The soccerisation of rugby

First topic message reminder :

Ted Griffiths wrote:People say to me, ‘what would happen if an Arab businessman bought a club and wanted to buy Dan Carter and Richie McCaw?’ and I’d say ‘great, fantastic – that’s what the league needs’

Along with the normal guff that Griffiths spouts, he's confirmed that he wants to undo all the acceptable aspects of the English game.

He'd have franchises, £4m minimum wage spends - preferably with no upper limit, more fantastical 'super games (84000 40000 more like Wembley giveaways) etc. etc..

Already this madman has moved games to Belgium in advance of fulfilling his and his and his cohorts' desire to achieve Global domination. Does that ring any mental alarm bells to anyone else?

This man (along with Wray and their South African backers) is mad, bad and dangerous to know.

If RU is to remain akin to a sport, then he and his ilk must be halted in their tracks.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/club-rugby/premiership-clubs-must-take-urgent-steps-to-attract-best-players-and-bigger-crowds-9223856.html

ChequeredJersey wrote:Think the International scene is still the priority here, mate

Not for me. Important but a long way from the priority.

Number 1: The 500,000 kids and adults of both genders who go out and play each week in England.
Number 2: The team I follow every week.
Number 3: England.

Interesting debate. On the one hand I see Rugby trying to follow the football model in terms of World Cup, European Club tournos, league setup, even a UEFA type body in ... Zurich. Then I see any number of rugby articles in newspapers with headlines mentioning terms "O' Classico", "Galacticos", and the great players being describes as "Rugby's Maradona/Messi" etc, as though this borrowing of football's lexicon and applying it to rugby gives rugby some sort of something of value.

That said, most things that is bringing rugby new fans are the things modeled on football.

It seems rugby wants to have the profile, coverage, structure, influence of "soccer" whilst at the same time have a holier than thou disdain towards it.

I personally don't find rugby an engaging sport to watch, but I do find the geo-politics of global sport interesting, and I do think rugby is showing the biggest growth because it is prepared to be adventurous. IF Rugby had an idea similar to the doomed "39th game" idea in football it would have happened.

On the subject of Saracens and rugby aping football - are they going to  become the New York Cosmos of rugby?

http://www.espn.co.uk/premiership-2013-14/rugby/story/221695.html

Code:

[quote="ESPN"]A war of words has broken out among Premiership club bosses, with some unhappy at rivals "living beyond their means".

Saracens and Bath have reported huge losses for last season, leaving chief executives of profit-making clubs to question the state of financial fair play in the game.

As the Rugby Paper reports, Saracens posted an operating loss of £5.9 million for 2012-13, taking their overall deficit for the last seven completed seasons to a staggering £32.7 million. Bath, meanwhile, lost £3.8 million last season.

Wage bills at both clubs have also reached new heights. Saracens spent £8.1 million on staff last season, up from £7.5 million in 2011-12. Bath spent even more, splashing £8.8 million on wages for 2012-13 - £800,000 more than the did the previous year.

The losses are not just confined to the Premiership's leading clubs. Wasps and Worcester recently posted losses of £3.1 million and £3 million respectively.

None of the clubs has broken any rules and all receive backing from wealthy investors, but now bosses at other Premiership teams have voiced concern that they are being disadvantaged.

Northampton Saints chief executive Allan Robson has seen his club turn a profit for 13 consecutive seasons. He told the Rugby Paper: "Sport is about aspirations and everyone is chasing the golden egg of finals and silverware. But I'm not comfortable to hear of clubs losing £3 million or £6 million because it's not sustainable.

"It's a dangerous situation whereby clubs can live beyond their means for a period where they've got a group of wealthy backers. It's not against the rules and I have no problem with sugar daddies, but does it do clubs any good?

"Long-term I don't think it does because when that particular individual eventually disappears, the club is at the behest of finding someone to take their place. And if there's no one to do that, you're stuffed."

Exeter chief executive Tony Rowe said: "We run Sandy Park as a business, which means we run at a profit. If we can't run at a profit then we shouldn't be in business. It does feel a bit unfair that other people can buy players and run sporting businesses as a tax loss. But things come home and bite you on the bum at some stage."

Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2013-14/rugby/story/221695.html#dWlZViwBMbvCTJwG.99[/quote]

Disproportionality continues to reign as sugar daddies flog their souls to grind the hard-workers into the ground.

For Chrissakes set the cap as a % of turnover.
Or create a few franchises in the league with no promises of no relegation or something.

These guys are just screwing rugby for the fun of it - because they can. And I wish a pox on them.
Feck 'em away to Hell.
Every man Jack of 'em.
Turds.

% of turnover is ridiculous. That would prevent anyone from "investing" in a team.

Salary cap, which is what we have, is the only answer.

Soccerisation is a complete red herring IMO. Players want to get paid. Fans want to see their teams do well. Owners would like some combination of financial and/or silverware payoff. That's not soccer that's human nature.

Salary cap, and empowering PRL to generate the mac revenue for all teams and agreeing to be bound by PRL are massive difference from soccer. There are loads more but those are the key couple in terms of league structure and incentives.

Ceteris paribus, the flaw in % of turnover is that it favours London based clubs. As only they could ultimately support big crowds with high avg ticket prices and big sponsorship deals. Is that what people want?

I have little problem with anybody putting money into rugby(or any sport). My problem arise when the money is "loaned". I would have it that a realistic % of turn over could be carried as debt or the debt has to be commercial( to allow for capital investment)

I would outlaw clubs running these huge losses.  Thats the simple way to stop this.  it does not create a level playing field when a team can run multimillion pound losses and others cannot. Salery cap properly enforced and maximum levels of deficit / debt put in the regs

quinsforever wrote:Ceteris paribus, the flaw in % of turnover is that it favours London based clubs.  As only they could ultimately support big crowds with high avg ticket prices and big sponsorship deals. Is that what people want?

Ceteris paribus? If all things were equal, the clubs would be run on the lines of PLCs, then maybe their books were openly available for inspection and proper auditing, then a true picture of their expenditure on players might become apparent.

ESPN wrote:Wage bills at both clubs have also reached new heights. Saracens spent £8.1 million on staff last season, up from £7.5 million in 2011-12. Bath spent even more, splashing £8.8 million on wages for 2012-13 - £800,000 more than they did the previous year.

That would be worthy of investigation.

In their recent spectacular at Wembley, Wray claimed that Sarries had netted £500k profit, yet towards the end of the game there were barely half that number - suggesting that a very large proportion of the gate simply walked by half time.

I suggest that the man is at best a fantasist and was being let us say, economical with the truth. I put his public utterings on apar with those of Putin's protestations of Russian innocence for the internal goings-on in the Ukraine.
i.e. Bollix.

quinsforever wrote:Ceteris paribus, the flaw in % of turnover is that it favours London based clubs.  As only they could ultimately support big crowds with high avg ticket prices and big sponsorship deals. Is that what people want?

Don't worry, we'll have a London weighting that penalises all London teams, particularly if they play in black and red! But the general point from espnscrum is correct - there's nothing 'fair' about the current situation, which is what the PRL claim to be so focussed on at least when it comes to European rugby - a massive case of double standards (again) if you ask me

When i read "the soccerisation" of rugby, i thought we were talking about argueing with Refs, diving etc.

I hope i never see the day when this happens.

But as for Sarries, tryign to be a global brand etc...why not. Good on them for being successful. Building a great facility at their new premises.

They're churning out England players now....so they're benefitting the national side aswell.

If teams arent happy, then they need to try harder to beat them.

I can only hope the Falcons can show a bit more professionalism like Sarries are showing.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

ESPN wrote:Wage bills at both clubs have also reached new heights. Saracens spent £8.1 million on staff last season, up from £7.5 million in 2011-12. Bath spent even more, splashing £8.8 million on wages for 2012-13 - £800,000 more than they did the previous year.

That would be worthy of investigation.

What would?

How can they try harder tho when they have fixed and much smaller budgets being unable to match the enormous deficits that Sarries run up? Exeter for example simply cannot do so. 30+ million in losses - unsustainable. You will end up with the situation like football where teams either accept never being able to challenge or go bankrupt trying to match the spending.

You will always get smaller teams and bigger teams. Thats inevitability in life.

When i said try harder i was refering to the likes of saints, Leicster, Quins, Bath etc.

The likes of Exeter are doing superb. We want teams like these coming through, but they arent expected to be at the very top challenging...well just yet anyway.

They are following a route based on a great team spirit, and an academy system that is exploding with talent.

They are a lesson to us all, and indeed one i hope my falcons follow.

But no one should hate Sarries for what they do.

GeordieFalcon wrote:You will always get smaller teams and bigger teams. Thats inevitability in life.

When i said try harder i was refering to the likes of saints, Leicster, Quins, Bath etc.

The likes of Exeter are doing superb. We want teams like these coming through, but they arent expected to be at the very top challenging...well just yet anyway.

They are following a route based on a great team spirit, and an academy system that is exploding with talent.

They are a lesson to us all, and indeed one i hope my falcons follow.

But no one should hate Sarries for what they do.

It's not really about hating Sarries, altho many do. The PRL banged the drum of 'fairness' relentlessly in the European posturing/negotiations - well, perhaps they might want to look closer to home! It is absolutely clear that the competitive playing field is entirely distorted by a couple of clubs having wealthy backers that will fund significant and substantial losses year after year with no visible sign of any attempt to achieve profitability - all the chat has been of clubs being 'businesses' now in the professional era - but some clubs clearly aren't

GeordieFalcon wrote:You will always get smaller teams and bigger teams. Thats inevitability in life.

When i said try harder i was refering to the likes of saints, Leicster, Quins, Bath etc.

We can be guilty of resting on our Laurels in terms of the outside world. After all we have a large paying base as it is. However the club organise world wide training camps and sometimes have glamorous awaydays for the players - sometimes as far afield as Nuneaton Nandos!!!!!

More seriously, the club is deeply embedded in local community and while they are doing stuff to spread their wings, are cognisant of just how important the local fan is.

Does it hurt English rugby that they no longer are the dominant force in European club rugby?

Probably.

Something goes wrong in England from age grade rugby to test level. Either that or something goes right for France and Ireland. England are the dominant team in age grade rugby. They're bigger, better skilled players and seem to have an abundance of talent. Yet by the time players get to test level they're often at a par with chaps they used to smash... now why is that.

Guys in Ireland are playing in better sides, playing further in competitions, winning and getting to finals compared to quarter-finals. You have to wonder whether its this type of competition that the England players are lacking and why youngsters aren't progressing as much.

All good and well young England players getting blooded in the AP and in the group stages of the HC with say Exeter but in Ireland the youngsters are getting to finals, testing themselves out against the best.

If it takes more money to recruit overall better teams and tip the balance back in their favour then money is what they need.

What about some kind of rule that forces loos-making clubs to demonstrate that they are moving towards or achieving profitability within a certain time frame, say 3 or 5 years? I can imagine that the creative accountants would have a field day with that, and enforceability might be 'complex', but it's worth thinking about at the very least

fa,

Size of player base is so important at Age Grade level. A good age grade team will have 23 players within 24 months in age of each other - and sometimes just 12 months. The more players you have the more likely you can produce a decent side. At senior level though the age range is much bigger so you need fewer age grades to progress.


Even then the following players in the England Performance squad were all capped within two years of playing for the U20s:

Marler, Corbisiero, Vunipola, Lawes, Launchbury, Care, Youngs, Farrell, Ford, Tuilagi, Nowell.

FA,

The problem is that whilst Englands huge kids are winning due to their size...the other teams are learning skills.

When they themselves then grow up and match Englands men physically...they have better skills.

However i do think this is changing quite substantially now though.

It's easy to criticize the way our sport is going, or might go. It's much harder to draw up a picture of how the sport ought develop instead.

Things were never going to stay the same, not least because professional sport is always on the move.

To hear some talk, the ideal situation is for all the current top teams to remain, all to be broadly competitive, and all turning a profit

I can't imagine any development route which would produce that outcome.

Rugby Fan wrote:It's easy to criticize the way our sport is going, or might go. It's much harder to draw up a picture of how the sport ought develop instead.

Things were never going to stay the same, not least because professional sport is always on the move.

To hear some talk, the ideal situation is for all the current top teams to remain, all to be broadly competitive, and all turning a profit

I can't imagine any development route which would produce that outcome.

That's a fair comment, RF, and you are on the money to say that it would be 'hard' - however, personally I thin kit would be very much worth the effort

The thing we must remember though is that the sport is professional now.

That will change the way teams develop.

Teams like Exeter and other clubs will continue to embrace many of the old amateur ideals...family clubs etc etc.

Others like Sarries will take on a very serious professional mantle. Im sure the fans dont feel any the worse for it.

At least as Sarries do that, they are doing it with young England players rather than the top frech clubs that seem to be doing it at the expense of young french players.

GeordieFalcon wrote:The thing we must remember though is that the sport is professional now.

That will change the way teams develop.

Teams like Exeter and other clubs will continue to embrace many of the old amateur ideals...family clubs etc etc.

Others like Sarries will take on a very serious professional mantle. Im sure the fans dont feel any the worse for it.

At least as Sarries do that, they are doing it with young England players rather than the top frech clubs that seem to be doing it at the expense of young french players.

Massive losses every year = professional? Not so sure

Not financially astute...i agree.

Their genuine operating loss is decreasing, and now they have their own ground will continue to do so.

the accounts for 2012/13 include a number of one-off payments in what was a very strange season for Sarries off the pitch, with no home ground until February.

2013/14 numbers will be interesting. they need to halve that loss at least. Do that and they are on the right track - especially with the new financial deals in place for next seasons ERCC. (Sky are paying more for shared rights than they offered ERC for exclusive rights, while BT are paying the same amount they offered for the no wdead Whatever Cup PRL were proposing)

Rugby Fan wrote:It's easy to criticize the way our sport is going, or might go. It's much harder to draw up a picture of how the sport ought develop instead.

Things were never going to stay the same, not least because professional sport is always on the move.

To hear some talk, the ideal situation is for all the current top teams to remain, all to be broadly competitive, and all turning a profit

I can't imagine any development route which would produce that outcome.

Salery cap that is affordable to most and properly enforced. a ban on running huge losses year in year out.

most of these are reasonable suggestions. but the devil is in the detail. losses are frequently incurred in all businesses during growth/investment phase, and rugby is no different. boudjellal at toulon, subsidised the club for years, and now apparently they make EUR9m in sponsorship alone which covers their entire player wage bill!

i am sure Sarries are aiming for the same level of financial success built around team success and owning their own ground instead of renting.

so how many years are owners allowed to "invest" (ie fund/lend to) in their clubs before they have to make a standalone profit, and who decides?

i actually think the PRL is doing what it says on the envelope - looking after the interests of the 12 clubs (and other shreholders in) the Aviva Premiership. I dont think the PRL cares about fairness at all. They want to promote the commercial and sporting interests of the AP. And that is quite consistent with getting a better deal from HC, and at the same time trying to put rules in place to promote the AP as a sporting spectacle.

fa0019 wrote:Does it hurt English rugby that they no longer are the dominant force in European club rugby?

Probably.

Something goes wrong in England from age grade rugby to test level. Either that or something goes right for France and Ireland. England are the dominant team in age grade rugby. They're bigger, better skilled players and seem to have an abundance of talent. Yet by the time players get to test level they're often at a par with chaps they used to smash... now why is that.

Guys in Ireland are playing in better sides, playing further in competitions, winning and getting to finals compared to quarter-finals. You have to wonder whether its this type of competition that the England players are lacking and why youngsters aren't progressing as much.

All good and well young England players getting blooded in the AP and in the group stages of the HC with say Exeter but in Ireland the youngsters are getting to finals, testing themselves out against the best.

If it takes more money to recruit overall better teams and tip the balance back in their favour then money is what they need.

The English players are generally bigger at age grade which helps them get results. They are not necessarily more skillful. In fact their physical dominance might make them less inclined to work on skills because the results are good. I also think the the standard of the AP declined quite a bit for a while, or at least stagnated while the others improved, and the standard of the HC increased.

I think these things may already have been addressed though, because England is clearly producing more skillful players now, still have have the power game and the standard of the AP has been on the up for quite a few years now. At least that's how I see it.

Competition cannot be underestimated. What exactly does Exeter rugby for example have to compete with in terms of sport? It's much easier to build a fan base when you've got your own stadium and are in a rugby centric town. It's easy to say oh Sarries should be sustainable - it's far harder to get planning permission for a new stadium in London than Exeter!

Saracens has the significant competition from huge London based football clubs like Arsenal and Tottenham which have ingrained themselves in the same catchment area. Something that seems to be ignored. Interest in a club generally takes time to grow.

quinsforever wrote:% of turnover is ridiculous.  That would prevent anyone from "investing" in a team.

Salary cap, which is what we have, is the only answer.

Soccerisation is a complete red herring IMO. Players want to get paid. Fans want to see their teams do well. Owners would like some combination of financial and/or silverware payoff. That's not soccer that's human nature.

Salary cap, and empowering PRL to generate the mac revenue for all teams and agreeing to be bound by PRL are massive difference from soccer. There are loads more but those are the key couple in terms of league structure and incentives.

If Richie has his way the salary cap will be set to at least equal that of the French, if not higher. Then of course the French will demand that their salary cap is raised in turn....

From Sky Sport:

RFU keen to improve financial rewards for top English players

The Rugby Football Union are keen to improve the financial benefits for England's top players following next year's World Cup.

Chief executive Ian Ritchie accepts that English clubs are behind their French counterparts with regards to wages and wants the RFU to put a strategy in place to prevent more players from heading abroad.

Currently, the RFU policy is to only select those playing for English clubs for the England national team - unless there are exceptional circumstances.

English Premiership teams are restricted by a salary cap but with the financial rewards in French club rugby at an unprecedented high - due to increased revenue from a new TV rights deal - it is feared there may be an exodus of talent following the 2015 World Cup.

Ritchie believes playing for a Premiership club and England should be financially competitive, if not superior, to the prize for competing elsewhere.

He said: "We should not be behind in making it economically right for people to continue to play in this country.

"I don't like a scenario where someone says 'I can get 'blank' when I go overseas'. We should be able to match all of that over here.

"We should be absolutely at the top of the pile here. We should help to try and achieve that and we should be unashamed of that."

Premiership clubs operate under a salary cap which increases to £5m next season, while England players can earn a match fee of £15k.

The current agreement between the RFU and Premiership Rugby over player release is due to expire in June 2016.

Ritchie added: "The Premiership salary cap is not a matter for me but what we have to do is make that as attractive as possible."

It is hoped that profits made from staging the World Cup on home soil can be factored in to agreeing on a new salary cap when a new deal is thrashed out in a couple of years

Sounds like the start of negotiations to me, with the current EPS deal expiring in two years time.

Ritchie, reading between the lines, seems to be suggesting that there is room to agree extra funding for English players which could allow the cap to be raised. If the two are tied together then great - I have no problem with English clubs paying English players more (assuming funds are available).

beshocked wrote:Competition cannot be underestimated. What exactly does Exeter rugby for example have to compete with in terms of sport? It's much easier to build a fan base when you've got your own stadium and are in a rugby centric town. It's easy to say oh Sarries should be sustainable - it's far harder to get planning permission for a new stadium in London than Exeter!

Saracens has the significant competition from huge London based football clubs like Arsenal and Tottenham which have ingrained themselves in the same catchment area. Something that seems to be ignored. Interest in a club generally takes time to grow.

Except planning regs are the same everywhere, and the greenbelt rules in suburban Exeter would offer as big an obstacle as renovating near-derilict space in N London. Not to forget either that the population available to a club like Sarries counterbalances the ngative that they must compete with large football clubs

LT,
Only if the EPS system is a payment to :
a. The club to which they are currently contracted
b. The academy where they were developed on a sliding scale over five years
c. There is a limit on game time per season
and
d. The RFU continues to enforce its effective ban on English team players from playing abroad.

I'd rather larger incentives to pay English players. Up above 65% as well. So you get £X for having 65%, £Y for having 75% and £Z for having 85%

Alasbut100ofus yes there are planning regulations everywhere but In Exeter there is less competition for space. It's not like London where getting a really good location is tough. Clubs like Wasps and Irish would find it difficult to acquire stadiums in London. Yes there is the large population which is good for big games like the ones at Wembley but it's tougher to build a loyal fan base because of the large competition. Exeter does not have that. Okay the population is much smaller but you have a team that has been based in the same place for a long time with little competition from other sports. It's not even just the competition from sports either - there is so much more you can do in London than Exeter.

I am sure Saracens could and should be doing a better job but we have some tough obstacles that make it harder for us to grow.

London is not a rugby union hot spot. Continuing exposing people to big games at Wembley helps raise the profile of the game. It's a gradual process.

It's incredible to see how far Saracens have come in 5 years. I think our losses will come down as they should. It's interesting seeing the huge quality increase of the squad from 4 years ago - a gradual process that is now bearing fruit.

I know better than pretty much anyone on these boards that Saracens are not doing everything right. There are flaws and errors but I think they are moving in the right direction.

You must ask yourself - where would you like rugby union to be in 10 years? Personally I want rugby union to become more global. That means that rugby must become more like soccer naturally as that is the truly global sport. I want to see more growth in attendances. I don't want to see the salary cap going but it must be raised when the time calls for it.

The problem is that the French will dictate proceedings. They are the most soccer like. Saracens are not like Toulon for example. Edward Griffiths might talk about getting rid of the cap etc but it's bluster at the moment. To be honest I don't think he will be at Saracens long term. I expect he will get a job in football as that seems to be his true calling.

Portnoys complaint the problem with a limit on game time is what happens if your non England players are injured in that particular position. Rugby is a squad game - it's squads that win trophies. I do agree that player welfare is important but so is earning one's salary.

If you limit the amount an England player can play surely it discourages one from playing a England international?

Saracens seem to have used the fringe England player signings to excellent effect - guys like Strettle,Wigglesworth and Hodgson who no longer play international level but are still very good players.

HammerofThunor wrote:I'd rather larger incentives to pay English players. Up above 65% as well. So you get £X for having 65%, £Y for having 75% and £Z for having 85%

I would also apply something similar to the cap.

So basic cap is £x.xM (lower than current)

You get rewarded for playing English players - the higher the % the higher the reward. this is added to the Cap
You get rewarded for having players selected for England squads. This is added to the cap.
You get rewarded for Academy producing England squad players. This is added to the cap.


This could mean a cap that is substantially higher than present - but only if you are playing english players and helping the England cause.

Carrots usually provide better results than sticks

[quote="Portnoy's Complaint"]

In their recent spectacular at Wembley, Wray claimed that Sarries had netted £500k profit, yet towards the end of the game there were barely half that number - suggesting that a very large proportion of the gate simply walked by half time.

I was at the Sarries v Quins match and Portnoy not many people had left by the end.  Whilst the top levels weren't filled so I did doubt the attendance figure, it is not correct to say that there were barely half that number at the end.  

Regarding Sarries and their marketing, I have no issue.  If they encourage people to watch rugby then this is good for the game, even better if they get children interested in playing, and they are very active in schools in Kent promoting rugby, which benefits local clubs and potentially the pro game and eventually England.  BTW I understand from a relative that Toulon are very active in Provence and Var regions in France promoting rugby, so whilst they buy in the best players, they are encouraging more into the game.

Good idea Londontiger.

Slow and sedate the problem with Toulon is their lack of Frenchman in their first team. Perhaps in a few years their academy will improve but as of now they are a team of superstars with a few token French. This damages the French national side. In comparison Saracens are getting more guys in the England side. Okay there are a few players drafted in from rival English clubs to augment the team but I think it does a world of good for someone like Billy to be playing in this Saracens side. Bad for Wasps of course but not for England IMO.

I am not against capping the amount of foreigners in a 23 or squad. This would certainly prevent the soccer-esque flood of foreigners in football premier league sides.

The way to deal with deficits is IMO to separate deficits for capital projects - ie buying grounds etc which should be allowed and revenue deficits ie spending on wages and fees which should be capped at a % of turnover that is repayable and sustainable

Munchkin wrote:

quinsforever wrote:% of turnover is ridiculous.  That would prevent anyone from "investing" in a team.

Salary cap, which is what we have, is the only answer.

Soccerisation is a complete red herring IMO. Players want to get paid. Fans want to see their teams do well. Owners would like some combination of financial and/or silverware payoff. That's not soccer that's human nature.

Salary cap, and empowering PRL to generate the mac revenue for all teams and agreeing to be bound by PRL are massive difference from soccer. There are loads more but those are the key couple in terms of league structure and incentives.

If Richie has his way the salary cap will be set to at least equal that of the French, if not higher. Then of course the French will demand that their salary cap is raised in turn....

From Sky Sport:

RFU keen to improve financial rewards for top English players

The Rugby Football Union are keen to improve the financial benefits for England's top players following next year's World Cup.

Chief executive Ian Ritchie accepts that English clubs are behind their French counterparts with regards to wages and wants the RFU to put a strategy in place to prevent more players from heading abroad.

Currently, the RFU policy is to only select those playing for English clubs for the England national team - unless there are exceptional circumstances.

English Premiership teams are restricted by a salary cap but with the financial rewards in French club rugby at an unprecedented high - due to increased revenue from a new TV rights deal - it is feared there may be an exodus of talent following the 2015 World Cup.

Ritchie believes playing for a Premiership club and England should be financially competitive, if not superior, to the prize for competing elsewhere.

He said: "We should not be behind in making it economically right for people to continue to play in this country.

"I don't like a scenario where someone says 'I can get 'blank' when I go overseas'. We should be able to match all of that over here.

"We should be absolutely at the top of the pile here. We should help to try and achieve that and we should be unashamed of that."

Premiership clubs operate under a salary cap which increases to £5m next season, while England players can earn a match fee of £15k.

The current agreement between the RFU and Premiership Rugby over player release is due to expire in June 2016.

Ritchie added: "The Premiership salary cap is not a matter for me but what we have to do is make that as attractive as possible."

It is hoped that profits made from staging the World Cup on home soil can be factored in to agreeing on a new salary cap when a new deal is thrashed out in a couple of years

Lol,then all the extra money they are going to make will just be spent on wages and the clubs will be in the same position they are now,losing money every year except there will probably be an extra zero on the deficit.From an Irish point of view it would be good if the English clubs could compete with the French as the best players would be spread out a bit more instead of all being at 2 or 3 of the top French clubs.

Beshocked, regarding player/spectator development Toulon and Sarries have some similarities.  Both started from "smaller" clubs who weren't necessarily fashionable in both amateur and the initial professional days.  Their owners have seen potential and are looking to develop this across all areas from ground roots upwards.  Sarries are way ahead in this (as are most English AP clubs - don't know about Irish, Welsh, Scottish) to where Toulon are at the mo.  My relatives live in NE Provence and their local clubs and schools are now getting a lot of help.

I wasn't looking to compare the first team squad make up between the two, but I know that my cousins son is enthralled at watching the likes of Wilkinson, Giteau, the Armitages, the Smiths etc playing and certainly in the local park wants to emulate them and also play for France...surely that's what we all want from a rugby perspective - not my relative playing from France, but kids taking up the game.

by asoreleftshoulder Today at 11:20 am

Lol,then all the extra money they are going to make will just be spent on wages and the clubs will be in the same position they are now,losing money every year except there will probably be an extra zero on the deficit.From an Irish point of view it would be good if the English clubs could compete with the French as the best players would be spread out a bit more instead of all being at 2 or 3 of the top French clubs."

Yep, if English and French clubs start competing on salary cap, wage inflation will go through the roof, and I doubt English clubs have the financial clout to win that war.
Richie might be thinking about something other than the AP raising their salary cap though. Maybe it's a hint at central contracts? That would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons   
Lewis Moody mentioned the idea just last year:

Mirror Sports

World Cup hero Lewis Moody has told the RFU to follow cricket’s lead and introduce central contracts for top players, reports the Sunday People.

Lewis, part of England’s World Cup winning side in 2003, says head coach Stuart Lancaster must have total control over his players to boost England’s 2015 World Cup chances.

Moody said: “We need to do something that is going to give us a more even playing field.

“In Ireland and New Zealand they have more control and play fewer games. They get more guys playing international rugby for longer and that benefits the national side....."

I don't think that Soccer gives rugby the best business model for pro sport. Its dominant in the UK and France so we tend to think that way.

Our cousins playing League in the North, or cricket, or American Football might be better pro sport models to follow.

And whilst Super rugby does well on the field, its hardly a flourishing financial success is it ? I think we are all concerned that french rugby could dominate in the way Australia does in RL, with the rest of the world clubs struggling to keep up. Not good for the game surely ?

I applaud saracens for innovating, even if it doesn't always work out. Don't know a lot about them though. I don't want to see any more teams going bancrupt as we had in the early days of professionalism. Some like Abertillery never returned : - (