AP Ringfencing

First topic message reminder :

How far away do you think we are from this scenario and how many team would be in it - 10...14?

Which teams would you include in that?

Much of the Slaughter and May report has been quietly sidelined. The Council members are still essentially enthusiastic rugby minded amateurs elected by their mates in the Constituent Bodies.

"Bribe" as in perfectly legal financial or other inducements for the good of rugby that would please the members of the Council.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Much of the Slaughter and May report has been quietly sidelined. The Council members are still essentially enthusiastic rugby minded amateurs elected by their mates in the Constituent Bodies.

"Bribe" as in perfectly legal financial or other inducements for the good of rugby that would please the members of the Council.

I'll have a sportsman's virtual fiver on the AP getting ringfenced.

I'm not taking that bet - I think, unfortunately, that it'll happen, but I don't think it'll just be a rubberstamp. There'll be tough negotiating.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Much of the Slaughter and May report has been quietly sidelined. The Council members are still essentially enthusiastic rugby minded amateurs elected by their mates in the Constituent Bodies.

"Bribe" as in perfectly legal financial or other inducements for the good of rugby that would please the members of the Council.

I'll have a sportsman's virtual fiver on the AP getting ringfenced.

I don't think I'd be against ring fencing. But, there would have to be a mechanism whereby the league members were reviewed once every five years say - that way, if you had a team of utter dross like London Welsh who had somehow been behind the wire when the fence came down, they could be replaced with a Championship team consistently performing well.

Whether this would be enough of an incentive for Championship teams to finish at the top of the Championship year after year I'm not sure. But there have been a few teams that went all out and 'won' the Championship knowing full well that they would not be promoted due to things like stadium ineligibility.

It might not mean much in the wider context but Falcons have played some of the best rugby I have seen in years this last season. I believe largely because the threat of relegation was removed and they could just go out and play fearless rugby. As a result the crowds at KP have gone up and there is a buzz around the club again.

You could rightly call me selfish, but I would prefer to see that than a stodgy forward grindfest created by two teams who are afraid to play because of the threat of relegation.

And they have a much better pitch.

I agree that the pitch has something to do with it, but I would disagree that it is the defining factor.

Yeah so would I. I think it's down to Dean Richards myself but the Geordie lads on here may have their own thoughts.

If the fear of relegation is adversely affecting the mindsets of players and coaches (which it may well do but I don't think is proven), should it be eliminated or reduced?

Elimination by ringfencing would lead to more dead rubbers at the pointy end of the season, and affect the mindsets of investors, players and coaches in lower leagues.

Reducing the fear, by reducing the adverse consequences of relegation is more attractive to me. How to achieve it is tricky, though. The parachute payment already distorts competition in the Championship - if money is thrown around, it needs to be thrown equally to raise the standards and attractiveness of the second tier.

RFU have failed the Championship teams in the last few years with lack of investment, sponsorship, exposure and encouragement, but then, they're just 12 clubs out of about 2000 that own the RFU. Most of the Championship teams haven't helped themselves either, with no clear strategy in the face of RFU indifference.

The French setup of LNR representing both T14 and ProD2 is attractive, but I don't expect AP clubs would be too keen to divert 30% of their collective income to the lower level.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:

RFU have failed the Championship teams in the last few years with lack of investment, sponsorship, exposure and encouragement, but then, they're just 12 clubs out of about 2000 that own the RFU. .

That potentially, might be why they'll lap up the compensation offerred by PRL to rignfence the AP.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:If the fear of relegation is adversely affecting the mindsets of players and coaches (which it may well do but I don't think is proven), should it be eliminated or reduced?

Elimination by ringfencing would lead to more dead rubbers at the pointy end of the season, and affect the mindsets of investors, players and coaches in lower leagues.

Reducing the fear, by reducing the adverse consequences of relegation is more attractive to me. How to achieve it is tricky, though. The parachute payment already distorts competition in the Championship - if money is thrown around, it needs to be thrown equally to raise the standards and attractiveness of the second tier.

RFU have failed the Championship teams in the last few years with lack of investment, sponsorship, exposure and encouragement, but then, they're just 12 clubs out of about 2000 that own the RFU. Most of the Championship teams haven't helped themselves either, with no clear strategy in the face of RFU indifference.

The French setup of LNR representing both T14 and ProD2 is attractive, but I don't expect AP clubs would be too keen to divert 30% of their collective income to the lower level.

Personally I do believe that it is affecting the mind set of players and coaches, the fear of relegation forces some teams to clam up and play 'knock out' rugby. This obviously isn't going to affect every team, most don't have to contemplate the idea of relegation, but the three or four sides that find themselves down there are severely affected IMO. Again, I say that as a Newcastle fan and understand how it looks.

Regarding dead rubbers, London Welsh were basically relegated by Christmas. This created a situation where there were what you would term dead rubber games for quite a chunk of the season. To me it didn't adversely affect the league and allowed some would be relegation candidates play attractive rugby.

Jimpy wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Much of the Slaughter and May report has been quietly sidelined. The Council members are still essentially enthusiastic rugby minded amateurs elected by their mates in the Constituent Bodies.

"Bribe" as in perfectly legal financial or other inducements for the good of rugby that would please the members of the Council.

I'll have a sportsman's virtual fiver on the AP getting ringfenced.

I don't think I'd be against ring fencing. But, there would have to be a mechanism whereby the league members were reviewed once every five years say - that way, if you had a team of utter dross like London Welsh who had somehow been behind the wire when the fence came down, they could be replaced with a Championship team consistently performing well.

Whether this would be enough of an incentive for Championship teams to finish at the top of the Championship year after year I'm not sure. But there have been a few teams that went all out and 'won' the Championship knowing full well that they would not be promoted due to things like stadium ineligibility.

Building on your point, if we go the route of abolising promotion/relegation, at least in its current guise, then I think strict financial requirements must be met by all clubs.  Clubs looking for admittance would also need to meet these requirements in advance.  These would include, in no particular order, and certainly not an inclusive list:
- Positive P&L and/or strong long term financials for each club (as monitored and certified by independant auditors)
- Adherance to the salary cap
- Clubs paying a minimum of 80% of the salary cap in total salaries
- Minimum stadium requirements
- League salary cap/expenditures float based upon bottom line league revenues,
- Minimum player roster size

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah so would I. I think it's down to Dean Richards myself but the Geordie lads on here may have their own thoughts.

Think it's a mix of a few things. The pitch, Dean looking to play some rugby (think he picks and chooses which teams to play against mind cos some games have been gash) and some of the players giving it ago. Like Catterick, Sinoti , Socino etc

GeordieFalcon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah so would I. I think it's down to Dean Richards myself but the Geordie lads on here may have their own thoughts.

Think it's a mix of a few things. The pitch, Dean looking to play some rugby (think he picks and chooses which teams to play against mind cos some games have been gash) and some of the players giving it ago. Like Catterick,  Sinoti , Socino etc

sounds right, at least from an outside perspective. Do you thnk that another factor might have been having no fear about relegation?

It's got to have had a bit of a influence... But not sure how much.
I think Dean would be more pee'd off with the efficiency of the team in taking chances rather than the style of the rugby.