Do Bedford blues have premiership facilities?

If they beat Newcastle in the championship final can Bedford automatically play in the premiership or will it be a farcical bureaucratic nightmare of red tape and arrogant toffs trying to block them as we saw last year with London Welsh?

I dunno t.

A chance of aspiration and improvement vs bugger all.

Let's have your considered opinion.

No they do not have facilities that meet the PRGB standards.

They fail on the following counts:

1) Dumb Requirements
-> Capacity

2) Sensible Requirements
-> Inadequate Medical Facilities
-> Dangerous pitch.

3) Other Requirements
-> Insufficient public toilets.




Their chairman has said they will not move from the town to a different stadium, but reserve the right to contest any non-promotion. I believe that grounds should meet certain standards as legally the spectators and players are owed a certain level of care.

I can never understand this one. You play all year to be in a position to be promoted to AP, you are promoted and yet you can still be denied promotion because your grounds aren't up to scratch and all.

I'd assume most sides lying beneath AP would have trouble with grounds not living up to AP standard as...they don't play in it! (with all the extra funding that can mean). But - in order to give them a chance of getting their grounds and extras up to standard, they'd be better off in the AP, where they might attract better sponsorship and have bigger crowds etc.

So it seems Catch 22 to me. You have to have the infrastructure to play in AP to get into AP even though being outside AP means you hardly have the throw away money to invest in AP standard infrastructure when you need the money to buy players that might get you into the AP in the first place.

Weird. So maybe the league beneath the AP should be one decided by infrastructure developments over a season rather than points scored?

Bedford have already stated that they do not want and will not look to challenge for promotion if they do win. They'll take the money and keep building towards promotion in the future.

Sorry to spoil all the speculation and whinging from the OP.

yappysnap wrote:Bedford have already stated that they do not want and will not look to challenge for promotion if they do win. They'll take the money and keep building towards promotion in the future.

Sorry to spoil all the speculation and whinging from the OP.

Not as such as definite (so far as I'm aware), they haven't yappy. Last I heard they acknowledged that some sort of challenge is a possibility but unlikely.

I agree with the sentiment of much of what SF says (or implies to me anyway). A league is a league. For me the highest placed team satisfying elite rugby requirements should get promoted.

SecretFly wrote:I can never understand this one. You play all year to be in a position to be promoted to AP, you are promoted and yet you can still be denied promotion because your grounds aren't up to scratch and all.

Not all the requirements were drawn up in an arbitrary fashion by the PRGB. I am led to believe that some are a legal requirement, enshrined in a couple of Parliamentary Acts following Hillsborough and Bradford. These requirements were mainly designed around soccer, but do apply to any sport with paying spectators and get stricter depending on the level you compete and crowd expectancy.

Should extra money be provided to the Championship so clubs can develop grounds - yes. (Though of course there will always be the fear that it will be spent n players not facilities).
Also should we get the slightly ironic situation of Bedford winning and London Welsh being reprieved, then I hope Bedford would at least receive the money that they would have got for being promoted.

However, despite Bedford being close to my heart, I do hope that Falcons win. They were so far ahead of the rest during normal season, and did not use a number of DQ players so should stand a better chance of survival.

All it needs theoretically is one year of promotion to change the entire history of a club. It might lead to funding increases, might lead to positive results on the field, might instantly lead to being out of the relegation zone the following year. More time to invest, more time to attract better sponsors and attract better players. Another year, going even higher still. Amassing more funds, getting better players still and finally becoming one of the season big gun sides rather than one that frets about relegation every season.

All that needs, in theory, is one year of promotion.

Now to me, it seems that giving a side that didn't earn promotion the step-up to AP at the expense of a side that did earn promotion on the field... well, I've painted how serious that might end up being for the respective clubs and their fortunes.

Promotion should come through the scorelines - anything else has potentially long term consequences and is brutally unfair to clubs and most especially their fans in my opinion. A way must be found to promote the side that earns it on the field without any conditions attached which would see a lesser side promoted instead.

In a way, although I desperately want the Geordies to win, maybe if the Blues won, the PRL/RFU would be forced to move under the weight of the opprobrium and ridicule that would be inevitable in a farcical encore.

t1000 would love it as well.

SecretFly wrote:Promotion should come through the scorelines - anything else has potentially long term consequences and is brutally unfair to clubs and most especially their fans in my opinion. A way must be found to promote the side that earns it on the field without any conditions attached which would see a lesser side promoted instead.

Who is the lesser side? After all Falcons finished the regular season 27pts ahead of Bedford. They won 7 more matches. They beat Bedford twice. It would be unfair to describe them as the lesser side.

any way if Bedford win and do not appeal no other side is promoted, London Welsh survive.

t1000advancedprototype wrote:If they beat Newcastle in the championship final can Bedford automatically play in the premiership or will it be a farcical bureaucratic nightmare of red tape and arrogant toffs trying to block them as we saw last year with London Welsh?

You could of at least toned it down a bit.

Criteria for participation is hardly unique to the English rugby premiership

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/beddau-rfc-angry-over-wru-1806187

And that was for the level below the welsh semi-pro premiership. Pretty much every single league structure has some sort of requirement. And rightly so. It encourages/forces clubs to invest in infrastructure rather than just players.

When Doncaster didn't go up the parachute payment went to them instead of the 'relegated' team. This encourages them to win the league to gain funds to meet the requirements.

Of course the RFU needs to help ensure all the top-ish championship clubs meet the criteria. Perhaps grants requested for specific improvements. Or interest free loans like the IRFU did for Munster's ground development. Certainly more needs doing

HT you are so contrite it is ridiculous

LondonTiger wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Promotion should come through the scorelines - anything else has potentially long term consequences and is brutally unfair to clubs and most especially their fans in my opinion. A way must be found to promote the side that earns it on the field without any conditions attached which would see a lesser side promoted instead.

Who is the lesser side? After all Falcons finished the regular season 27pts ahead of Bedford. They won 7 more matches. They beat Bedford twice. It would be unfair to describe them as the lesser side.

any way if Bedford win and do not appeal no other side is promoted, London Welsh survive.

I am not sure what would make a mockery of the promotion/relegation element more?

Falcons returning would be what the PRL want, but no promotion and another hearing would be farcical..!

It is apparent that the wealthiest clubs want to ring fence their premiership. Would it be that bad to let them do so???

Does a genuine promotion/relaxation league make a difference in the pro era? England and France are the last two nations to hold on to the concept and neither are what they were regarding international recognition before the game went pro..!

Maybe both would be better off following the rest into a world where top tier non international rugby was just franchised business???

England and France are the only two systems worldwide that can really have a proper pro promotion/relegation system. Having the possibility of clubs doing an Exeter is important. It might be rare, it might be difficult but it's possible with the right investment.

As for ring fencing and 'farces', it was only a farce because the criteria could be challenged in court. That wasn't because criteria existed as all leagues have criteria. It was that certain criteria wasn't fair. Ask the championship sides whether they'd prefer the current system or ring fencing and they'd say the current system.

The problem is not promotion and relegation. It's investment by the RFU. Currently the RFU control the TV and sponsorship rights and can't get any money for it. Maybe they need to give the championship clubs the rights for a period to see how they do.

maestegmafia wrote:HT you are so contrite it is ridiculous

Yeah HoT. Stop being so contrite.

I'm tellin Mrs Malaprop on yer.

Hopefully...we'll make sure theres no issues

I still maintain a play off system should only be in place IF the top team is automatically promoted. The whole set up is a waste of time.

And if they continue this process...teams should be made to disclose if they wish to challenge for promotion before the start of the season.

If its true that Bedford who are in the final of the play offs dont want to gain promotion...its another farsical situation.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Hopefully...we'll make sure theres no issues

I still maintain a play off system should only be in place IF the top team is automatically promoted. The whole set up is a waste of time.

And if they continue this process...teams should be made to disclose if they wish to challenge for promotion before the start of the season.

If its true that Bedford who are in the final of the play offs dont want to gain promotion...its another farsical situation.

Why should second place have to play off for promotion? I don't understand why it makes a difference. The issue is when there is a massive gap between a team that beats another in the playoffs. I would say a 'fairer' system would be to have a plyoff between sides that are within X number of points at the end of the season. If there is one team way ahead then they get automatic qualification. If there are two there is one playoff. If three then 2nd and 3rd playoff then 1st and winner, etc. Maybe within 5 points because it's one win. But that would never happen due to season planning, match revenue, etc.

If 1 team is to go up...then automatically the winner should go up.

If they insist on having this ludicrous play off system then two teams should be promoted and 2-5 can play off.

Personally scrap the play offs altogether...they have proved last year with bristol that they're totally wrong and the negative vibes from this year have continued.
They are achieveing absolutely nothing...they are not like the Prem Play offs which actually drive some interest aside from the individual clubs fans...

The playoff system is crazy. It causes most of the problems for the teams getting promotion and creates a stalemate for the team not knowin if they will be relagated.

Take away the play off and the team at the top of the table goes up and, most importantly that team has likely been in contention for a good period. As Falcons have this year.

All playoff systems are crazy but appear to be popular amongst the plebian masses.

Clearly achievement should be rewarded but should be constrained by terms and conds.

Exeter and Worcester would never have progressed to the elite English level if promotion were not possible. So the inclusiveness is part and parcel of the Albion's game as are sensible (and some nonsensical) t&cs.

Better by far than an hermetically sealed franchise imo.

Tiger,

I have nothing against promotion and relegation, we're discussing the methods being used to control it.

Why should the Falcons who were SO FAR ahead of any other team this season face the possiblity of not being promoted, as it happened to bristol last year??? It simply doesnt make sense.

Play-offs make sense when teams are unable to meet on equal footing during the regular season - due to international constraints, or where (such as SXV) teams do not play the same sequence of fixtures.

For something like this they are crazy - BUT it was th echampionship clubs that wanted play-offs as tghey wanted the extra fixtures.

greytiger wrote:All playoff systems are crazy but appear to be popular amongst the plebeian masses.

Clearly achievement should be rewarded but should be constrained by terms and conds.

Exeter and Worcester would never have progressed to the elite English level if promotion were not possible. So the inclusiveness is part and parcel of the Albion's game as are sensible (and some nonsensical) t&cs.

Better by far than an hermetically sealed franchise imo.

So to disagree with you someone is Plebiscite?

Surely the Franchise elite system is far less Hermetic than age old promotion/relegation?

Both systems have their merits when designed for fair competition, though surely the terms and conditions for Promotion should be metered by an impartial governing body that encompasses all of rugby in that country, the RFU, rather than an organisation formed to represent elite club owners?

The system for league rugby in both England and France seems both elitist and expensive.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Tiger,

I have nothing against promotion and relegation, we're discussing the methods being used to control it.

Why should the Falcons who were SO FAR ahead of any other team this season face the possiblity of not being promoted, as it happened to bristol last year??? It simply doesnt make sense.

None whatsoever GF. It doesn't make any sense at all.

A team plays a regular season throughout (in most normal climatic seasons) in all weathers, temperatures, injuries, ref anomalies, home and away, glut and famine etc. etc. and then to play an encore of a cup final.

Ridiculous.

Have a league and a cup final.

But don't merge them.

As it happens and as a bonus, Newcastle would displace the geographical spread of the pro game in England if Newcastle were to (rightly) prevail.

The PRGB (Professional Rugby Game board) set the promotion criteria. The RFU have a majority say in this body.

Of course if there was no playoff, Bristol would have been promoted instead of Exeter and they have done very well at premiership level and are held up as the model way to be promoted. Whereas infact they were the second best team in the championship that year.

Personally I don't like the playoff for promotion, but clearly a side which comes second can sometimes survive and indeed thrive a division up.

The whole thing (the prem, champsionship, parachute payments etc) is a mess. When things went a pro and independant body to represent the leagues should have been formed, rather than a group of the biggest clubs at the time who clearly have their own interests at heart.

What gets me is the regional academy system, which is the premiership teams (not Welsh) plus Bristol, Leeds and Newcastle. These teams have been earmarked by the RFU as ones where the best junior players in their respective areas should join. While I think a regional academy system is a good idea, what it does mean is that in Yorkshire, if you are a good youngster, you go to Leeds, as opposed to say Doncaster/Rotherham who aren't part of the 15 team club and so are at a disadvantage before they start.

LondonTiger wrote:The PRGB (Professional Rugby Game board) set the promotion criteria. The RFU have a majority say in this body.

I did wonder about that. Some posters on here have been ranting about the PRL setting unfair criteria but I had never seen it written down that they actual set it. You live and learn. Out of curiousity how do you know that? I always like to see references

I will provide the info when I have time to google it.

The PGB was set up as part of Rob Andrew's deal with the clubs way back when. I cannot remember the exact breakdown of the members of the panel, and seem to have added the word Rugby into the title. From memory the makeup of this board is 2 PRL, 3 RFU, 1 RPA and a chair, usually from the RFU. Still looking for confirmation of this

anyway some links:

the people who audit grounds: http://www.pmplegacy.com/view?resid=592&from=/global-sports-projects?page=0

The criteria : http://rugbyhalfhour.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/criteria.pdf


Some info from when the Chai changed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/9387706.stm

LondonTiger wrote:I will provide the info when I have time to google it.

The PGB was set up as part of Rob Andrew's deal with the clubs way back when. I cannot remember the exact breakdown of the members of the panel, and seem to have added the word Rugby into the title. From memory the makeup of this board is 2 PRL, 3 RFU, 1 RPA and a chair, usually from the RFU. Still looking for confirmation of this

anyway some links:

the people who audit grounds: http://www.pmplegacy.com/view?resid=592&from=/global-sports-projects?page=0

The criteria : http://rugbyhalfhour.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/criteria.pdf


Some info from when the Chai changed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/9387706.stm

Cheers

So, the criteria is set by an RFU body with some PRL involvement. The Chair of this body is an RFU director and has always been an RFU man. Also the actual auditing is carried out by an independent company. It's also suggested that the PGB work with the Championship clubs and the RPA. That all sounds pretty good. The only failing I see in the whole system is the application of criteria to the current pro sides. Maybe they should do what (I think) the WRU did. Set the criteria and relegate the lowest team that fails the criteria or just the lowest team if all meet it.

HammerofThunor wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I will provide the info when I have time to google it.

The PGB was set up as part of Rob Andrew's deal with the clubs way back when. I cannot remember the exact breakdown of the members of the panel, and seem to have added the word Rugby into the title. From memory the makeup of this board is 2 PRL, 3 RFU, 1 RPA and a chair, usually from the RFU. Still looking for confirmation of this

anyway some links:

the people who audit grounds: http://www.pmplegacy.com/view?resid=592&from=/global-sports-projects?page=0

The criteria : http://rugbyhalfhour.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/criteria.pdf


Some info from when the Chai changed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/english/9387706.stm

Cheers

So, the criteria is set by an RFU body with some PRL involvement. The Chair of this body is an RFU director and has always been an RFU man. Also the actual auditing is carried out by an independent company. It's also suggested that the PGB work with the Championship clubs and the RPA. That all sounds pretty good. The only failing I see in the whole system is the application of criteria to the current pro sides. Maybe they should do what (I think) the WRU did. Set the criteria and relegate the lowest team that fails the criteria or just the lowest team if all meet it.

Agreed. Except I said it for both promotion and relegation as I fail to see the benefits to be gained from aspiration or complacency from slackers.

I'd additionally give at least a year's grace for promoted sides fulfilling the criteria before being dumped again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22625703

Bedford going for the long term growth option rather than short term, which good.

Also good to here the discussions between the RFU and the PRL will include the championship clubs (for the first time). Hopefully this will end in real benefits to the championship teams.

"Just imagine the scenario - we win it, we don't go up, Newcastle stay down and London Welsh stay up when they don't want to. How stupid would that be? Can that be good for the game in the long term? No, it can't."

Has to be said that no such crisis of confidence and credibility could have been avoided had the RFU and PRL spent an afternoon brainstorming the possible scenarios beforehand.