RPA Chief Executive says June tours not sustainable

by HammerofThunor Mon 27 Oct 2014, 8:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

Further calls from the (English) Rugby Player Association (RPA) that too much rugby is taking it's toll on the players; especially for those going on the June tours.

This is then tied in with some of Bruce Craig's comments (for the SH folk who don't keep track, he's the Bath owner and pretty vocal about changing things up. Talks a lot of Poopie but some sense)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/29796327

BBC wrote:Rugby union's season structure must change for the sake of player welfare, Rugby Players' Association (RPA) chief executive Damian Hopley has said. England are missing at least 10 players through injury for the November Tests, while Wales also have absentees. Hopley believes longer rest periods could help reduce the number of injuries in the game.
"The sooner we can address some of these issues the better," the former England back told BBC Radio 5 live.
"We have seen a greater volume [of injuries] this year. Looking at the schedule over the last two seasons - with the Lions tour in 2013 and the New Zealand tour in 2014 - there is always an accumulation effect."

The newly-appointed chairman of the RPA, Northampton lock Christian Day, agrees that the current schedule is asking a lot of players. "I would certainly say we are testing the limits on what is attainable," Day told BBC Radio 5 live. "There has to come a breaking point, and I hope before we come to that breaking point we have a serious look at the length of time a player gets to rest each season."

Hopley believes the international window in June - when the northern hemisphere teams visit the south - is not sustainable, with players touring after a gruelling domestic campaign. "Getting everyone to leave self-interest at the door is the hardest issue," he said. "Ultimately broadcasters will have a big say but if you get the playing structure right, the commercial issues will follow. "Rugby has not traditionally been very good at joined-up thinking, but I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to do this."

Bath owner Bruce Craig has long been an advocate of a global calendar, and Hopley agrees that a cohesive approach to scheduling the season between the two hemispheres will bring benefits in the long-term.
"You have to get people in the room who are committed to trying to find a solution," he added. "Whether that is starting the season later, looking at that June window and moving it into October... these are some of many ideas flying around."

The 2015-2016 Premiership season will start in October because the World Cup is being held in England, and Hopley said this could show the positives of a longer break. "It's going to be very interesting to see how it affects them physically and mentally to be completely refreshed, rather than patching themselves up to get through the next campaign," he added. The international schedule is locked in until 2019, with the World Cup in Japan taking place at the end of that year, but Hopley remains hopeful. "We've got a good opportunity now to come up with something that can be future-proofed to 2023 Rugby World Cup, and beyond," he said. "Rugby is moving in the right direction. I just hope we can look at the player welfare issue as the most important piece of it and not just try and hammer out more games."

by Sin é Tue 28 Oct 2014, 11:16 am

whocares wrote:
fa0019 wrote:So the obvious thing to do is the curb test rugby which draws in millions and 80,000 min per game and maintain club rugby which is watched by a few hundred thousand on TV at best and draws <20,000?

If anything you reduce club rugby.

the European cup, the LV cup, the premiership.... how many games to English clubs play per year with the same squads.... 40?

Club rugby is a minnow compared. They pay the wages yes but they wouldn't be anything without test rugby... they'd be amateurs like pre 96.

If you want higher revenue from sponsorship, higher gate receipts and TV money you boost the national game to make them as successful as possible. That's what draws fans to clubs. Certainly not the other way around.

explain me how you could have a strong test rugby without a strong club rugby scene? both need each others. both need to compromise.

some figures for you :
T14 average number of viewers : 750 thousand (and its on pay tv) with some games over 1 million. last final (on free to air) : 4.6 milions despite the poor entertainment value. I expect France AIs and 6Ns to attract more viewers simply because they are on prime time on a free to air channel and usually on saturday night. am not sure the june tour games attract more than 400k viewers as its on pay tv and in the morning.
overall sponsorship and ticket revenues will always be higher for club than the france games (6 per year at home) considering than the tv money for the 6N and AIs is not huge as well since they are on free to air tv. if you increase the number of international games people will also quickky lose interest because let's face it, it is the casual and fickle supporter who barely knows the rules that make up for those big viewing numbers for international games whereas people who watch club rugby will always be around.

That is cowpat. The 6Ns is the richest competition in rugby. The income from tv, sponsorship etc. is around 90m per annum (which is distributed between the 6Ns Unions). The 6Ns media rights are also sold to something like 140 countries around the world.

This means that the IRB can use its World Cup earnings to develop rugby around the world.

A quick breakdown of the eRFU's income for 2013 (total revenue 153m).
Tickets 33.9m
Broadcasting 31.8m
Sponsorship 19.1m
Hospitality & Catering 37.5m
Merchandising 5.4m

Note the income for broadcasting of 31.8m for about 12 games and compare it to the club tv revenue.

6Ns CEO: wrote: “It is the biggest annual rugby tournament in the world, period. We only have 15 games, yet within those games, we have over a million people attending. We broadcast to 162 countries around the world, with hundreds of millions of people watching on television. There is now over 20,000 hours of footage broadcast throughout the course of the tournament around the world, which is up about three fold in the last three years.

“The turnover of the Six Nations, if you add it up over a four year period, is about three and a half times greater than a World Cup. It is the underpinning key property that keeps the s going, because it generates such funds, it is just such an important competition, on so many different levels”.

by whocares Tue 28 Oct 2014, 11:34 am

not sure how it is in england, but FFR doesnt really fund any grass root rugby, in fact they collect money from the licences (50 to 100 euro per year at amateur level) in exchange of organising some competitions and providing rules and coaching guidance. Clubs receive funding from local councils and sponsors if anything. FFR budget is still high (100 million euro) but the only investment they make goes to the national training center which they run, national teams (incuding age groups, 7s and women) and one day maybe a new stadium.

by Guest Tue 28 Oct 2014, 11:42 am

The RFU made 153 million in 2013. That's heaps. Shame they can't regain control of the clubs. Presumably the clubs were under their control at some point in the past before they were sold to private entities. Guess that horse has bolted.

by whocares Tue 28 Oct 2014, 11:44 am

how much the FFR receive from that nice 6N money Sin é? are cost costs such as stade de france renting included there? am interested because FFR doesnt communciate very clearly on things like that but their budget seems to be only a mere 100 million euro which doesnt seem to add up...(for comparison, LNR last budget is forecasted at115m€ incuding 33 mil of broadcasting revenue).

by Sin é Tue 28 Oct 2014, 11:57 am

whocares wrote:how much the FFR receive from that nice 6N money Sin é? are cost costs such as stade de france renting included there? am interested because FFR doesnt communciate very clearly on things like that but their budget seems to be only a mere 100 million euro which doesnt seem to add up...(for comparison, LNR last budget is forecasted at115m€ incuding 33 mil of broadcasting revenue).

The FFR's big problem is that they don't have a stadium yet to generate income for them.

''Former French League president Serge Blanco has commented that the FFR have to pay half of their international match takings to the owners of Stade de France. Blanco will head the building of the new stadium."

Things should change when they get their own stadium.

As far as I know the 100m from 6Ns is split between the 6Ns more or less equally (after costs such as merit payments etc).

Up to now the Lions Tours have been run to provide the Southern Hemisphere Unions a big cash injection every 12 years. Think the last one was worth 40m to Australia.

by Sin é Tue 28 Oct 2014, 12:01 pm

ebop wrote:The RFU made 153 million in 2013. That's heaps. Shame they can't regain control of the clubs. Presumably the clubs were under their control at some point in the past before they were sold to private entities. Guess that horse has bolted.

To my mind, the RFU made a big mistake not doing something like what IRFU did - set up a super league with the old regional teams that used to tour for competing in a Super League with the big French clubs and having a domestic premiership that feeds into these teams (similar to what happens in SH as well).

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 28 Oct 2014, 1:06 pm

Hopley and the RPA are not mouthpieces for the English clubs, so it make little sense to try and dismiss their views as just another round in the club vs country debate.

Sin é has a good point when he says that the players in Ireland seem to have a higher incidence of injuries even with a lighter programme than those in England. It may well be that fewer games and longer rest breaks won't be sufficient to address welfare concerns.

by lostinwales Tue 28 Oct 2014, 1:55 pm

I have used this phrase already today but its all a bit chicken and egg again. Bigger squads would help a great deal but that needs more money which means more games.

If we had bigger stadia and more people turning up to watch the games it might be easier to manage on fewer games (like American football) but we dont.

I think tweaking the rules to push the cardio side might well be one of the few practical options. What else can we do?

- Reducing the number of games means reducing income

- Going the cricket route might be practical but will annoy many (international players are primarily just that, they are nominally linked with a club for whom they will occasionally play) I guess that isnt that different from the Irish provincial system just shifted up a level. You could also say that that is already been happening for significant members of the Wales squad.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 28 Oct 2014, 2:01 pm

Biltong wrote:Me too, how are you going to get players to make "soft" tackles?

Talk to the Edinburgh defence coach. We've pioneered a new approach to tackling. In short, we don't.

by Sin é Tue 28 Oct 2014, 2:12 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:Hopley and the RPA are not mouthpieces for the English clubs, so it make little sense to try and dismiss their views as just another round in the club vs country debate.

Sin é has a good point when he says that the players in Ireland seem to have a higher incidence of injuries even with a lighter programme than those in England. It may well be that fewer games and longer rest breaks won't be sufficient to address welfare concerns.

From what I can see, his comments make little sense because in the Aviva Premiership of approx. 500 players, only 40 of those players go on international tours each year or even play international rugby.

Maybe he is after a central contract system as well for those 40 players similar to what the WRU are doing now.

Nigel Craig just wants control of international rugby because he knows that is where the money is.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 28 Oct 2014, 2:36 pm

Sin é wrote:...From what I can see, his comments make little sense because in the Aviva Premiership of approx. 500 players, only 40 of those players go on international tours each year or even play international rugby.

The RPA provides representation for all Premiership players, whether England qualified or not.

by Sin é Tue 28 Oct 2014, 2:49 pm

I counted 40 (usually 30 travel per squad) to allow for the 5 Scottish internationals in the Aviva and 3 Wales internationals included in the squad for the autumn internationals.

My point is really that to accommodate 40 or so out of 500 players shouldn't mean that everyone should just go along with what is suggested.

The RFU/SRU/WRU should accommodate the clubs so that they can have extra cover for these players maybe.

by quinsforever Tue 28 Oct 2014, 2:55 pm

I think there is a bit of confusion about the relative importance of English and french club leagues and the international games.

England and France both run 2 professional leagues.

In England that means there are I am guessing (avg 30 players per team in each division) 720 professionally contracted players in England. If which >70% by matchday appearance are English. Additionally the clubs run the (I believe it is 13) academies across England.

EPS is what, 41 players?

Avg attendance at AP games is 11k? (Can't check as am away from puter). So over a season that's 220,000 home tickets per team (c20 home games including eurocup, AP, LV, pre-season). Or c2.5million over the season.

England play 5/6 home matches per annum. 400-480k tickets.

In France the strength of club support is even stronger relative to the international side.

So let's stop claiming that the international game pays for everything shall we. Clearly true in AUs and NZ. Clearly not true in France and England.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 28 Oct 2014, 3:08 pm

Sin é wrote:...shouldn't mean that everyone should just go along with what is suggested...

His suggestion is that all parties engage in "joined-up thinking" to come up with a schedule that suits all interests. Why on earth would anyone have a problem with that?

by Sin é Tue 28 Oct 2014, 3:36 pm

Quins

Attendances (12-13 season)
Super Rugby: 2.5m
Top 14: 2.7m
Aviva Premiership: 1.7m
Pro12: 1.1m

I don't think anyone claimed that the international game pays for everything. But it does put substantial sums of money into academies for instance, not to mention grants from the RFU and the extra money international players earn as match fees for playing these games.

As well as that, don't the French club get 1300 per player per day that they are away on international duty?

by Sin é Tue 28 Oct 2014, 3:38 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
Sin é wrote:...shouldn't mean that everyone should just go along with what is suggested...
His suggestion is that all parties engage in "joined-up thinking" to come up with a schedule that suits all interests. Why on earth would anyone have a problem with that?

Because I think that maybe the IRB have looked at all of these issues and the Union owned teams are already making efforts to reduce the number of games their contracted players have to play (and have been doing for a long time now).

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 28 Oct 2014, 4:00 pm

Sin é wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
Sin é wrote:...shouldn't mean that everyone should just go along with what is suggested...
His suggestion is that all parties engage in "joined-up thinking" to come up with a schedule that suits all interests. Why on earth would anyone have a problem with that?

Because I think that maybe the IRB have looked at all of these issues and the Union owned teams are already making efforts to reduce the number of games their contracted players have to play (and have been doing for a long time now).

Surprising, then, that Johnny Sexton and Richie McCaw both supported Hopley's stance last year. It was in a press release by the International Rugby Player's Association of which Hopley is chairman. The players associations of Ireland, New Zealand, England, Wales, Australia, Argentina, France and South Africa are all members of the IRPA.

http://www.irpa-rugby.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/090713-Integrated-global-rugby-season-press-release.pdf

by Sin é Tue 28 Oct 2014, 4:54 pm

Hopley's stance last year (which McCaw & Sexton supported) was to look at moving the June test games to July, not cancel them!

by HammerofThunor Tue 28 Oct 2014, 5:03 pm

Is his view now to cancel them? Not seen that or listened to the full interview so might have missed it.

by HammerofThunor Tue 28 Oct 2014, 5:05 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Biltong wrote:Me too, how are you going to get players to make "soft" tackles?

Talk to the Edinburgh defence coach. We've pioneered a new approach to tackling. In short, we don't.

Very good

by Dubbelyew L Overate Tue 28 Oct 2014, 5:38 pm

Sin é wrote:I counted 40 (usually 30 travel per squad) to allow for the 5 Scottish internationals in the Aviva and 3 Wales internationals included in the squad for the autumn internationals.

My point is really that to accommodate 40 or so out of 500 players shouldn't mean that everyone should just go along with what is suggested.

The RFU/SRU/WRU should accommodate the clubs so that they can have extra cover for these players maybe.

Tongans, Americans, Samoans, Namibians, Fijians, etc, all of whose Unions do not have access to the squillions that Tier 1 have. If a solution is required, they need to be part of it.

by emack2 Tue 28 Oct 2014, 6:38 pm

Firstly players are now taller and heavier with each generation that is a fact.Much of the
muscle is gym muscle not natural muscle as in much of amateur period.Where many
worked in outdoor jobs.
Secondly Rugby Union is now a hybrid of League/Union with many of the worst bits of
both.Defences and tackling pure league pre 4 tackle law I`m old enough to remember that too.

Most Clubs have squads of 40 plus so it shouldn't be beyond the wit of these to target
games and rotate players.Certainly reduce some inter nationals by say one each end of year
have none outside IRB window.[third bledisloe too].

Concussion is now being viewed more strictly now as should be,also many are injured
in pre match warm ups.

So that can be looked at,in Treat Lions years the same as RWC ones and reduce tests
both ends etc.

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 28 Oct 2014, 6:50 pm

Haven't seen anyone talk about increasing squad sizes. There is only so much contact a player can take over a year. The more games, the more players. What seems to happen is both club and country rely on the same individuals to make the 'impact' in their respective key matches. That wear and tear will take it's toll. Increase the size of the squads. It can cost the same if you cut your cloth to meet your needs. But clubs and country completely over rely on specific players.

Don't disagree with a lot of the other points already made. Just adding an extra point to the debate.

by HammerofThunor Tue 28 Oct 2014, 6:53 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Haven't seen anyone talk about increasing squad sizes. There is only so much contact a player can take over a year. The more games, the more players. What seems to happen is both club and country rely on the same individuals to make the 'impact' in their respective key matches. That wear and tear will take it's toll. Increase the size of the squads. It can cost the same if you cut your cloth to meet your needs. But clubs and country completely over rely on specific players.

Don't disagree with a lot of the other points already made. Just adding an extra point to the debate.

Bruce Craig has suggested it. You're in good company there. How's that feel? Wink

by blackcanelion Tue 28 Oct 2014, 7:52 pm

What not reduce the club season dramatically. The NFL is a pretty good template. Probably the worlds most successful sports league and it has a very short season: preseason August (only allowed 2 weeks of straining camp), Season September - end of December, Playoffs, January start of Feb. It's a 32 team league. The point being 4 months should be enough for a financially viable main club season.

by quinsforever Tue 28 Oct 2014, 9:02 pm

blackcanelion wrote:What not reduce the club season dramatically. The NFL is a pretty good template. Probably the worlds most successful sports league and it has a very short season: preseason August (only allowed 2 weeks of straining camp), Season September - end of December, Playoffs, January start of Feb. It's a 32 team league. The point being 4 months should be enough for a financially viable main club season.

the NFL that you laud (monopoly granted by Congreess by the way) doesnt have to compete with international matches.

bit of a red herring then.

by quinsforever Tue 28 Oct 2014, 9:14 pm

i am english.

how can we change things in a way that works in our (club and country) favour?

- cancel every other summer tour. and only tour to Aus ever other cycle. so it goes...NZ, no tour, SA, no tour, NZ, no tour, SA, AUS. financially hurts antipodeans far more than we benefit at the end of a long season.

- allow 3 marquee players in AP but fix the max wage at 50% greater than top paid EQ player/

- club-wise, push for rules in the euro cup that force nationally-qualified players to actually turn out for their league games...wait...i think we might have made some progress there with the new euro cup qualification rules...

rugby aint a charity. it's war. it's about winning. and i want the PRL and RFU to ruck everyone else to the point of submission. If we can inflict maximum harm on another Union's chances of winning RWC (which is all i care about, yes i know its been a while) then i am all for it.

NZ and AUS have been doing this for years. Why should we feel ashamed about it? Answer - we shouldnt.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 28 Oct 2014, 10:28 pm

Sin é wrote:Hopley's stance last year (which McCaw & Sexton supported) was to look at moving the June test games to July, not cancel them!

Hopley's stance hasn't changed. If no-one makes an effort to alter the schedule then he thinks something will inevitably give, and, since he was being asked about England players, he gave the example of June Tests being unsustainable as that happens to be the last act in their season.

Hopley, the RPA and the IRPA have never said "cancel the June Tests". It's disappointing that Hopley's nationality has led some here to attribute motives and aims to him which he simply doesn't have.

Let's be clear. the players associations are no angels here. At an extreme, they do best for their members when players are paid as much as possible to do as little as possible, so this can easily put them into conflict with clubs, unions and fans. At the moment, though, players are largely onlookers in the governance of the game, so the most they can do is call on the major stakeholders to sit down and hash out a long term schedule for the future of the sport. Ideally, they would like to part of that conversation.

by blackcanelion Wed 29 Oct 2014, 12:08 am

quinsforever wrote:i am english.

how can we change things in a way that works in our (club and country) favour?

- cancel every other summer tour. and only tour to Aus ever other cycle. so it goes...NZ, no tour, SA, no tour, NZ, no tour, SA, AUS. financially hurts antipodeans far more than we benefit at the end of a long season.

- allow 3 marquee players in AP but fix the max wage at 50% greater than top paid EQ player/

- club-wise, push for rules in the euro cup that force nationally-qualified players to actually turn out for their league games...wait...i think we might have made some progress there with the new euro cup qualification rules...

rugby aint a charity. it's war. it's about winning. and i want the PRL and RFU to ruck everyone else to the point of submission. If we can inflict maximum harm on another Union's chances of winning RWC (which is all i care about, yes i know its been a while) then i am all for it.

NZ and AUS have been doing this for years. Why should we feel ashamed about it? Answer - we shouldn't.

Don't worry this has been the modus operandi for the RFU for well over a century. I think they need more stealth. Everyone seems to be cottoning onto it. It was much better when the RFU just appointed English men to represent foreign unions like the SAFRU.

by blackcanelion Wed 29 Oct 2014, 12:12 am

quinsforever wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:What not reduce the club season dramatically. The NFL is a pretty good template. Probably the worlds most successful sports league and it has a very short season: preseason August (only allowed 2 weeks of straining camp), Season September - end of December, Playoffs, January start of Feb. It's a 32 team league. The point being 4 months should be enough for a financially viable main club season.
the NFL that you laud (monopoly granted by Congreess by the way) doesnt have to compete with international matches.

bit of a red herring then.

I'm not lauding the NFL. I'm just pointing out that club competitions don't need to be anywhere the length the European provincial comps to be really profitable. It's easily possible to reduce the length of the club season sustainably.

by quinsforever Wed 29 Oct 2014, 6:50 am

the NFL analogy is an interesting one. but unfortunately impossible to every achieve in euro competition. the PRL are trying to be like the NFL in domestic competition with devices like salary caps, collective negotiation of rights, etc, different shares for relegated/promoted teams (bit messy but i see what they are trying to do).

but the euro comps are another thing entirely. too many conflicting motivations. prl want profit, irfu want national team success, wru want to control their regions, ffr - who knows what they want!

by Sin é Wed 29 Oct 2014, 9:56 am

quinsforever wrote:the NFL analogy is an interesting one. but unfortunately impossible to every achieve in euro competition. the PRL are trying to be like the NFL in domestic competition with devices like salary caps, collective negotiation of rights, etc, different shares for relegated/promoted teams (bit messy but i see what they are trying to do).

but the euro comps are another thing entirely. too many conflicting motivations. prl want profit, irfu want national team success, wru want to control their regions, ffr - who knows what they want!

The IRFU want a bit more than that. For instance (from Strategic Plan):
Domestic Rugby – A Quality Experience
• Provide a quality rugby environment for all, through clubs that have the structures, know-how and resources needed
• Greater adult participation across all forms of rugby union football
• The highest standards in age grade sport nationally to give young players the best possible foundations and motivation for pursuing a prolonged playing career well into adulthood

I'd also say that very few of the PRL want profit as they will put any cash they have into player's wages - they want glory.

by lostinwales Wed 29 Oct 2014, 10:02 am

blackcanelion wrote:What not reduce the club season dramatically. The NFL is a pretty good template. Probably the worlds most successful sports league and it has a very short season: preseason August (only allowed 2 weeks of straining camp), Season September - end of December, Playoffs, January start of Feb. It's a 32 team league. The point being 4 months should be enough for a financially viable main club season.

The NFL also play in stadiums that dwarf 95% of anything we have here infront of vast crowds. It is a machine that is primarily designed to make money, down to add breaks every time there is a stop in play. No rugby team without insane and wealthy backers would be able to survive on 8 home games a season infront of 10K punters each time.

by thebandwagonsociety Wed 29 Oct 2014, 10:22 am

HammerofThunor wrote:
thebandwagonsociety wrote:Haven't seen anyone talk about increasing squad sizes. There is only so much contact a player can take over a year. The more games, the more players. What seems to happen is both club and country rely on the same individuals to make the 'impact' in their respective key matches. That wear and tear will take it's toll. Increase the size of the squads. It can cost the same if you cut your cloth to meet your needs. But clubs and country completely over rely on specific players.

Don't disagree with a lot of the other points already made. Just adding an extra point to the debate.

Bruce Craig has suggested it. You're in good company there. How's that feel?

by HammerofThunor Wed 29 Oct 2014, 11:24 am

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
hammerofthunor wrote:Bruce Craig has suggested it. You're in good company there. How's that feel?

by splenetic Thu 30 Oct 2014, 3:18 am

ebop wrote:The RFU made 153 million in 2013. That's heaps. Shame they can't regain control of the clubs. Presumably the clubs were under their control at some point in the past before they were sold to private entities. Guess that horse has bolted.

The RFU was created by the clubs, back when supporters and international rugby didn't exist and the sport was just about clubs of players and a handful of spectators. The RFU remains owned by its member clubs.

International rugby being considered by some to be the be all and end all of the game is a recent pursuit, up until the mid 80s most countries only played around 5 internationals a year.

by Guest Thu 30 Oct 2014, 4:45 am

Do you know when English member clubs were privatised splenetic, assume it was when rugby went pro? And do the member clubs really 'own' the RFU these days? As in do they tell the RFU what to do? I wouldn't know.

by TobyBryant Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:01 am

I've said it before I will say it again. Both "hemispheres" should align with the US season. That's where the money is boys.

by TobyBryant Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:05 am

"rugby aint a charity. it's war. it's about winning. and i want the PRL and RFU to ruck everyone else to the point of submission. If we can inflict maximum harm on another Union's chances of winning RWC (which is all i care about, yes i know its been a while) then i am all for it."

An Englishman advocating rucking? That's rare!

Usually you're more into lying on the ball and taking naps between set pieces, or so my kiwi friends tell me!

Actually you'll find rugby is heavily intertwined with charity. So "O from two" as we say.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:09 am

Each time, why bother?

by TobyBryant Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:14 am

It may seem like a foregone conclusion and waste of time I know 7.5 - but I guess the home unions just hope for more Norovirus 7.5

by No 7&1/2 Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:17 am

by Guest Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:23 am

Halloween?

by **Biltong** Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:29 am

ebop wrote:Halloween?

That's tomorrow?

by HammerofThunor Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:37 am

It is indeed. But it seems like it comes around every 3 months or so sometimes. Each one slightly different but basically the same. ghost

by TobyBryant Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:50 am

Like an English back like move censored

by **Biltong** Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:54 am

TobyBryant wrote:Like an English back like move

That is actually quite funny. Very Happy

by TobyBryant Thu 30 Oct 2014, 8:55 am

Goodbye everyone!

by **Rugby Fan** Sat 08 Nov 2014, 4:13 am

Lewis Moody on the same page as Hopley, McCaw and Sexton:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/lewis-moody-column-if-you-want-to-see-our-teams-playing-at-their-best-its-time-to-change-whole-structure-of-the-season-9845081.html

Christian Day had this to say:

Players’ union boss Christian Day has warned industrial action is possible if concerns over player welfare are not adequately addressed...Day wants mandatory summer rest periods introduced, adding: “That’s at the forefront of most players’ minds and, ultimately, there’s a huge onus on Premiership Rugby (PRL) and the Rugby Football Union (RFU) to ensure player welfare because we’re the ones earning their money.”

He admits being reluctant to go down the American route where player power means top sportsmen regularly go on strike, but says it is incumbent upon rugby’s authorities to ensure its most valuable assets, the players, are properly looked after.

He said: “We’ve looked at American sport where player power is huge and we’re not looking to get to that level. That said, if it reaches a point where it feels like rugby players are not being looked after, we may rise up and you could lose your major asset.”

by Sponsored content