McGeechan view on English rugby

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10390774/Sir-Ian-McGeechan-my-blueprint-for-English-rugby-union.html

Some interesting views about academies, relegation and Ritchie and a favourite topic on here..... the euro competitions.

By Sir Ian McGeechan

20th Oct for The Telegraph.


PLAYERS

The standard of young players coming through in the Premiership is encouraging. Five or six years ago, when there was a more relaxed monitoring of the salary cap, we were in danger of having too many overseas players inhibiting the progress of home grown talent.
Now we have a successful English Qualified Player scheme which has encouraged clubs to work with a higher percentage of English talent in match day squads.
It was also great to see Stuart Lancaster acknowledge the work of people below the Premiership clubs when, at one of the internationals last year, the England players walked out with a mascot from their starter club. I know from my time with Scotland what a positive impact this recognition can have.
On a Scotland player’s first cap every school and club in his development pathway received a financial contribution. It might seem a small thing, but it is still an important recognition that we all start as amateurs and do so because somebody, very enthusiastic about the game, encouraged us.

I want clubs to be part of a strong system which develops their own players, and has a core of these players who are the backbone of the team.
I do not believe that because we now have a professional sport players should think they need to move on at the end of their contract for purely monetary reasons – rugby reasons, yes, but it is something that should always be assessed with good advice.
My only concern is that too many good players in our academy programmes take too long to come through. These players need to be playing meaningful rugby on a regular basis and yet stay part of a monitored pathway. Any successful structure should have talent development one way and knowledge and expertise shared the other way.
For the clubs and players one contentious issue remains – whether to scrap relegation. I believe to push our game forward there is value in building the Premiership as a business on a stable base. It means coaches and commercial directors alike have no excuse for not pushing the boundaries, on and off the field.
One suggestion is to have a Super 15, with the challenge of relegation every five years: then clubs at Premiership or Championship level have time to get the rugby house in order. Maybe this is one reason why the southern hemisphere has an environment in which playing the best rugby is of paramount importance.
-----


COACHING

Having said that about relegation, it has been pleasing to see that there are still sides prepared to play in the Aviva Premiership with freedom and width. That is certainly the way Conor O’Shea has done things at Harlequins. They are not going so well this season because of injuries and the fact that teams have worked out their off-loading game a little, but it is interesting that Saracens have now opened up tactically and Northampton have also gone the same way.
I think Northampton have now got the most balanced side they have ever had. They are much less reliant on the scrummage and overpowering sides than they used to be.
Saracens, despite their narrow defeat by Toulouse on Friday night, are well organised and well-coached with great support systems behind the players. Brendan Venter was behind them having a clear direction in what they want to do. They now have Mark McCall, who has bought into that approach, but are trying to expand on the platforms they previously had.
But you look at the three most successful teams in recent years ­— Leicester, Saracens and Harlequins — and they have had settled squads. They have a stability about selection and it shows that, if you want to win honours, you have to have that consistency.
Which is what Leicester have. They have always had a strong pack of forwards, and they play quite a direct game to build momentum. With a narrow pitch at Welford Road that directness pays off. There is definitely a gap now between the current top three of Saracens, Northampton and Leicester and the others.
But I have to say that Exeter’s first-half performance against Cardiff Blues last weekend was probably the best rugby I have seen from a Premiership team for a long time. Rob Baxter’s side have no superstars, but if you are looking for a complete team approach this was a superb example.
-----


ADMINISTRATION

All the talk is currently about the Heineken Cup row, and it is always disappointing when politics is overshadowing the rugby on the field.
We must have a pan-European competition, because it represents a step-up and it throws up different challenges, different styles of play and environments. All that is very important in the development of players. But this row is very much like the US debt crisis – why does it have to get to the last few hours before people start talking seriously? There has always been an issue in how the competition is managed and how funds are split up. It certainly does need a reappraisal of that and a recognition that it is not all a union-based game.
I understand that European Rugby Cup has a fair pot of money in the bank, but you ask yourself – why? They are not a business in their own right. The business is the competition and the clubs that are in it. That is why the English and French clubs rightly want change, especially in the redistribution of funds.
The Rugby Football Union’s chief executive, Ian Ritchie, is the key man here. He has kept his powder dry so far, but I think he is one of the most sensible administrators that I have ever spoken to. If there is going to be a resolution to this European row, it will be because of his involvement.
If I were putting trust in anyone I would be very happy to put trust in him, having worked with him last year as part of the RFU’s Performance Review with Peter Keen. With Ritchie and Bill Beaumont, the RFU chairman, at the top, England are probably in the strongest administrative position they have been in for a decade or more.
-----


GRASS ROOTS

Much work is being done but my big worry is that children are being asked to specialise too young. It may be the old schoolteacher in me, but I have always been in favour of the multi-skill, multi-sport principle. Once the union has to take control of their sport, then we are in danger of becoming a single sport development.
I would love to see rugby clubs playing cricket against each other in the summer, and five-a-side football or basketball in a sports hall during the winter when the weather is wet and cold. You start with rugby and finish with rugby, but as a group you are developing your skill sets.
I am old enough to go back to the teachers’ strike of 1985, which I think was the watershed in how competitive sport disappeared from state schools for a while. It helped me because it meant I could free up my Saturday mornings to help coaching Scotland, but it was hugely disappointing as it produced a non-competitive era where there were no winners or losers.
However, that said, there are now some exciting developments for this generation, and I am positive, if managed properly, that rugby and sport have some of the best lessons for life. We should always remember that.

This has already been posted by Recwatcher earlier today.

I know Geeks has always been a fan of ring fencing but I don't agree with him in that respect. More support & a sponsor for the Championship is the way to go.

Regarding Ian Ritchie, the RFU under his leadership unlike other bodies have not spoken publicly regarding where their support lies in the Eoro squabble. It appears to have been the wisest course and he would now be the main peacemaker of a potential deal.

Thanks for posting, mate. A lot of interesting points here. He had made the point about relegation before and copped a lot of flak for it. I think it deserves to be discussed..

The most interesting point in this piece is regarding Grass Roots rugby and the moves towards uncompetitive physical education that were made in the eighties disrupting sports.

He has a very valid point there. Sports of all types give not just athletic skill but a sense of team work, striving for success, facing adversity, self focus and personal improvement. It can also contribute to awareness, leadership and many other properties that are integral to the competitive work place we have in modern Britain.

Focus on rugby and sport at youth level can be a huge benefit to the country as a whole.

Looking at this again, Geech ranges over a lot of topics and I would really like to hear more detail on most of them. The subject of developing players, for instance, is huge.

Thinking about the burden of relegation and it's inherent ability to keep the big boys habitually on top and the low-lifers eternally worried about dropping out the hole in the bottom?

Funny how it's only when McGeechan says such a thing that it suddenly becomes food for thought.  The no-relegation league model that already exists, that has been proven to work, and has dragged professional rugby up in certain areas of Europe to the standards that everyone sees the fruits of; that very League has received nothing but disdain in the past... and straight into the argumentative present. 

It's nice to see that there might finally be an awakening of sorts in the minds of some.  "It might be an okay of an alright bloody idea, that - now that Lord Geech has spoken on it"

SecretFly wrote:Thinking about the burden of relegation and it's inherent ability to keep the big boys habitually on top and the low-lifers eternally worried about dropping out the hole in the bottom?

Funny how it's only when McGeechan says such a thing that it suddenly becomes food for thought.  The no-relegation league model that already exists, that has been proven to work, and has dragged professional rugby up in certain areas of Europe to the standards that everyone sees the fruits of; that very League has received nothing but disdain in the past... and straight into the argumentative present. 

It's nice to see that there might finally be an awakening of sorts in the minds of some.  "It might be an okay of an alright bloody idea, that - now that Lord Geech has spoken on it"

A number of stalwarts of the English club game having been saying the same recently, Geechs is not alone. If a resolve as to who runs the professional game in England is found, then maybe sensible measures to protect the game can be made.

As you say looking towards the models of the rest of the top rugby nations and their competitive structures is definitely food for thought for the powers that be, problem is the battle for the power...!

Well the club system has relegation and theres not much they can do about it. If they did decide to cut off the lower clubs then they would lose some allies in their quest for more money.

PRL pushed for ring fencing and franchise model similar to Geech - but RFU said no.

Of course at the time I am sure those who like to bash PRL now would bash them for that then - despite now agreeing it is a good idea. People are so fickle it seems.

But I have long since realised that for many people what is right and fair actually comes some way behind the chance to disparage others. Have humans always been this unpleasant?

profitius wrote:Well the club system has relegation and theres not much they can do about it. If they did decide to cut off the lower clubs then they would lose some allies in their quest for more money.

The piece is predominantly hypothetical. In essence the relaxation aspect is actually not the fulcrum, what I read as Geechs suggestion is more that promotion/relaxation be suspended for a few seasons to settle the club game.

That may be an argument that the RFU would hear. What if the upper tier of English rugby had promotion/relaxation every two years, or after every RWC...! Now that could massively benefit both the Premiership (lower ranked prem teams would be able to focus on their game and results without annual threat) and the championship (as the Championship clubs would have time to prepare for their future at the top.

Geechs suggestions in that regard make good sense, financially and in regards to the progress of English players.

I would imagine that the regular big boys of the premiership would oppose this move quite drastically though.

McGeechan remains much-respected but I'm not convinced he is an influential voice in these matters whatever you think of his ideas.

maestegmafia wrote:I would imagine that the regular big boys of the premiership would oppose this move quite drastically though.

What do you imagine is the attitude of the top English clubs towards the current system of relegation?

VietGwentRevisited wrote:PRL pushed for ring fencing and franchise model similar to Geech - but RFU said no.

Of course at the time I am sure those who like to bash PRL now would bash them for that then - despite now agreeing it is a good idea. People are so fickle it seems.

PRL are no timid wallflowers VietGwent.  This repeated line about the poor PRL being bashed about in the media and amongst certain rugby fans is tiring.  They know only too well how to fight their corner, how to talk large, how to swagger and how to attempt bashing and intimidating techniques of their own.
But as for the ring fencing the Premiership, I've always been vocal in suggesting the AP do just that.  Solutions from within to their declared problems of trying to compete on too many levels.  Solutions from within, and a fight for them with their own RFU if need be, rather than trying to impose changes to external Leagues and nations.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I would imagine that the regular big boys of the premiership would oppose this move quite drastically though.

What do you imagine is the attitude of the top English clubs towards the current system of relegation?

I think that the threat of relagation hampers the concerted efforts of the lower placed clubs to challenge for top spaces in the league.

Geechs suggestion would give teams equal preparation and time to improve all round rather than just fight to survive.

maestegmafia wrote:I think that the threat of relagation hampers the concerted efforts of the lower placed clubs to challenge for top spaces in the league.

Geechs suggestion would give teams equal preparation and time to improve all round rather than just fight to survive.

That's doesn't address my question.

You say above you think the top English clubs would oppose an effort to ring fence. That must be based on a view you have of their attitude towards the system of relegation.

How, then, do you think the top clubs regard relegation?

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I think that the threat of relagation hampers the concerted efforts of the lower placed clubs to challenge for top spaces in the league.

Geechs suggestion would give teams equal preparation and time to improve all round rather than just fight to survive.

That's doesn't address my question.

You say above you think the top English clubs would oppose an effort to ring fence. That must be based on a view you have of their attitude towards the system of relegation.

How, then, do you think the top clubs regard relegation?

My answer perfectly answers my view on your question. If you have another question or wish to rephrase what you asked then do so and I will forward my opinion.

maestegmafia wrote:]My answer perfectly answers my view on your question. If you have another question or wish to rephrase what you asked then do so and I will forward my opinion.

Do you think the major English clubs are opposed to ring fencing the top league in some way?

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I would imagine that the regular big boys of the premiership would oppose this move quite drastically though.

What do you imagine is the attitude of the top English clubs towards the current system of relegation?

It would be interesting as 2 of the 4 SF last year have been relegated and promoted again and Exeter, if they count, were promoted to where they are today

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:]My answer perfectly answers my view on your question. If you have another question or wish to rephrase what you asked then do so and I will forward my opinion.

Do you think the major English clubs are opposed to ring fencing the top league in some way?

Yes that is exactly what I said.

maestegmafia wrote:Yes that is exactly what I said.

That's what I thought. What I don't understand, is why you think that, since it was the clubs who argued for ring fencing and the RFU who rejected the idea.

From memory, over the years, the owners or coaches of Saracens, Gloucester, Bath, Worcester, Newcastle, Saints, Wasps and Leeds have all argued for some form of ring fencing, often along the lines proposed by McGeechan.

The RFU supports relegation - as do many English rugby supporters - and it's often opponents of the PRL who condemn any ring fencing proposals. Here's Jeff Probyn responding to McGeechan's suggestion when he made it last year:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/jeff-probyn/4593/jeff-probyn-five-year-ring-fence-could-destroy-our-game-in-north/

One of the major arguments used by club owners is the greater degree of financial planning they can do with a ring fenced top division, even if it's just for a window of five years.

What have you seen which has made you think the top clubs are natural opponents of ring fencing?

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Yes that is exactly what I said.

That's what I thought. What I don't understand, is why you think that, since it was the clubs who argued for ring fencing and the RFU who rejected the idea.

From memory, over the years, the owners or coaches of Saracens, Gloucester, Bath, Worcester, Newcastle, Saints, Wasps and Leeds have all argued for some form of ring fencing, often along the lines proposed by McGeechan.

The RFU supports relegation - as do many English rugby supporters - and it's often opponents of the PRL who condemn any ring fencing proposals. Here's Jeff Probyn responding to McGeechan's suggestion when he made it last year:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/jeff-probyn/4593/jeff-probyn-five-year-ring-fence-could-destroy-our-game-in-north/

One of the major arguments used by club owners is the greater degree of financial planning they can do with a ring fenced top division, even if it's just for a window of five years.

What have you seen which has made you think the top clubs are natural opponents of ring fencing?

Your list above confirms exactly what I have said.

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Yes that is exactly what I said.

That's what I thought. What I don't understand, is why you think that, since it was the clubs who argued for ring fencing and the RFU who rejected the idea.

From memory, over the years, the owners or coaches of Saracens, Gloucester, Bath, Worcester, Newcastle, Saints, Wasps and Leeds have all argued for some form of ring fencing, often along the lines proposed by McGeechan.

The RFU supports relegation - as do many English rugby supporters - and it's often opponents of the PRL who condemn any ring fencing proposals. Here's Jeff Probyn responding to McGeechan's suggestion when he made it last year:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/jeff-probyn/4593/jeff-probyn-five-year-ring-fence-could-destroy-our-game-in-north/

One of the major arguments used by club owners is the greater degree of financial planning they can do with a ring fenced top division, even if it's just for a window of five years.

What have you seen which has made you think the top clubs are natural opponents of ring fencing?

Your list above confirms exactly what I have said.

Are you actually reading what he wrote.

He has demonstrated the complete opposite to your hypothesis.

maestegmafia wrote:Your list above confirms exactly what I have said.

It does precisely the opposite.

It's one of the most basic facts about English rugby that, on many occasions, the elite clubs have raised the idea of abolishing, or suspending relegation while the RFU has been keen to maintain the system.

It may be unsettling to realize you share the vision of the major English clubs but you can't rewrite history to make it seem they are somehow at odds with you.

 

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Yes that is exactly what I said.

That's what I thought. What I don't understand, is why you think that, since it was the clubs who argued for ring fencing and the RFU who rejected the idea.

From memory, over the years, the owners or coaches of Saracens, Gloucester, Bath, Worcester, Newcastle, Saints, Wasps and Leeds have all argued for some form of ring fencing, often along the lines proposed by McGeechan.

The RFU supports relegation - as do many English rugby supporters - and it's often opponents of the PRL who condemn any ring fencing proposals. Here's Jeff Probyn responding to McGeechan's suggestion when he made it last year:

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/jeff-probyn/4593/jeff-probyn-five-year-ring-fence-could-destroy-our-game-in-north/

One of the major arguments used by club owners is the greater degree of financial planning they can do with a ring fenced top division, even if it's just for a window of five years.

What have you seen which has made you think the top clubs are natural opponents of ring fencing?

Your list above confirms exactly what I have said.

Are you actually reading what he wrote.

He has demonstrated the complete opposite to your hypothesis.

hoisted by own petard

Why doesnt one of you actually find a link which states which clubs support promotion/relaxation and which do not?

My assumption that clubs who are regularly in the top four in the premiership prefer the threat of relegation is a pretty obvious assumption as relegation, in their current position does not effect them, but it does suppress those who might be relegated.

If you want to argue against that assumption then find some evidence to support your argument.

Personally I think Probyns regional system would work better for English rugby as a whole, it works very well for every other country that has employed it, (NZ, Australia, South Africa, Wales, Ireland, Scotland).

maestegmafia wrote:Why doesnt one of you actually find a link which states which clubs support promotion/relaxation and which do not?.

Why don't you look for a link which supports your original claim. While you are searching, you'll find all the links showing the opposite, and that will save us the trouble.

maestegmafia wrote:Personally I think Probyns regional system would work better for English rugby as a whole, it works very well for every other country that has employed it, (NZ, Australia, South Africa, Wales, Ireland, Scotland).

I would argue that in at least half those countries it is unproven or has not worked.


Ireland - works, but they have 4 natural provinces.
NZ - works, but so would anything else. It actually works because they have a vibrant lower level structure that underpins their SXV teams. Even so we have seen the likes of Otago Union going bust.
Australia - works - but mainly because of the size of the country and the small player base.
South Africa - plenty of pundits in SA suggesting they withdraw from SXV arguing they lose out financially and lose too many players overseas as too few top sides. Plenty of fans still prefer the more natural Currie Cup provinces than the adminstator created super rugby ones.
Wales - as a pooler I say that regionalisation has been a disaster. Only the success of the national team - driven more by an influx of players, has masked the failing of regionalisation.
Scotland - the national team has made no progress under the current system, while usually the two regions have struggled. Large parts of the country feel disenfranchised - and with just two teams, young talent often struggles to get the games needed.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Why doesnt one of you actually find a link which states which clubs support promotion/relaxation and which do not?.

Why don't you look for a link which supports your original claim. While you are searching, you'll find all the links showing the opposite, and that will save us the trouble.

I didn't claim anything. It was a suggestion. One you questioned.

You wrote a list of clubs you believed to be pro ring fencing so you must have something to back up your opinion. I care very little whether you do or do not, as your persistence is detracting from this thread.

Having been the person to start this topic derailment - not sure you are in any position to then blame someone else.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Having been the person to start this topic derailment - not sure you are in any position to then blame someone else.

I did not in anyway derail this thread. Stop trolling

maestegmafia wrote:

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Having been the person to start this topic derailment - not sure you are in any position to then blame someone else.

I did not in anyway derail this thread. Stop trolling

Really? You made the allegation/suggestion that English clubs are pro relegation. That was the start of derailment. Now you choose to add personal abuse as well. (that is ironic clapping by the way).

McGeechan has some interesting things to say - he always does. Not everything he says is necessarily correct, but he has the stature and experience such that any fan should at least listen to his views. I was most interested by his ringing endorsement of Ian Ritchie - but as Geech was on the selection panel that appointed him I doubt he would admit they made a mistake.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Having been the person to start this topic derailment - not sure you are in any position to then blame someone else.

I did not in anyway derail this thread. Stop trolling

Really? You made the allegation/suggestion that English clubs are pro relegation. That was the start of derailment. Now you choose to add personal abuse as well. (that is ironic clapping by the way).

McGeechan has some interesting things to say - he always does. Not everything he says is necessarily correct, but he has the stature and experience such that any fan should at least listen to his views. I was most interested by his ringing endorsement of Ian Ritchie - but as Geech was on the selection panel that appointed him I doubt he would admit they made a mistake.

You have some blwdi nerve..!!!




Re: McGeechan view on English rugby
by VietGwentRevisited Today at 12:29 pm
PRL pushed for ring fencing and franchise model similar to Geech - but RFU said no.

Of course at the time I am sure those who like to bash PRL now would bash them for that then - despite now agreeing it is a good idea. People are so fickle it seems.









Re: McGeechan view on English rugby
by VietGwentRevisited Today at 12:30 pm
But I have long since realised that for many people what is right and fair actually comes some way behind the chance to disparage others. Have humans always been this unpleasant?

I am trying desperately not to disparage you. I am addressing your points as you raise them and avoiding any personal abuse.

I am sure you wish to do the same, and I will forgive that lapse earlier.

So discuss the points at hand.

What are your concerns pro and against the concept of temporary ring fencing the Premiership.

maestegmafia wrote:What I read as Geechs suggestion is more that promotion/relaxation be suspended for a few seasons to settle the club game...I would imagine that the regular big boys of the premiership would oppose this move quite drastically though.

Maes, if you have any difficulties finding out what the elite club owners think about relegation, you might get a clue by googling "Nigel Wray" alongside "relegation is a manifest disaster" or "completely unworkable".

You might also find links to the proposal which Peter Wheeler and Mark McCafferty made to the RFU about ring fencing the top clubs, a condition which the RFU refused.

If you haven't already reconsidered your strange idea that top English clubs are inevitably opposed to ring fencing, I think that should do it.

There has certainly been plenty of discussion of ringfencing amongst premiership clubs and this is why the silly rules about what you need to have to be promoted came about - to stop the big clubs going down and to prevent the likes of Rotherham being promoted. Some of the AP clubs if relegated could not be promoted again as they don't meet these arbitary rules

VietGwentRevisited wrote:
Scotland - the national team has made no progress under the current system, while usually the two regions have struggled. Large parts of the country feel disenfranchised - and with just two teams, young talent often struggles to get the games needed.

scotland has maybe 50 or 60 players able to play at the top level.  some of these play outside scotland.  If we spread the remainder over more teams none woulld becompetative as we would not have the money to buy in decent foreign players to bulk up the squads.

I think its a shame they could bot stick with the clubs but I can see no way this would have been practicable

the national side and the pro teams took longer to adapt to professionalism than other nations and we are stillplaying catchup.  However the progress of Glasgow and the national side may just show a corner being turned

We simply do not have the finances or the number of players to have more teams competitive at the top level although with the improving finaces of the SRU I would hope a 3rd team can be created

the SRU have tried to set up a borders team - no one from the borders wanted it

Oh I agree, all sorts of things have been tried to generate a 3rd team - and that money is in short supply. I still feel that any one claiming that regionalisation has improved Scottish rugby is wrong though. Outside of the Borders it has always seemed a rather elitest sport - and that has not changed.

I am not so sure. I used to go to club games in Edinburgh with a few hundred fans - now Edinburgh get a few thousand and 40 000 for the HC 1/4 Its from a low base but the finances are now stable, crowds are increasing and there is more schools rugby and development.

Its not been great strides tho and is still very much a minority sport

I would be interested to know if Geech's relegation views mean he would be happy for Leeds to be a feeder club for the next 5 years or however long the ring fencing period was for.

I think part of the problem with any discussion about relegation is we simply don't know what will happen if it is eliminated or suspended for a few years.  We were raised with relegation and there is no way to predict with any accuracy what will happen.  Living in America at the moment, it is easy for me to see their main sports, Baseball, American Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball, thrive without relegation.  But they never had relegation, so again, no reference point.  I don't think the Rabo or Super 15 are good reference points either, though South Africa is probably the closest model. So any step away from relegation is as step towards the unknown.

I appreciate the logic of eliminating relegation.  Very simply it gives more cost certainty for the Premiership clubs, which in turn enables more long term investment and longer term development of players.  These are huge for a young professional sport which is still not very profitable.  

This does raise the question if we have the right or best clubs involved in the Premiership.  And this would be financially, involvement across the country, access to paying customers, and growing the sport, whether we need to expand the Premiership further, and so on.  That would have to be addressed at some point in the future.    

The other big question is the impact on the Championship clubs.  I believe it can help them as they are operating on thinner budgets than the Premiership clubs.  For the clubs which harbour dreams of moving up, I would think it gives them a moratorium to invest as well.

In general I like the occasional step into the unknown.  I would try it here, the temporary suspension of relegation.  I don't think there is much to lose and possibly a lot to gain.

I think that getting rid of relegation without insuring that there is some pro rugby club represented in the prem league from each part of England would be detrimental to the game there. There is already a north/south divide in England. If rugby comes to be perceived as a "southern" sport or "eastern" etc then it could die elsewhere. All the places where there is no relegation and it works well (I'm thinking mostly of gaelic games in Ireland, the most popular team sport here) each region has some team to follow. If this is do be done it should be done carefully.

If they were going to ringfence the Premiership I think they would have to bring two more teams in.

Now who they would be I have no idea but it might be worth the Championship being run for a season with non of the dual registered players that tend to imbalance the sides.

I know the Championship is unexplored territory for a lot of you but the Quins/Exceter/Worcester/Saints fans will tell you that there are some good players and some good clubs, but some of the clubs punch above their weight due to the inclusion of a few on-loan Premiership players.

There are some good clubs in the Championship and I'm not sure I would like the drawbridge to be raised and the portcullis lowered on these clubs.

I used to hold SIM in such high regard until he came to Bath, he seemed out of his depth at times fair enough what he had to work with wasn't great but still a bloke with his reputation should have done better.

I tend to agree about McGeechan. His day is long gone