No new contracts for women's xv

Seems a bit odd when the team has been doing so well but the funding for the team will be stopped at the end of the current contract. The rfu will ficus on funding the women's 7 s team.

Given the rising attention and money made last year it's a surprising decision for me. They should surely be keeping the contacts looking for further improvements and helping to put pressure on the beeb etc to show full 6 nations games on TV etc.

Women's Rugby World Cup 2017: England XVs contracts will not be renewed - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40704070

Disappointing.

Not much more to be said

Perfect timing by the RFU - the spirit of the 57 old farts lives on!

With Rugby 7's being an Olympic sport, it appears more and more unions are concentrating on this, especially in the womens game, in Ireland the women on 7's contact missed part of the 6 nations, due to having to play in a 7's tournament

http://www.the42.ie/ireland-six-nations-pulled-sevens-duty-3251408-Feb2017/

IRFU to pull three key Ireland players from Six Nations to go on 7s duty

It looks like increasingly the Unions will focus on the 7's now.

I saw this in the rugby paper - if it's been handled as reported it's hugely disappointing. These players have given up their non-rugby careers to concentrate on playing and have now been told that it was, in effect, all for nothing.

And to make it worse, they've been told this just before the RWC - so that not only do they have to scramble to find new jobs but it must surely detract from their ability to focus on playing.

I am usually pretty good at understanding both sides of the argument and I usually find myself as the one defending the RFU on here.

But this I find hard to find any reasonable justification for. It doesn't even make good business sense: the reputational damage that the RFU seems certain to suffer as a result of this is likely to deter promising female players from wanting to contract with them. That surely outweighs the financial saving from at least funding the 15s players through a transitional phase.

Scrum Queens comment:

https://twitter.com/ScrumQueens/status/889576445621809155

Poorfour wrote:And to make it worse, they've been told this just before the RWC - so that not only do they have to scramble to find new jobs but it must surely detract from their ability to focus on playing.

This isn't correct. They will have been aware as it's a cyclical process; 15s is funded, then 7s. They will be funded again in the lead up to the next World Cup. I don't believe any other union funds women's 15, or in a way comparable to England Women's funding.

Poorfour wrote:I saw this in the rugby paper - if it's been handled as reported it's hugely disappointing. These players have given up their non-rugby careers to concentrate on playing and have now been told that it was, in effect, all for nothing.

And to make it worse, they've been told this just before the RWC - so that not only do they have to scramble to find new jobs but it must surely detract from their ability to focus on playing.

I am usually pretty good at understanding both sides of the argument and I usually find myself as the one defending the RFU on here.

But this I find hard to find any reasonable justification for. It doesn't even make good business sense: the reputational damage that the RFU seems certain to suffer as a result of this is likely to deter promising female players from wanting to contract with them. That surely outweighs the financial saving from at least funding the 15s players through a transitional phase.

It's important to note that the contracts they signed were always due to expire at this point. To that end, they always knew that their futures would be up in the air at the end of their contract. I'd guess that the contracts they signed were not amazingly well paid.

For those reasons, on one hand I'd say that if any of them gave up decent careers for a short term contract in an unstable environment/sector then that would be foolish. On the other hand, I can completely understand how the dream of playing professional sport could be seen as worth the risk. The men had to face a similar choice in the mid 90s.

There is a difference with the men though, the men's game was already making lots of money for those involved, just not the players. And specifically for the RFU, they weren't the first and had to follow suit to keep pace with the likes of the Australians. It will have been a far easier choice for the men to make as it will have looked far more likely to succeed than the women's game does today.

It's sad for the players involved, and if it leads to a decline in quality it's sad for the fans too. But perhaps Women's rugby just doesn't have a following that justifies professionalism?

Record profit last year for the rfu though wasn't it? Bit short sighted though as there is room for growth specially as they are v good! Purely from a business sense it's worth it.

Scottrf wrote:

Poorfour wrote:And to make it worse, they've been told this just before the RWC - so that not only do they have to scramble to find new jobs but it must surely detract from their ability to focus on playing.

This isn't correct. They will have been aware as it's a cyclical process; 15s is funded, then 7s. They will be funded again in the lead up to the next World Cup. I don't believe any other union funds women's 15, or in a way comparable to England Women's funding.

10 of the 15 contacted players are getting new 7s contracts in the new cycle. Presumably the other 5 are front rowers ...

Beyond words.....with the recent BBC sexism highlight, it only takes a media savvy playing group and the RFU will be shown up for the dinosaurs they are.

Salaries in the RFU are a disgrace and here they are cutting the primary growth driver of the world game. They're cretins, but we already knew that.

Wood
Thomas
Andrew
Lancaster

Oh yer baby.....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Record profit last year for the rfu though wasn't it? Bit short sighted though as *there is room for growth specially as they are v good! **Purely from a business sense it's worth it.

*Based on what? What growth? No-one knows just how interested the paying public are in the womens game, not really. If you looked at figures alone I'd say the answer is "not very much". Beyond that, everyone is just guessing. And they really are guessing, for all we hear about record viewing figures for the womens 6N, this 6N was the first to actually have all the games broadcast. So it was always going to have more viewers. That figure tells us very little.

**Based on what? The RFU are not stupid. They will back what makes money. My entire point surrounded the women choosing to sign contracts, not the responsibilities of the RFU to support the game. If you are one of those people who thinks individual Unions are responsible for growing the women's game (I'm not, I think that's on WR, just the same as growing tier 2 rugby) then by all means criticise the RFU for a lack of backing. But I was pointing out that the womens game is in a different place to the mens game when it went professional in 1995. So on that note, the women were always at risk. This development should not have surprised anyone.

I do think the rfu are responsible for growing the game in England yes. As the media coverage grows so will interest. I don't think it's only the parts of the game which generate funds which should be reported else we'd have no money going to grass roots or the under age teams either. But the women's game does have the potential to make quite a bit of money in the mid to long term.

Well that's disheartening, only further exacerbated by the fact the team were doing really well. Perhaps the RFU could do with some ex-female rugby players on the board? Then their voice may be heard.

I don't believe there is real interest in Women's sport. The average England Women's attendance in the 6 Nations was 3,500 whereas the men could sell out Twickenham many times over at probably a higher price. And the male players aren't exactly the richest sportsmen.

Scottrf wrote:I don't believe there is real interest in Women's sport. The average England Women's attendance in the 6 Nations was 3,500 whereas the men could sell out Twickenham many times over at probably a higher price. And the male players aren't exactly the richest sportsmen.

You're right but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given their shot, and not given the opportunity to grow.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I don't believe there is real interest in Women's sport. The average England Women's attendance in the 6 Nations was 3,500 whereas the men could sell out Twickenham many times over at probably a higher price. And the male players aren't exactly the richest sportsmen.

You're right but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given their shot, and not given the opportunity to grow.  

Subsidised by the men? Is that really fair?

Yes it is. The rest of the game is pretty much subsidised by the men at the top level. Should funding be cut for the u20s. Grass roots. Should the funding for having English qualified players be stopped for the club's.

Should tv rights for clubs be sold separately rather than split?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes it is. The rest of the game is pretty much subsidised by the men at the top level. Should funding be cut for the u20s. Grass roots. Should the funding for having English qualified players be stopped for the club's.

All of the things you mention benefit the mens game at the top level so it's a separate issue. The real discussion is whether with probably 1/100 the earning potential of the men it's realistic to be professional.

So everything the rfu do should benefit the england 15? I disagree anyway.

The RFU works in cycles of two years. The current cycle ends this year, the XVs contracts then become 7s contracts for two years to cover the 7s World Cup and I think the Olympics too

No 7&1/2 wrote:I do think the rfu are responsible for growing the game in England yes. As the media coverage grows so will interest. I don't think it's only the parts of the game which generate funds which should be reported else we'd have no money going to grass roots or the under age teams either. But the women's game does have the potential to make quite a bit of money in the mid to long term.

Based on what?

Increasing media coverage of both rugby and women's sport in general. What comes first the chicken or the egg? Why wouldn't we want to see funding to all areas of rugby continue. The rfu are making enough profit, they don't have to choose.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes it is. The rest of the game is pretty much subsidised by the men at the top level. Should funding be cut for the u20s. Grass roots. Should the funding for having English qualified players be stopped for the club's.

I don't think that's a good parallel.

Those are the things that feed back in to the men's game (since that's where the interest and therefore money is) and are essential to make the men's game successful and therefore profitable.

EDIT: apologies, I see Scott has already made this point.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Increasing media coverage of both rugby and women's sport in general. What comes first the chicken or the egg? Why wouldn't we want to see funding to all areas of rugby continue. The rfu are making enough profit, they don't have to choose.

And this was my point. When the men went professional, the money and interest was already there. So one of the chicken or the egg had already arrived. It is not the same situation for the women.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Increasing media coverage of both rugby and women's sport in general. What comes first the chicken or the egg? Why wouldn't we want to see funding to all areas of rugby continue. The rfu are making enough profit, they don't have to choose.

Yes they do. They have to make choices all of the time. Not every coach and player in rugby is professional.

But those areas don't make money now do they. Why is it ok to say we'll invest foe the future in one area and not another cas?

They don't need to save money by not continuing this funding scott.

Scott has already explained that better than I have, 7.5.

I suppose then there is a question of does he rfu or should it pull back from.funding any community initiatives etc which won't see a benefit for the top level mens game. Again not something id like to see like a don't like to see this.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They don't need to save money by not continuing this funding scott.

That's a platitude not an economic analysis. No single payment will bankrupt them but there will always be choices to be made. Why don't other unions fund their women's teams?

Not even saying that they shouldn't be funded permanently but to act like it's a no brainer when barely anyone is really interested is a stretch.

There's a long term view that there's plenty of scope for the women's game to grow scott. Again there's plenty of areas that the rfu fund which don't bring profit, that's their role as well as making money in the short term. They continue to fund women's rugby so why cut something which yu don't have to when you making an overall profit still. What sense does it make?

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a long term view that there's plenty of scope for the women's game to grow scott. Again there's plenty of areas that the rfu fund which don't bring profit, that's their role as well as making money in the short term. They continue to fund women's rugby so why cut something which yu don't have to when you making an overall profit still. What sense does it make?

Why would any institution control costs when they are still making a profit? Is that a real question?

I have to say I don't really agree that there's a massive scope for growth in women's sport. It just doesn't match the reality of any sports fans I know.

That fine. So you think that all funding the rfu does should be pulled back to nothing if it doesn't feed back to benefit the top level which makes the money? I'm still not overly sure if you think it's fine to cut the women's funding while seemingly keeping everything else the same. It was a real question as they could cut mens money if they wanted to.do some proper saving. Cut the very grass roots. Cut funding around disability or their crime programmes. Are we really saying the rfu need to do this or are we not really bothered as it's an area of the sport which doesn't interest you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That fine. So you think that all funding the rfu does should be pulled back to nothing if it doesn't feed back to benefit the top level which makes the money? I'm still not overly sure if you think it's fine to cut the women's funding while seemingly keeping everything else the same. It was a real question as they could cut mens money if they wanted to.do some proper saving. Cut the very grass roots. Cut funding around disability or their crime programmes. Are we really saying the rfu need to do this or are we not really bothered as it's an area of the sport which doesn't interest you.

I'm saying that I think it's fairer to reward the people that create the money in the first place. Without them nothing else can be funded. The more you divert from this the less lucrative the sport becomes and ultimately everything suffers.

The question over whether they should be funded constantly (as they already are cyclically) I'm saying is more complicated and probably beyond our knowledge.

Scottrf wrote:

Poorfour wrote:And to make it worse, they've been told this just before the RWC - so that not only do they have to scramble to find new jobs but it must surely detract from their ability to focus on playing.

This isn't correct. They will have been aware as it's a cyclical process; 15s is funded, then 7s. They will be funded again in the lead up to the next World Cup. I don't believe any other union funds women's 15, or in a way comparable to England Women's funding.

Sorry, yes - I was reacting to the Rugby Paper article and hadn't read the more balanced BBC one.

The issue, though, is with cyclical funding. For the players who won't roll from 15s into 7s, it's very hard to have to keep switching between rugby and a conventional job every cycle.

Mrs Poorfour made a very sensible suggestion, which was that the RFU could very easily offer the non-7s players roles in community rugby development. They have plenty of vacancies, and it would enable the players to stay in the system, albeit training at lower intensity, in the off-cycle years.

But it is melvilles role to continue to develop that area anyway scott. 400 million profit last year. What sense is it to come out with this now just before the WC. A bit of a kick in the teeth whether they were half expecting it or not.

Poorfour wrote:Mrs Poorfour made a very sensible suggestion, which was that the RFU could very easily offer the non-7s players roles in community rugby development. They have plenty of vacancies, and it would enable the players to stay in the system, albeit training at lower intensity, in the off-cycle years.

I believe a number are employed as such atm.

Not sure all fully quit their jobs, think Sarah Hunter still teaches.

Overall I feel that this cyclical policy will mean that neither XVs or 7s are developed to their full potential. Just my opinion but I do feel that the RFU in it's role as the guardian of the sport should be looking to invest in the Women's game to help the grass roots growth. This is not just about success at the top of the game but increasing activity levels amongst young females across the country.

I guess what the RFU are doing is what they can get away with - spending just enough on the women's game to keep ahead of other nations. It makes a certain amount of sense when its commercial future is uncertain, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Maybe they are afraid that if they invested enough in the women to create a sustainable advantage they'd end up with what's happened in football and cricket:

Daily Mash