England's pitiful European club prospects.

No way will an English club win the HEC whilst their right wrists are manacled to their left ankles. Although the national set-up appears to be in rude health with its burgeoning new-growth of youngsters.

The latest odds http://www.oddschecker.com/rugby-union/club-rugby/heineken-cup/winner do not reflect their proper standing.

What with relegation, meagre salary caps, international calls, play-offs and the inevitable burn-outs it will be a few seasons before we see any success.

Quite frankly the Blues and Os have a better shot in the next couple of years whilst the current situation lingers.

Ireland have got it right by centrally contracting their talent and feed them out carefully to the provinces.

French clubs have a big chance next year (every year) with their huge budgets and a galactico buying policies - but maybe that's unsustainable in the long run.

What England (and probably Wales) needs is central contracts, but in order to do that, agreement with the clubs is essential. And that ain't gonna happen in a hurry.

What is required is yer man SCW to kick bum and twist arms at the RFU to fund the contracts. And to brow-beat the clubs into supplication - pretty much as he wanted to do in 2004.

England can maintain its league structure - but must abandon Jeff games during the International windows in order to maintain a level playing field between clubs with imported talent against those strongly employing domestics.

Well Portonys I think pitiful might be too strong a word when you had Saints in the final this year of the Heineken and Quins won the Amlin! That's not doing too shabbily in Europe I don't think

You have a point about centralised contracts though. I think it's something both England and Wales need to consider.

And welcome to the site, tis good to have you here!

The groups look decent enough for England to perform very well in the HC this year.

I agree with the thrust of this, but rarely find the bookies getting things that wrong. Do you think the time will come when the English clubs regionalise and apply to join the Magners?

Glas

No.

Back on topic, the EPS is halfway between central contracts and no central contracts. It gives us a bit of central control in exchange for money, it's just going to the clubs instead of the players. Much better would be if the EPS money was divided up and paid directly to the players and the EPS players then got paid less by their clubs. The clubs could then use the money saved to draft in cover for the missing players.

Or, much more preferable, re-structure the bloody season!

Leicester, Saints and Sarries all have a shot at the Quarters imo. London Irish have an outside chance. When you are there anything can happen.

However, any team will struggle to beat Leinster or Toulouse away from home. The winner will come from them imo.

I think the EPS is the right balance between central contracts and club control. There aren't many players playing abroad who we would want playing in England - Wilkinson, Palmer, maybe Cipriani.

I think the idea of one 'marquee' player outside of the cap will be good for the clubs.

I would like to see some kind of relief for the salary of players who go through the Academy to first team.

Overall, we are in rude health imo. We need SCW to ensure that our current prospects have the right environment to thrive and fulfill their rich potential.

Is not the problem with centralised contracts (in Wales at least) that the unions are Flip wits?

Well yes Glas, there is that....

rugbydreamer wrote:Well Portonys I think pitiful might be too strong a word when you had Saints in the final this year of the Heineken and Quins won the Amlin! That's not doing too shabbily in Europe I don't think

You have a point about centralised contracts though. I think it's something both England and Wales need to consider.
=

Dreamer, [thanks for the welcome]

If you broke it down logically say fifteen years ago, you'd probably have agreed that England and France would have won about six HCs each, Ireland 1 and Wales 2 - roughly.

But as it is Ireland are 'overperforming', France on expectation and England in decline. And Wales - well best not discuss that.

Ireland have the key to success. France have a dubious strategy. Central contracts are the way to go.

And to get there we need a man it an iron fist.

I'm not sure I would say England are in decline Portnoys. Certainly you could say they could be achieving more but like other's have pointed out, a lot of English sides have a v good chance of getting our of their pools in this years HEC. I don't see a sign of a decline yet personally.

And you're right, let's not discuss how Wales are doing at the moment!

Portnoy, firstly welcome glad you could make it.

Second is it a case of Ireland "overperforming" or is it a case of us having better player development strategies in place.

Overperforming suggests a temporary blip. Do you see it as being a Golden Generation or an upwards spiral.

So we should be expecting the Scottish clubs to start winning the HC when?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So we should be expecting the Scottish clubs to start winning the HC when?

Well if what Portnoy is suggesting holds true, then never, Biscuit - does that make you happy?

red_stag wrote:Portnoy, firstly welcome glad you could make it.

Second is it a case of Ireland "overperforming" or is it a case of us having better player development strategies in place.

Overperforming suggests a temporary blip. Do you see it as being a Golden Generation or an upwards spiral.

Stag - I had to stay with 606 until the bitter end. And I've had my week of grief.

As I've been saying for years, Ireland fell into a honey-pot. On professionalism they had the fortune of (accidentally) the precise structure for growth and development - and they grasped the opportunity with both hands.

They are currently in a virtuous circle. But the test will come when the time comes (inevitably - as it happens to all) when you have to suffer five years of failure.

The overcoming of failure after success is the biggest test of all. (cf. England 1966).

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Portnoy, firstly welcome glad you could make it.

Second is it a case of Ireland "overperforming" or is it a case of us having better player development strategies in place.

Overperforming suggests a temporary blip. Do you see it as being a Golden Generation or an upwards spiral.

Stag - I had to stay with 606 until the bitter end. And I've had my week of grief.

As I've been saying for years, Ireland fell into a honey-pot. On professionalism they had the fortune of (accidentally) the precise structure for growth and development - and they grasped the opportunity with both hands.

They are currently in a virtuous circle. But the test will come when the time comes (inevitably - as it happens to all) when you have to suffer five years of failure.

The overcoming of failure after success is the biggest test of all. (cf. England 1966).

Oh there is no doubt that we had some luck with already recognised provinces. But the IRFU has take stick for persisting with the provinces. What some people were calling for originally was to split Munster and have Cork, Limerick, Belfast and Dublin. Also we had a vibrant club system like the Welsh or even the English. That had to be shelved and it was with much kicking and screaming.

Tough decisions were made that yielded fruits.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So we should be expecting the Scottish clubs to start winning the HC when?

Well if what Portnoy is suggesting holds true, then never, Biscuit - does that make you happy?

But arent the players centraly contracted in Scotland? So surely they should be winning the HC?


As for England the RFU had its chance to do something in the 90's when they professionalised the game, instead they just shrugged their shoulders and continued to pocket ever increasing revenues whilst the clubs went to teh wall.
Now they have some kind of laboratory where they are breeding genetic bioengineered warriors of the future ( did you see the Tigers vs England Academy game? theres no way some of those kids are real ...maybe I watched Universal Soldier too many times but seriously George North has nothing on them) which they will use to repace all our carefuly recruited south africans and kiwis.
I suspect they would be quite happy to only have "Team England" rugby oplayed in this country anbd do away with eth tresome clubs altogether. Theres not much point in playing rugby outside Twickenham anyway, and lets face it its not like Whitton needs a High Street anyway.

Im pretty sure had a point.

red_stag wrote:

Tough decisions were made that yielded fruits.

Is it Ok to make mildly homophobic jokes about Johny Wilkinson on here?

I think the EPS works fine for England. Lets face it. England did not produce enough good rugby players after the great players they had in the late 90's and early 00's retired. I don't see how relegation or central contracts would have made English players more talented. They are producing more talent now obviously. Saints are the obvious example but also other Premiership teams. English rugby is on the up again after some barren years. That's just the way it goes.

Brian O'Driscoll isn't better than any English player because he's on a central contract. He'd be better no matter what type of contract he was on. A relatively poor batch of English players between '04 and '10 happened to coincide with a relatively good batch of Irish players. Seven wins out of eight encounters in the Six Nations says it all. The Irish players over those years were just better.

It won't always be that way. Saints and Harlequins showed that the general quality of English players has improved recently. If this burst of new talent becomes a flow then England will win more Heineken Cups, whether there's central contracts or not.

Portnoy wrote:No way will an English club win the HEC whilst their right wrists are manacled to their left ankles.

That's a very black and white statement, considering an English club got within 40 minutes of winning the HEC this year.

Portnoy wrote:What with relegation, meagre salary caps, international calls, play-offs and the inevitable burn-outs it will be a few seasons before we see any success.

Portnoy wrote:French clubs have a big chance next year (every year) with their huge budgets and a galactico buying policies - but maybe that's unsustainable in the long run.

Apart from their salary cap being less than meagre, everything else you list as being a hindrance to English clubs applies to French teams, so why do the French teams have a chance every year, but the English have none?

Biscuit, no such thing as central contracts in Scotland - can't afford them. We prefer to ship our best lads overseas and have someone else pay for them

Just remember you saw it here: Quins will win H/C

george doors wrote:Just remember you saw it here: Quins will win H/C

Ah but when?

Its a big claim. Mine is Northampton to have a poor European campaign. I thought they got the luck of the draw last year and will find it much tougher this time around.

Central contracts the key to Englands future? No, dont think so.

What England need to do is set up an academy in every top flight club and teach young kids how to play the game of rugby properly.

If they do this, 2 things will happen..

1. The much mentionned "salary cap" whould not be an issue because you would have home grown talent in England and

2. You would reduce the need for foreigners to be recruited to play for the national team and get rid of the the reputation and name England have (New Zealand C)

I also agree that giving central contract wont make your players any better. Thats just folly and smacks of excuse making for having poor players to be honest.

Boyne wrote:Central contracts the key to Englands future? No, dont think so.

What England need to do is set up an academy in every top flight club and teach young kids how to play the game of rugby properly.

They have. But it's recent and is only now starting to filter through. The English club squads are becoming more 'English' and younger.

Boyne wrote:If they do this, 2 things will happen..

1. The much mentionned "salary cap" whould not be an issue because you would have home grown talent in England and

Doesn't make sense. If they produce better young English players then they'll cost more (e.g. are Lawes, Cole and Youngs, their salaries will have shot up in the last couple of months). At the moment the cap hinders playing academy players as they're outside of the cap unless they play a certain number of games. This is being eased next year I believe.

Boyne wrote:2. You would reduce the need for foreigners to be recruited to play for the national team and get rid of the the reputation and name England have (New Zealand C)

I really don't care what a few idiots think of England. At least the RFU doesn't have 'project players'. How many kiwi's are in the English EPS? 2? Is Flutey still there? 3? Out of 32. What about South Africans? 1? Can't really remember the squad

Boyne wrote:I also agree that giving central contract wont make your players any better. Thats just folly and smacks of excuse making for having poor players to be honest.

It was an issue before the EPS but we have similar time with the team and control over their training and medical issues. That's fine for us.

Who would have thought a few years ago that we would be looking at Ireland as a model for english rugby.

This isn't knocking Irish rugby but during the early days of professional rugby Ireland were anything but.

Its time the clubs and rfu sorted out this mess the LV cup should be scrapped as it offers very little to the clubs/regions or England and Wales.

For most of history Ireland has had nothing to offer. Professionalism has been the best thing to ever happen us.

.....yes and we've grabbed whatever opportunities we were given.

Ireland is a very small country with (more so now than ever) limited resources.

In England, there is so much money with Sky deals and vested interests that I feel the game is not being looked after properly...

[quote]Doesn't make sense. If they produce better young English players then they'll cost more (e.g. are Lawes, Cole and Youngs, their salaries will have shot up in the last couple of months). At the moment the cap hinders playing academy players as they're outside of the cap unless they play a certain number of games. This is being eased next year I believe.


It makes perfect sense.... If you are producing good young players in bucketfuls (like we seem to be doing) the cost of labour will drastically decrease..... and perhpaps teams like N Hampton can build a squad instead of depending on the same 15.

England has a huge population. You should use it to your adantage.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Boyne wrote:Central contracts the key to Englands future? No, dont think so.

What England need to do is set up an academy in every top flight club and teach young kids how to play the game of rugby properly.

They have. But it's recent and is only now starting to filter through. The English club squads are becoming more 'English' and younger.

Boyne wrote:If they do this, 2 things will happen..

1. The much mentionned "salary cap" whould not be an issue because you would have home grown talent in England and

Doesn't make sense. If they produce better young English players then they'll cost more (e.g. are Lawes, Cole and Youngs, their salaries will have shot up in the last couple of months). At the moment the cap hinders playing academy players as they're outside of the cap unless they play a certain number of games. This is being eased next year I believe.

Boyne wrote:2. You would reduce the need for foreigners to be recruited to play for the national team and get rid of the the reputation and name England have (New Zealand C)

I really don't care what a few idiots think of England. At least the RFU doesn't have 'project players'. How many kiwi's are in the English EPS? 2? Is Flutey still there? 3? Out of 32. What about South Africans? 1? Can't really remember the squad

Boyne wrote:I also agree that giving central contract wont make your players any better. Thats just folly and smacks of excuse making for having poor players to be honest.

It was an issue before the EPS but we have similar time with the team and control over their training and medical issues. That's fine for us.

Thunor, isn't there a new ruling coming into force soon about exempting academy players (up to 8?) that you can hold on to in your senior squad from the salary cap calculation?

As, yes. I think it's 8 players under 25 who came through the acadamy get part of their salary outside the cap.

Boyne et al, you are quite correct in saying that central contracts can and will do diddly for a players talent, but when you own him you can choose when and when not to put him to work. Any top Irish player plays a maximum of 34/35 games a season. built into that are rest periods too.

So where this benefits the super talented or the journey man is in terms of player welfare. Which benefits the national team as the coach should be able to exploit greater continuity due to a decrease in player injuries and secondly, the clubs will benefit from exposing younger talent a couple of times aseason as well as knowing their player have a max of 34 games a season in all comps. Win win. Oh and they aren't paying them either!

Would it work flawlessly in England, that is very much open to debate, but if NZ, Oz and Ireland can do it, I dont see why England (or France!) couln't ever do it. It would require some surgery to the league structure and probably a pay off for Premier Rugby, but no pain no gain.

Boyne wrote:If you are producing good young players in bucketfuls (like we seem to be doing) the cost of labour will drastically decrease..... and perhpaps teams like N Hampton can build a squad instead of depending on the same 15.

We are producing good young players in bucketfuls - over the last few years we have regularly won Grand Slams at u20 and u18 level as well as making the last 4 of the JRWC. We are also progressing a lot of youngsters, through the Saxons, into the Senior team. The academy system set up a few years ago is now starting to bear it's fruits.

What you have to remember is that our talent is spread across 10-12 clubs rather than 3 provinces. You can't compare the regional system in Ireland to the club system in England.

If all of our talent was condensed into 3 provinces then we would be very competitive and perhaps even dominant in the Heineken and we would need very few NEQ players.

We have just won the 6 Nations and had a club win the Amlin and almost win the Heineken Cup. We are barely in crisis!

Portnoy wrote:

As I've been saying for years, Ireland fell into a honey-pot. On professionalism they had the fortune of (accidentally) the precise structure for growth and development - and they grasped the opportunity with both hands.

They are currently in a virtuous circle. But the test will come when the time comes (inevitably - as it happens to all) when you have to suffer five years of failure.

The overcoming of failure after success is the biggest test of all. (cf. England 1966).

Sorry but I don't buy that Ireland fell unto anything. The IRFU were simply on the ball at the beginning of professionalism and made some key descisions which have laid and continues to lay the foundations for the provinces and national side to perform close to their potential.

Firstly the discision to attract back English based players like Humphreys, Bell, Mason, Johns, Henderson etc. was a risk as these guys were getting 1st team rugby at big English clubs. This could have been detimental to the short term performance of the National side but has ultimately led to 5 HEC wins and a number of Magners titles for 3 of the provinces.

The central contracting was key from the start and the oveseas quotas have all helped us be relatively successful.

Choosing to invest in Connaght rather than use LI as a feeder club was a bold decision too which may or may not prove the correct descision down the line.

The fact is Ireland have been relatively more successful than England because the IRFU, whilst being far from perfect, has been proactive in terms of impementing structures which have proved successful and the RFU have been complacent and slow to implement change, particularly so post 2003.

In fact the English clubs should have done better beacuse they have not been burdened with balancing the national interest the way the Irish provinces have.

Ulster benifitted from the English boycott for sure but in most of the years our teams have won they have been the strongest sides, particlarly 2008 and 2011. Leinster have underachieved for years and Ulster have been mismanaged for a number of seasons and should have done better than they have.

The National side too should have won at least 2 more grandslams/6n titles and got their preperation horribly wrong in the 2007 WC.

I don't think Ireland have overacheived at all given their player base, structures and quality but have arguably underachieved over the past decade.

Rodders, agree 100% that the National side should have won FAR more than 1 6N (albeit a Grand Slam year) since 2000 and certainly since 2004. But we were one bad decision to run a final penalty against Italy and not alone not score but conceed 7 points. That is inches. One poor restart from a Grand Slam and 6N in 07 (in the same game Steve Walsh also missed an Ireland advantage that would have had Geordan Murphy under the sticks) but that is all ifs and buts i am indulging in.

The IRFU choose central contracting as a way on maintaining their old control (and no little disdain too) over and of players going forward post the RWC 1995, remember this is the same Union that voted against the RWC as a concept. However, through their own beligerance and to be far some far sightedness too, they got the acorns in the soil early. When the accountants then got some sway inside they have managed the situation fairly well (until the recent ticket pricing fiasco they had pretty much nailed everything within their control over the last decade) and their support of and nurturing of the Provinces has been pretty much spot on, and for the recordm while Connacht are on the hind tite, they have been very useful to the big three and now the National team for player developement and hopefully the IRFU now see that as the case and will commit to their medium and long term existance, to that end they need to develope an Amlin Cup strategy to help get Connacht to the knockouts regurily and even be in a position to win the thing and get more HC rugby (and more revenues too) consistantly beating the Scottish, Italian and Welsh teams is and will continue to be a target and to be fair to all concerned, the Inter-Pros take care of themselves in respect of competivness.

Yes, the English clubs would be better if they had 3/4 sides in which to condense talent, rather than 12, but they dont need so few when they have their playing numbers. The Law of Diminishing returns notwithstanding, the player base in England is such that if identical rules were introduced in the England re 5/6 NEQ's (and the unwritten rule about picking players playing abraod) after no more than 2 seasons England would not alone be back to where the are now, each teams' outlook in the Jeff as well as Europe would be one of rude English health.

Put it this way, in Ireland right now there are to my recollection, 5 NIQ Outhalves; ROG, Sexton, Keatley, Humphreys and O'Connor. In England there could realistically be circa 18 or 19 between the 12 sides.. Amd I'm not talking about 19 year olds that weigh 12 stone ringing wet either.

debaters1 wrote:Yes, the English clubs would be better if they had 3/4 sides in which to condense talent, rather than 12, but they dont need so few when they have their playing numbers. The Law of Diminishing returns notwithstanding, the player base in England is such that if identical rules were introduced in the England re 5/6 NEQ's (and the unwritten rule about picking players playing abraod) after no more than 2 seasons England would not alone be back to where the are now, each teams' outlook in the Jeff as well as Europe would be one of rude English health.

Put it this way, in Ireland right now there are to my recollection, 5 NIQ Outhalves; ROG, Sexton, Keatley, Humphreys and O'Connor. In England there could realistically be circa 18 or 19 between the 12 sides.. Amd I'm not talking about 19 year olds that weigh 12 stone ringing wet either.

I don't understand the England are in crisis talk - we have loads of English players coming through.

Our outlook is fine. Ever since we started up the Academy system we have been bringing through a good stream of English players. I feel that our system is working fine and by 2015 I'm sure we will see the full fruit of that - especially if we get SCW to help create the correct professional environment for these players to flourish.

For illustration, English qualified fly halves in the AP:

Flood
Hodgson
Lamb
Walder
Myler
Farrell
Burns
Andy Goode
Clegg
Miller
Vesty
Steenson (Also Irish qualified)
Jarvis
T. Taylor
Davis
Joe Ford

Obviously, not all of them are international class but it shows our clubs are committed to playing English players.

Then there are the likes of Alex Goode, Billy Twelvetrees and Olly Barkley, who can play at Fly Half. Next season you will have Joel Hodgson and George Ford as well. Playing abroad you have Cipriani and Wilkinson.

debators I hear what you are saying but having larger player numbers and more clubs has very little correlation with success in rugby or any other sport for that matter.

If this were the case the Rugby would be dominated by England, South Africa and France and no one else would get a look in, including New Zealand or Australia. If the USA, Russia and China took the sport seriously then we should all through in the towel?

The fact that England could field 18 FH's to Irelands 5 is irrelevent if both sides only have 2 which prove to be top class.

Munster have proved to be one of the best European sides of the past decade with a fairly limited player base and without spending a huge amount on recruiting players.

A team is only as good as the best 22(3) players it can put on the field on a given day regardless of whether these players are selected from 50 or 5 million. On this basis English rugby has not underachieved any more than Irish rugby has overachieved.

debaters, if you build it they will come, approach?

The player number figures in England are ridiculous. They also include a lot of New Zealanders, South Africans, Italian, Argentinian, Australians, Pacific Islander, etc people over here playing in the amateur leagues.

If we could legally introduce a quota of 5 foreign players per club there would be either a massive drop in quality of all the clubs (the additional English players aren't good enough to get picked at the moment) or a few clubs would buy up all the best England players and there would be a two tier system with a massive gap. If this was legal (a key point remember) then it might improve things in the long run (although I don't think throwing numbers would improve players and we already have loads of players at the level below world class). we currently have about 180 EQ players playing in the Jeff week in week out (about 120 starting). That's the equivalent of about 8 100% English sides. Will more help? [disclaimer: rough numbers only. Please contact Juggler for actual values]

Instead of this the RFU are paying for English players (if the clubs stop messing around) this rewards clubs for having elite England players. They reward clubs with above a certain number of English Qualified players (which has seen a decrease in foreign players in the squads this year and it was only introduced a couple of years ago). We've recently got club acadamy and national acadamy set up which has resulted in the English players being on average younger this year. The salary cap rules are changing, which will make it easier and financially rewarding to give more game time to acadamy players.

What other changes can be made? I here a lot about 'quotas' but they're illegal. There already is one allowing 1 foreign player per playing squad. Which is pretty useless due to trade laws.

Sorry but i don't see how central contacts benefit English clubs or help them to win the H cup. The national side yes. That's the whole point of central contracts as i understand it. Making sure that the best players are not playing more than a certain amount of games per season.

How would this help a club that wants to win in Europe? Having your best players for limited amounts of time must be really difficult to manage and it absolutely would force you to try out unproved youngsters and hope for the best. Do you think that this is the ideal scenario for success in club rugby? Do you think that any manager wants this system to juggle?

It is depth and an abundance of young talent that has enabled Leinster, for example to succeed this year. In a small country, even with the sports increased popularity, this quality in young players is likely to be inconsistent and i will be surprised if there aren't slumps in the clubs performance in the future. Especially since the IRFU are reducing again the number of foreign players permitted to play in each club.

I really don't understand why England aren't swimming in young talented players. Your greatest strength is your huge playing numbers. Why isn't the talent being spotted and nurtured? Even if the clubs could only afford to keep the youngsters for the first year before a French club snapped him up this still seems like an advantage that English clubs should have. Where are all the young talented players in England? There should be seven or eight times the amount that Ireland produce. Even if the player numbers were only three times what there are in Ireland i just don't see that amount pushing into the professional sides there. Sorry if i'm wrong in this and all the clubs have fabulous young English players, this is just my impression.

I don't buy this comparison with Ireland saying that the talent is spread out over 12 sides not 4 so there isn't the same depth. Anyone with any sense looking at the playing numbers listed (166,762 senior male players in England compared to 25,440 in Ireland according to the IRB) would see that each club in England has a vast amount of players to choose from in comparison to Ireland. Why is this natural advantage not being used?

As for limits on foreign players yes it can legally be done. The French have figured out how and are bringing it in next season. Basically they require that a certain number of players have certain education in rugby. 6 years for example with a French club/academy before the age of 21. I'm not quoting this is vaguely what they're doing. That way foreign players are not being discriminated against because of nationality but because of education/qualifications.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/breves2010/20101109_220755_le-jiff-maintenu-a-40-en-2011.html

That however means that if you started playing rugby late (19) you would always count as 'foriegn'. Same goes if you started a uni and didn't immediately join an acadamy.

This would be a rather extreme solution to a non-existant problem.

I'm sure all of the various club fans could give lists of all their players under 25 who are in the 1st team squad. Rather than make assumptions why don't you actually look? It's not hard to find out.

As Thunor says, there is no problem.

We had a problem before about 2007 as we didn't have a proper Academy structure however since then we have improved dramatically (look at our u20/JRWC results).

The players resulting from this are now filtering to first team level on both the club and international stage.

On the old 606, I remember a thread where each nation listed their u25 side - England were very competitive in terms of depth and quality. By 2015, we will have a very good international side, if we are managed correctly, and I'm sure a few of our sides will be very strong in the Heineken by then as well.

End of Thread.

The IRFU have a limit on NIQ players, and we too are in the EU and subject to its employment laws etc so I cannot see why we (Ireland) can organise things in this way but the RFU can't. That French education thingy is good. I like it in terms of getting around the law legally.

Rodders, agreed that success and numbers do not necessarily equate, but take England in 2007. The team that were beaten in Paris in the RWC Final only had two/three survivors from the one that was mullered in Croker the March beforehand. If Ireland changed 12 players in six months (even though three of them would have been the likes of Heaslip, Kearney & Bowe) the other 9 would have been very much 2nd if not 3rd string. That is where Englands strength is and should always be; relatively seamless & painless interchanges.

Deccie has built a squad for sure but the Jeff has three such squads! As for why you'd have central contracts, well, for permanent control (as far as I am aware the agreement between the RFU and Premier Rugby is a set time, RWC cyclce or something) And it means no arguement like the 4th nternational in November etc!

debaters1 wrote:The IRFU have a limit on NIQ players, and we too are in the EU and subject to its employment laws etc so I cannot see why we (Ireland) can organise things in this way but the RFU can't. That French education thingy is good. I like it in terms of getting around the law legally.

I know the Welsh regions have a 'quota' that is based on the WRU stopping funding if you go above it. Irish one might be similar or it could do with the fact the Irish provinces are technically representative sides. Don't know.

debaters1 wrote:Rodders, agreed that success and numbers do not necessarily equate, but take England in 2007. The team that were beaten in Paris in the RWC Final only had two/three survivors from the one that was mullered in Croker the March beforehand. If Ireland changed 12 players in six months (even though three of them would have been the likes of Heaslip, Kearney & Bowe) the other 9 would have been very much 2nd if not 3rd string. That is where Englands strength is and should always be; relatively seamless & painless interchanges.

+1
This is definitely the benefit of larger player base. It widens the number of players at each level but does raise the standard. Obviously there are limits to this. If you've only got 50 players eligible at all levels they're probably not going to be very good. However, injuries still hurt. I'd much rather a smaller player base and fewer injuries.

debaters1 wrote:Deccie has built a squad for sure but the Jeff has three such squads! As for why you'd have central contracts, well, for permanent control (as far as I am aware the agreement between the RFU and Premier Rugby is a set time, RWC cyclce or something) And it means no arguement like the 4th nternational in November etc!

It is time based, not sure when it runs out. But they are giving a huge amount of money to the clubs. Many will come to depend on this and therefore will probably want to renew it. I don't doubt there will be changes to the next agreement.

Killer_B_6 wrote:As Thunor says, there is no problem.

We had a problem before about 2007 as we didn't have a proper Academy structure however since then we have improved dramatically (look at our u20/JRWC results).

The players resulting from this are now filtering to first team level on both the club and international stage.

On the old 606, I remember a thread where each nation listed their u25 side - England were very competitive in terms of depth and quality. By 2015, we will have a very good international side, if we are managed correctly, and I'm sure a few of our sides will be very strong in the Heineken by then as well.

.

Killer, "End of Thread"

I don't think so.

Professionalism requires a degree of control.

Market forces unfettered will fail - as the bwankers have regally demonstrated.
Football is the best sporting analogy. And it's on a knife edge.

The nearest we have to footy at club level in RU is France. And if that is sustainable then I'd like to have the evidence. Looks like the supermarket wars of the last two decades - ultimately it'll end up with four or so dominant 'players'.

But that is essentially the nature of free markets - they all end up with three or four oligopolists.

In England - like in footy - ultimately there will condense a big three or four or five (you can easily name the usual suspects) - but it will happen.

But if you ate so certain it will happen, how can you be just as certain what you propose will stop it happening? You can't, you can't, you can't.

England and France will end up regionalising.

Glas a du wrote:But if you ate so certain it will happen, how can you be just as certain what you propose will stop it happening? You can't, you can't, you can't.

England and France will end up regionalising.

More likely Scotland and Wales will deregionalise

Portnoy wrote:

Glas a du wrote:But if you ate so certain it will happen, how can you be just as certain what you propose will stop it happening? You can't, you can't, you can't.

England and France will end up regionalising.

More likely Scotland and Wales will deregionalise

Yes, possible, but only to save the Jeff.

Portnoy wrote:

Glas a du wrote:But if you ate so certain it will happen, how can you be just as certain what you propose will stop it happening? You can't, you can't, you can't.

England and France will end up regionalising.

More likely Scotland and Wales will deregionalise

Portnoy, that may be a possible outcome in Wales, but you could argue that Scotland didn't regionalise properly in the first place so there's nothing to de-regionalise! I think it more than likely that Glasgow and Edinburgh will stay, and that as the SRU perceives finances allow, another pro team will be added, either in the Highlands or in the Borders