

3. During 2011, another club ("Club 1", not one of the 3 above) also lost Primacy of Tenure (PoT) but the RFU elected not to impose any sanctions.

4. LW's appeal is couched "in substance as an attack on the PoT rule itself".

5. Chief point of contention was whether the PoT rule was exempt from EU & UK competition rules by virtue of being "essentially sporting in nature, its aim being to maintain and increase the general health and popularity of the sport". i.e sporting vs commercial objective

6. The Office of Fair Trading had substantially approved the PoT provision back in 2003 after earlier rebuttal, but the panel believed that matters since then had changed such that this was now effectively less relevant.

7. There had been a proposal to increase the PoT exemption from 3 clubs to 5 discussed in 2011, but its implementation had been delayed to season 2013/14 (probably pending RFU Board approval).

On the basis of what I have read, i have to admit that I retract what I wrote earlier and simply say fair play to London Welsh - they are fully deserving of being in the Prem (failure to apply PoT to 'Club 1' and the intention to amend the rules anyway have turned me to this view)

by **LondonTiger** Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:34 am

Reading the report has driven me in the opposite direction Asbo Smile

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:40 am

LondonTiger wrote:Reading the report has driven me in the opposite direction Asbo

LT, really? Any particular reason? I mean I get that LW totally fluffed their application, but the PoT rule (and its application) was seriously flawed and about to be amended anyway (partly by virtue of recognising those flaws)?

by Smirnoffpriest Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:56 am

That was my problem with this situation from the start - the inconsistencies of the application of the rules, and also the claim that you must have Primacy of Tenancy even though clubs are currently demonstrating that there are few problems with playing in the AV without Primacy.

On the other hand I do get that LW have done things the wrong way round and haven't built in the same way Pirates and Exeter did, and also haven't given themselves enough time to build a competitive squad.

But for me these are playing issues and shouldn't have anything to do with eligebility (I mean if Quins for example decided to sell every single senior player and rely on their u18s and journeymen then they'd be expected to get hammered but they wouldn't be thrown out of the league)

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:57 am

Smirnoffpriest wrote:That was my problem with this situation from the start - the inconsistencies of the application of the rules, and also the claim that you must have Primacy of Tenancy even though clubs are currently demonstrating that there are few problems with playing in the AV without Primacy.

On the other hand I do get that LW have done things the wrong way round and haven't built in the same way Pirates and Exeter did, and also haven't given themselves enough time to build a competitive squad.

But for me these are playing issues and shouldn't have anything to do with eligebility (I mean if Quins for example decided to sell every single senior player and rely on their u18s and journeymen then they'd be expected to get hammered but they wouldn't be thrown out of the league)

Priest, I had no problem with the RFU giving exemptions to clubs that didn't meet the rules when they were first introduced, but the additional information we now have puts it in a different context for me

by Smirnoffpriest Wed 04 Jul 2012, 10:09 am

I know what you mean and can understand 'grandfathered' clauses or in this cause exemptions because they were already in the league when the rules changed - but surely they should either be able to see that there's no problems being caused by not having primacy of tenancy and scrap the rule, or put in place a 5 year plan from the launch of that rule whereby all clubs would have to have primacy of the rules.

Anyway as you say this new information puts it in an even darker light

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 04 Jul 2012, 10:23 am

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I know what you mean and can understand 'grandfathered' clauses or in this cause exemptions because they were already in the league when the rules changed - but surely they should either be able to see that there's no problems being caused by not having primacy of tenancy and scrap the rule, or put in place a 5 year plan from the launch of that rule whereby all clubs would have to have primacy of the rules.

Anyway as you say this new information puts it in an even darker light

I totally agree with this suggestion, priest - the biggest mistake was to not force clubs to meet the PoT rule over time

by Smirnoffpriest Wed 04 Jul 2012, 10:40 am

That way they would have probably avoided this whole issue

by PJHolybloke Wed 04 Jul 2012, 10:44 am

Surely club 1 is Sale? Since the club left the Stockport County groundshare?

LW have held the entire Jeff to ransom in entirely the wrong way, for their fans sake I hope this doesn't cause any serious damage to the cub beyond the image related damage this has created amongst some non-LW fans.

Agree, Falcons have acted with.great dignity and deserve respect for that.

by Smirnoffpriest Wed 04 Jul 2012, 10:49 am

+1 for the Falcons.

I really feared they'd appeal the decision (which they could well have done) and the situation would have dragged on, delaying the start of the season - then LW could have sued if they lost (they wouldn't have been able to appeal as the season would have started) and it could have created a huge mess.

by TrailApe Wed 04 Jul 2012, 11:24 am

The only problem I have with the deciscion is that it doesn't cure any of the wrongs.

POT is required to allow the administrators and Broadcasters (who pay a lot of money to the sport) to organize a coherent fixture list. Lord knows what the fixture list is going to be like if we have a bad winter and then the rescheduled games of certain clubs have to be balanced with ground availability (the FA demand PoT).

All this judgment has done is say - well you have three without Pot, one more won't hurt. What happens if LW stay up and those Championship sides that didn't declare an interest in promotion go for it and get promoted? How many will the RFU/PRL accept - and if they allow 5 - how can they then close the doors on others?

This is not a pragmatic solution, it's a total bodge and if some concrete rulings do not come out very soon we are going to be faced with a fixture list that plays second fiddle to footy.

The only silver lining I can see is that this might move us to a summer season - although I know a lot of traditionalists don't like this.

by Smirnoffpriest Wed 04 Jul 2012, 11:29 am

The whole of European pro rugby would have to switch to a summer season together to make it viable.

by gowales Wed 04 Jul 2012, 11:34 am

Summer rugby wouldn't be so bad in the UK and Ireland, seeing that it isn't even proper summer weather but i'm not sure if it would work in France, Italy, Spain or Portugal...

by TrailApe Wed 04 Jul 2012, 11:51 am

The whole of European pro rugby would have to switch to a summer season together to make it viable. .

Oh I know it won't happen, but if something isn't done in the next few seasons then it's going to be a nightmare to arrange games as more Clubs see that PoT is not required to compete in the Jeff.

The Panel agreed that PoT is a desireable thing to ask for when administering a sport, and LW got through not because it was PoT was unreasonable but because the system had been proven to get by with a number of exceptions, so one more won't hurt. However if other clubs do a LW, how many will it take to bring the Jeff to a standstill because of the inability to arrange games ON THE DAYS THAT THE BROADCASTERS WANT.

If we as a union cannot garuantee the media their slots they are either going to walk away from us or pay us a lot less. This will not just hit the Premiership sides but the whole of English rugby. We might not want summer rugby, but re-arranged games might have to be put back until after the football season, so we will be getting it by default.

by HammerofThunor Wed 04 Jul 2012, 12:28 pm

What ever happened to the ohter things they fail to meet? It was primarily a PoT issue but there were others (never outlined from what I remember). Were they just forgotten about?

by ScarletSpiderman Wed 04 Jul 2012, 12:29 pm

The PoT issue could easily be fixed if the league lowered the capacity requirements. London Welsh are not going to get a five figure attendance for many games, and when they do it will be away fans making up the numbers. I really don't like this whole playing on a football pitch, and then moving when your lease is up nonesence. A side should have a home fo their own for fans to belong at.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 04 Jul 2012, 12:36 pm

HoT,

the Kassam meets the other stuff. Old Deer Park would not - it would especially faile the provision of suitable medical facilities criteria.

by Portnoy Wed 04 Jul 2012, 12:44 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:The PoT issue could easily be fixed if the league lowered the capacity requirements. London Welsh are not going to get a five figure attendance for many games, and when they do it will be away fans making up the numbers. I really don't like this whole playing on a football pitch, and then moving when your lease is up nonesence. A side should have a home fo their own for fans to belong at.

It has to be said that certain ground requirements are set in legislation (e.g. ground safety certificates, toilet requirements etc.).

I would have thought that clubs should sign up to a contract to abide to predefined capacity (say 5000) and broadcasters' lighting requirements.
Make that commitment pre-season and demonstrate an agreement (at least in principle with the ground owners) for the ground by Jan 1st.

A pre-nup if you like.

Just making the Championship regular season declared suitable for promotion, once again creates a hostage to fortune.

Every Premiership side must be carefully scrutinised to pass every test expected of new incumbents.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 04 Jul 2012, 12:49 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:What ever happened to the ohter things they fail to meet? It was primarily a PoT issue but there were others (never outlined from what I remember). Were they just forgotten about?

V minor, and ignored

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Wed 04 Jul 2012, 12:50 pm

LondonTiger wrote:HoT,

the Kassam meets the other stuff. Old Deer Park would not - it would especially faile the provision of suitable medical facilities criteria.

You don't think that a WWI stretcher covers it then, LT?! Wink

by TrailApe Wed 04 Jul 2012, 1:27 pm

You don't think that a WWI stretcher covers it then, LT?!

It wasn't the concept of the stretcher they baulked at - it was the fact that the handles hadn't been sanded properly and the bearers might have gotten spelks.

Health and Safety you see.............

by doctor_grey Wed 04 Jul 2012, 1:37 pm

Portnoy wrote:It has to be said that certain ground requirements are set in legislation (e.g. ground safety certificates, toilet requirements etc.).

I would have thought that clubs should sign up to a contract to abide to predefined capacity (say 5000) and broadcasters' lighting requirements.
Make that commitment pre-season and demonstrate an agreement (at least in principle with the ground owners) for the ground by Jan 1st.

A pre-nup if you like.

They had their pre-nup. But some football loving adjuticators ruled the pre-nup just didn't matter.

Granted, and with the benefit 100% hindsight, there should have been a requirement for the grandfathered clubs to eventually conform to the promotion requirements. But who knew then what could happen now?

An interesting discussion thread would be for us to define for the RFU, PRL, OFT, and EU (as well as MI5, CIA, and the KGB) the minimum requirements and the way forwards.

by Guest Wed 04 Jul 2012, 6:04 pm

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:A few points of interest:

1. So, if any of Wasps, Sarries or Irish had finished bottom, there was a provision in the Minimum Standards Criteria (MSC) for a play-off between them and the Championship champions.

2. London Welsh failed to meet any of the required dates for MSC assessment.

3. During 2011, another club ("Club 1", not one of the 3 above) also lost Primacy of Tenure (PoT) but the RFU elected not to impose any sanctions.

4. LW's appeal is couched "in substance as an attack on the PoT rule itself".

5. Chief point of contention was whether the PoT rule was exempt from EU & UK competition rules by virtue of being "essentially sporting in nature, its aim being to maintain and increase the general health and popularity of the sport". i.e sporting vs commercial objective

6. The Office of Fair Trading had substantially approved the PoT provision back in 2003 after earlier rebuttal, but the panel believed that matters since then had changed such that this was now effectively less relevant.

7. There had been a proposal to increase the PoT exemption from 3 clubs to 5 discussed in 2011, but its implementation had been delayed to season 2013/14 (probably pending RFU Board approval).

On the basis of what I have read, i have to admit that I retract what I wrote earlier and simply say fair play to London Welsh - they are fully deserving of being in the Prem (failure to apply PoT to 'Club 1' and the intention to amend the rules anyway have turned me to this view)

by PJHolybloke Wed 04 Jul 2012, 6:20 pm

Asbo, how do you feel about the fact that LW played the two teams in the play-offs that hadn't applied for promotion as they knew they couldn't meet the very criteria that LW have just ridden roughshod over?

It's not as if they can play the games again now everyone knows what the rules are.

Two teams playing for a cup, two playing for millions of pounds of additional revenue... that doesn't level up for me whichever way I look at it.

by Taffineastbourne Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:30 pm

PJHolybloke wrote:Asbo, how do you feel about the fact that LW played the two teams in the play-offs that hadn't applied for promotion as they knew they couldn't meet the very criteria that LW have just ridden roughshod over?

It's not as if they can play the games again now everyone knows what the rules are.

Two teams playing for a cup, two playing for millions of pounds of additional revenue... that doesn't level up for me whichever way I look at it.

How do clubs apply for promotion??

by Geordie Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:34 pm

Taking away any feelings over promotion issues...how do people actually think LW are going to do. Will they get a fewe wins...or is it going to be a long old season for them.
I havent seen much of them so dont know how good they are...

by Dubbelyew L Overate Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:44 pm

The Minimum Standards Criteria are published each year in July, and clubs apply to be audited against those criteria some time in the autumn. The auditors check that the urinals are at the correct spacing (amongst other things), with the audit being completed on March 31st.

London Welsh ignored that timescale, and started the application process when it appeared that they had a decent chance of winning the Championship. Probably fair enough.

by PJHolybloke Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:52 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
PJHolybloke wrote:Asbo, how do you feel about the fact that LW played the two teams in the play-offs that hadn't applied for promotion as they knew they couldn't meet the very criteria that LW have just ridden roughshod over?

It's not as if they can play the games again now everyone knows what the rules are.

Two teams playing for a cup, two playing for millions of pounds of additional revenue... that doesn't level up for me whichever way I look at it.
How do clubs apply for promotion??

By filling out forms, pretty much like any application as it happens, you know, like applying for a driving licence, a job, a passport etc.

They have to do the paperwork for an audit process to begin that essentially concludes (or did previously) whether or not the club is eligible for promotion, Bristol applied by filling out the paperwork, Pirates and Brentford did not as they knew they wouldn't pass the apparently, as of now, defunct MSC audit.

LW did fill out the paperwork, late as it happens, when it became clear that they had a chance at the play-offs.

Essentially, pre-LW litigation, if you hadn't applied for promotion, it wouldn't matter if you won the Championship, you weren't getting into the Jeff.

Now it appears that you just have to win the Championship and bung in a "please sir" on the back of a fag packet before the end of term, if you get a "no" you just threaten to delay the start of the Jeff season by going to the European Court of Justice and the red carpet gets rolled out.

Had that been the rule prior to the play-offs I wonder whether the 4th best team in the Championship would have gotten a sniff?

by robbo277 Wed 04 Jul 2012, 9:56 pm

HammerofThunor wrote:I'm hoping they go down the franchise route rather than ring-fence completely. Assess all the professional clubs against some scoring system, performance, attendance, turnover, location, etc and the best 10/12 are put in the premiership for 3 or 4 years. After the 3 or 4 years the teams are re-scored and the lowest in the premiership is relegated with the best in the lower promoted.

It can heavily weighted towards the performance on the field but it would need to be performance over several years rather than a one off. It would also give the lower clubs a target date, but they still need to perform in the mean time. Of course if a team goes down they would be stuck down for several years, which could kill some clubs.

+1. Would be my solution.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Wed 04 Jul 2012, 10:14 pm

robbo277 wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:I'm hoping they go down the franchise route rather than ring-fence completely. Assess all the professional clubs against some scoring system, performance, attendance, turnover, location, etc and the best 10/12 are put in the premiership for 3 or 4 years. After the 3 or 4 years the teams are re-scored and the lowest in the premiership is relegated with the best in the lower promoted.

It can heavily weighted towards the performance on the field but it would need to be performance over several years rather than a one off. It would also give the lower clubs a target date, but they still need to perform in the mean time. Of course if a team goes down they would be stuck down for several years, which could kill some clubs.

+1. Would be my solution.

Then we can have a legal challenge every year.

Yay!

by PJHolybloke Wed 04 Jul 2012, 10:20 pm

I'll have a lot more respect for LW when they turn their first player to punch an opponent over to the police; I mean they will do that wont they? Sure they will, what with assault being illegal and all...

by Dubbelyew L Overate Wed 04 Jul 2012, 10:31 pm

I respect LW for winning the Championship, and being, at least, the 13th best team in England, according to the Championship format which has successfully identified Exeter and Woos as Premiership quality.

I don't respect the Premiership cartel which for years has run a protectionist organisation, clear for all to see, but conveniently ignored by the followers of the "haves".

by PJHolybloke Wed 04 Jul 2012, 11:07 pm

Well, if LW put the Law above the ethos of sport and all it stands for, good luck to them, as long as they continue in that high moral stance and report their own players for breaking the law if they assault another player... yaddah, yaddah, yaddah yeah, right, whatever.

They ignored the spirit and squealed to the Law on this, purely to serve their own best interests and to hell with the game, but you can't play that card in two hands.

The Championship format hasn't identified Worcester or Exeter as Premiership quality, their performances in the Jeff have done that.

Just as LW's performances next season will speak so for themselves, all be it rather briefly.

It's not a cartel, clique, closed shop or any other emotively "exclusive" label people want to hang on it, it's supposed to represent the pinnacle of the professional game in England. In order to keep up that level of excellence, perceived or actual, the Jeff imposed certain criteria that were understood at the time (ostensibly at least) by all parties to be fair and in the right spirit to encourage elite performance on and off the pitch.

Given the reaction to the HC performances of Jeff clubs last season, it would be easy to conclude that "elite" is not a word you could use to describe the standard in the Jeff.

LW will NOT improve that standard by their inclusion, in fact, I will go as far as to state that their very inclusion, by definition, will dilute the quality in the AP even further.

If you're old enough to remember the 80's and 90's you'll remember the last halcyon days of amateur rugby that evolved into the modern professional game, you'll also remember how many great clubs became extinct or as good as extinct, through not having an intrinsically sound business model to build on.

History repeats itself and unless this nonsense is nipped in the bud, this action by LW will just encourage another generation of chancers, to risk the very existence of some great clubs on a one-off shot at the pinnacle of English rugby.

If that does happen, LW will leave a very long and ignominious legacy to posterity.

You pays your lawyers, you takes your chances.

by red_stag Thu 05 Jul 2012, 12:00 am

Strong words PJ.

I actually haven't followed this closely enough. My gut reaction is to say that I am disappointed that London Welsh have been admitted to the Premiership for the reasons you outline.

However I sense there may be another side to the coin I haven't considered yet. There are so many people championing this as a success for rugby its making me take an interest.

by PJHolybloke Thu 05 Jul 2012, 7:26 am

It's how I feel Stag, I guess the other side of the coin is the underdog angle and whilst I'm not adverse to the romantic idea of the smaller clubs having a shot at the bigtime, I am rather adverse to the method of involving the "law" in what is essentially a sporting ethos.

Like I said, LW will not be running their players to the rozzers if they swing a few punches in a game, because the game doesn't need the law involved on that issue any more than it does on this one; however, it's too late for that now.

The MSC were in place to ensure all clubs knew what to aim for in order to get to the highest level of the club game in England, they were intended to help the sport establish itself on firm financial footings in the professional era and also to ensure that clubs were well positioned to produce young talent through the academy system.

I cannot for the life of me see how this has done anything other than rip that blueprint up and chuck it away along with the very spirit the plans were built on. The basis used by LW and their legal team to present their case was not one concerning their own fitness for the Jeff (they actually admitted they didn't meet the minimum standards), it was built on a law introduced as part of the wider European Union ideal of ensuring fair competition in business.

So, faceless bureaucrats who wouldn't know a rugby ball from a golf ball have helped LW circumvent the checks and balances put in place to build and systematically improve the club game at the highest level in England...and this is a positive thing?

Good for the game my ar5e.

by HammerofThunor Thu 05 Jul 2012, 7:31 am

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
robbo277 wrote:
HammerofThunor wrote:I'm hoping they go down the franchise route rather than ring-fence completely. Assess all the professional clubs against some scoring system, performance, attendance, turnover, location, etc and the best 10/12 are put in the premiership for 3 or 4 years. After the 3 or 4 years the teams are re-scored and the lowest in the premiership is relegated with the best in the lower promoted.

It can heavily weighted towards the performance on the field but it would need to be performance over several years rather than a one off. It would also give the lower clubs a target date, but they still need to perform in the mean time. Of course if a team goes down they would be stuck down for several years, which could kill some clubs.

+1. Would be my solution.

Then we can have a legal challenge every year.

Yay!

Just to be clear I was proposing that as an alternative to complete ring-fencing. What I would prefer is simple promotion/relegation with a MSC (including a new one that any promoted club must NOT have any obvious link to the Welsh, name, badge, etc)

I think the underdog thing for LW would have been a bit stronger from English rugby supporters if we didn't have the Exeter story from a few years ago. A 'small' club that built their strength on and off the pitch over years. Had a relatively successful first season ever in the premiership and were fighting for a playoff place in the 2nd. Compared to them London Welsh seem to have taken a short cut. That isn't 'good for rugby'.

by gowales Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:27 am

I agree with everything you've said PJ

by Guest Thu 05 Jul 2012, 8:51 am

Disagree sorry PJ.

LW won the rugby on the pitch, going by the ethos and spirit of rugby that should be rewarded. What the RFU had in place would have denied that, not only that but it was also hugely hypocritical and smacking of double standards from them when they were letting 4 clubs who didn't meet the criteria stay up.

This is a win for rugby imo, if only at least a team that's won on the pitch is being rewarded and now the RFU are finally going to be made to look at the situation and actually sort it out properly, instead of making a complete hash of it, which is what's led to this situation in the first place.

The whole point of rugby is to win, isn't it? LW won, the RFU criteria and application of it is a complete and utter shambles, not really sure what you expected them to do? How is it fair that LW would have to go throught he criteria process when clubs already up in the Premiership don't have to? That's just another way of closing off the top tier to those wanting to make the step up for me.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Thu 05 Jul 2012, 9:06 am

When (if?) the likes of Bath, London Irish, Wasps and Sale finally comply with both the spirit and the letter of the poorly drafted MSC, then by all means have a go at London Welsh for trying to pit themselves against the best.

London Welsh are similar to those businessess (and, hitherto, Sarries) who have spent money on their playing squad and failed to invest in the infrastructure needed to develop both themselves and "elite rugby". The reasons for failing to invest are different for each entity, but they have all failed to meet the PGB's MSC.

I wonder how many of the crowd have stood or sat shivering at the Rec in the freezing driving rain and muttered "There ought to be a law against this" (I mean the exposure to the weather not the rugby on show). London Welsh have just shown that there is such a law, or at least a law that requires compliance with the MSC requirement for covered stands or risk letting in the hoi-polloi.

In this instance, it has been the Primacy of Tenure criteria that has let London Welsh in, criteria which were due to be eased to 5 exemptions for the season following this. All London Welsh have done, in effect, is to force the early introduction of that easing.

Whether LW will be strong enough on the pitch is a matter which will unfold. Certainly, the current Championship format is not a good filter for the arduous Prem season. A 22 game phoney league lacks intensity, and teams are rewarded for managing the season to peak for the play-offs, possibly bolstering their squad with a DR prop or other players who may have been registered, but not played for the bulk of the season.

Yes, LW are chancers. Yes, they have used the law (and been applauded to the very rafters by followers of the lower leagues for doing so). Yes, they deserve their chance.

by gowales Thu 05 Jul 2012, 10:22 am

I think the main problem now is that the RFU is thinking of scrapping the min requirements.

If they do that, a rich businessmen can just buy up a squad like in football.

by Sponsored content