A drains-up at the RFU: An holistic debate.

Out of the ashes of the debacle at HQ, a phoenix is required.

A full review of RU is required in England. Not like the English FA ones where they fail at every international competition, call for a drains-up and sit on their hands for another two years.

This brings together all those separate debates about the problems inherent in the English game from the top-down and side-to-side.

So it's only fair to make plain my agenda most of which I've stated separately before:

Central contracts to avoid burn-out of key players.
A reduced player cap to help clubs to survive. Clubs who provide most to the English cause get the most benefit and Clubs' over-reliant on imported talent are restricted. Maybe Robbo277's suggestion of 5+1 NEQ players has legs to contribute here.
An end to the playoffs. English rugby is based on leagues with promotion and relegation. So no Jeff games within the International Windows. Because of relegation and European places, there are virtually no dead-rubbers.
Sir Clive to become Performance Director. The one good thing to remain from the RFU screw-up is that Rob Andrew is still shuffling paper and remains out of harms way on the playing front. And Baron is gone - that's a supplementary positive. I would appoint a lieutenant to handle grass-roots issues and propose Phil Vickery.


Goal Setting:

National level:

To win the 2015 RWC.
6Ns - To win odd-numbered years 6Ns. Not to become below second in even-numbered years.
S&A Internationals. To beat each top 3 SH nations at home by 2013. To beat at least two of them away in 2014. To secure 75% success home and away between autumn 2014 and 2015.
To secure 75% success rates at age and women's rugby by winning 3 (each) 6Ns from 2012-15
England 'A', age-level and Women to reach final of all respective RWCs up to 2015.

Club level:
To secure 2 HECs and three Amlins by 2015.


Performance director:

To limit English squad players to 30x80 minutes playing time per domestic season plus up to three games per summer off-season.
To work wth the clubs to prioritise national and club goals.
To work with clubs to organise (at least part-time) elite national academies for all representative teams.
To support and develop existing and future initiatives to incentivise grass-roots rugby development with schools, colleges, universities and clubs at all levels of the game.

Tough goals throughout. But not unachievable.

If Carlsberg did wish lists...

I agree with the sentiment Portnoy, and I also think the level of standards you mention are fair targets for a nation with England's resources.

The problem I think could be in the timescales, the new performance director wont be able to do anything until after the world cup, and from that point on the primary consideration has to be towards winning it in 2015.

Performance targets in the 6N and against the SH sides would be a natural part of that long game, so that's all fair I think.

The restructuring of the AP, gaining control of the Elite Player's game time and changing the fixture list around to avoid club games during international windows all make sense but maybe a bit much to ask in the short term.

Forget the HC targets, that's not going to happen whilst our clubs biggest competition have no salary caps and/or no threat of relegation.

You cant centrally contract the players because the clubs have already signed these players. you cant legally approach a player to sign a contract when he already has a contract. The horse has already bolted on that issue I'm afraid.

You dont need to reduce the salary cap to be honest. Clubs have the budget they can afford, and England needs to stay competitive with France. Let clubs spend when they can afford to within their budget.

Quite right, the RFU missed the boat on central contracts, a major failing.

There could be a way around it though, what if EPS members didn't count towards your salary cap?

Maybe that would just result in more overseas signings?

You are restricting the availability of the cubs to use their best players while making finishing top of the league all important while also reducing the salary cap which will make it both harder to hold onto their best players and to build a deep enough squad to compensate for the reduced player availability.
You then expect the clubs to achieve greater success in Europe than they have done recently, having weakened them from their current position.

Your proposal seems to be that the clubs need to do more with less while setting up a system that is likely to heap much more pressure on promising young players who have to carry the burden of playing more important games while the teams best players aren't available as often? I think the result would be to greatly hamper the clubs while doing real damage to the development of young players by forcing clubs looking for success to over play them.

Also

Maybe Robbo277's suggestion of 5+1 NEQ players has legs to contribute here.

Wasn't his point that such a rule wasn't needed because across the 12 Premiership clubs there were already plenty of English Qualified players available?

The recent fuss has shown there are real problems with the RFU but the structure, I would argue, is working - there is strength in depth for every position and all the Premiership teams are producing talented batches of young players, the aim should be to see how to make it even better, not throw away what is, in my opinion, clearly working.

Snoopster, with 22 Jeff games and a maximum of 9 HC games I don't see 30x80 minute club games as being prohibitive to success in either competition, it just ensures that the best players are playing in the best games and makes the lesser cup competitions a proving ground for emerging talent.

I agree that there appears to be plenty of depth amongst the EQ players and that the current system doesn't appear to be broken, but what Portnoy is suggesting would not hamper clubs from competing in the Jeff or HC competitions, and if the lesser competitions have NEQ quota restrictions on them it will only serve to bring on more young talent through the ranks.

I don't think we're a million miles apart here.

snoopster forgive me for breakng your quote down into bite-size pieces.

snoopster wrote:

1. You are restricting the availability of the cubs to use their best players while making finishing top of the league all important while also reducing the salary cap which will make it both harder to hold onto their best players and to build a deep enough squad to compensate for the reduced player availability.

2. You then expect the clubs to achieve greater success in Europe than they have done recently, having weakened them from their current position. Your proposal seems to be that the clubs need to do more with less while setting up a system that is likely to heap much more pressure on promising young players who have to carry the burden of playing more important games while the teams best players aren't available as often? I think the result would be to greatly hamper the clubs while doing real damage to the development of young players by forcing clubs looking for success to over play them.

3. Also

Maybe Robbo277's suggestion of 5+1 NEQ players has legs to contribute here.

Wasn't his point that such a rule wasn't needed because across the 12 Premiership clubs there were already plenty of English Qualified players available?

4. The recent fuss has shown there are real problems with the RFU but the structure, I would argue, is working - there is strength in depth for every position and all the Premiership teams are producing talented batches of young players, the aim should be to see how to make it even better, not throw away what is, in my opinion, clearly working.

1. Central contracts (or a modified form of EPS that financially benefits the feeder clubs pro-rata) is more equitable than the current system. My proposal is to retain the inclusivity of the 'lesser' sides. So a lower wage-cap offset by benefits for the most successful clubs provides incentives all around.

2. No. Look a Leinster and Munster. Whilst the big boys are restricted to playing the top games, the youngsters are ganing experience.

3. There are, indeed enough English players but how many times has potential been gagged because of the presence of overseas bottom feeders. There is no reason why, by agreement, that a restriction could not be agreed.

4. It's often said that with it's numerical superiority, England underperforms. I'm looking to redress the imbalance. Or actually put a jack boot down.

PJHolybloke wrote:Snoopster, with 22 Jeff games and a maximum of 9 HC games I don't see 30x80 minute club games as being prohibitive to success in either competition, it just ensures that the best players are playing in the best games and makes the lesser cup competitions a proving ground for emerging talent.

One of us misunderstands what he's said - the current deal is that the players in the EPS can only play a maximum of 32 games a season, including internationals. Is Portnoy suggesting the top players should actually play more than that number of games each season then rather than a further reduction of it as I read it to mean?

PJHolybloke wrote:I agree that there appears to be plenty of depth amongst the EQ players and that the current system doesn't appear to be broken, but what Portnoy is suggesting would not hamper clubs from competing in the Jeff or HC competitions, and if the lesser competitions have NEQ quota restrictions on them it will only serve to bring on more young talent through the ranks.

Isn't he suggesting reducing both the salary cap and the number of NEQ players? I can't see how that can't reduce the standard of the clubs and given there is already plenty of chances for good young players to come through, I'm not sure of the benefit of bringing through the next most talented lot of young English players out of each generation, it means the standard of the game drops and our best players are suddenly playing at a lower level on a regular basis which makes it a bigger step up when they do play big games.
Basically I think it is bad for the clubs who will be forced to rely on less talented players and struggle to keep their best players who they can't afford to pay as much when the French clubs come calling and it will mean the players and the players aren't being tested in matches... for the benefit of making sure the 12 (or lower) best fly half in England gets regular game time for a premiership club.

PJHolybloke wrote:I don't think we're a million miles apart here.

We might be but it is I thing on different routes to the same end goal here.

My point was that if we implemented it we would have to boot out a few good foreign-qualified players who do contribute to the league. These would be replaced by the more average English-qualified players who don't get game-time at the moment.

What I would look to do is re-direct the flow of EPS money. EPS money goes directly to the players picked in the EPS. The amount paid by the England is then deducted from their club salary, so their club retains more money and more room in the salary cap to replace them when they are away.

So you break the year into 2 6-month periods. July-December and January-June. Now, let's say the EPS money is £100,000 per year, and a player is on £150,000 a year. If they are picked in the July EPS, they receive £50,000 from the RFU and £25,000 from their club for those 6 months. If they are retained in the EPS they get another £50,000 from the RFU and £25,000 from their club. If they are dropped by England, they get the £75,000 from their club.

The player gets his agreed £150,000 either way, so there is no financial incentive to turn down England.
England pay the players they use. That means it is the clubs that are disadvantaged that get the discount, there is no "smoothing" effect.
Clubs will save £100,000 if they get a player in the EPS. However, they still get their players for large parts of the season. This will compensate them for their lost players, but also offer an incentive to get their players into the EPS.

Snoopster,

Point 1 - I'm not sure about - Portnoy will have to explain that one. I took "domestic season" to mean excluding internationals.

Portnoy?

Point 2 - I read that Portnoy was suggesting a "handicap" form of salary cap where the poorer performing teams got to spend more than the successful ones? A little like the NFL where the teams finishing lowest get the first pick of the upcoming talent, I know American football is ring-fenced in terms of feeder talent, but I think the principal remains the same. By reducing the number of NEQ players at the same time, that should help promote the development of younger EQ players.

Point 3 - Quite possibly, but what which route would you be on? Do you think that we should broadly carry on the way we're going? I have to be honest, I don't think that English rugby is in a bad place with the current system, but I don't see there's much point in appointing a new performance director if they're not going to shake things up a bit.

My 30x80 game mins per season was meant to include International game minutes.

And so for the very best uninjured player is to restricted to 23 club games.

Much fewer in a RWC seasons if the side progresses far.

PJHolybloke wrote:Snoopster,

Point 2 - I read that Portnoy was suggesting a "handicap" form of salary cap where the poorer performing teams got to spend more than the successful ones? A little like the NFL where the teams finishing lowest get the first pick of the upcoming talent, I know American football is ring-fenced in terms of feeder talent, but I think the principal remains the same. By reducing the number of NEQ players at the same time, that should help promote the development of younger EQ players.

My argument is that any Central contract / EPS payments are made to the clubs holdng the registration. I don't know how the Irish sort ot registrations, but I don't see a lot of internal transfers.

Such payments would be excluded from any reduced wage cap.

So success is compensated. But equally clubs are restricted in their club game time.

OK, thanks for fleshing that out Portnoy.

In which case I think Snoopster has a point on the restriction of gametime for EPS players. When relegation is a threat I don't think it benefits clubs to develop players to the point that they get into the EPS if they then will be restricted in terms of how and when they can use them.

Even if they get compensated through the RFU paying the EPS players on central contracts, surely they would be more inclined to spend the slack on NEQ players to ring fence their cover options?

PJHolybloke wrote:OK, thanks for fleshing that out Portnoy.

In which case I think Snoopster has a point on the restriction of gametime for EPS players. When relegation is a threat I don't think it benefits clubs to develop players to the point that they get into the EPS if they then will be restricted in terms of how and when they can use them.

Even if they get compensated through the RFU paying the EPS players on central contracts, surely they would be more inclined to spend the slack on NEQ players to ring fence their cover options?

An interesting, but dangerous ploy.

It would be difficult to develop a coaching strategy to optimise rather than maximise EQ players' development. That's a sure-fire way to lose them.

A reduced wage cap is part of the package makes NEQPs relatively more expensive. So it would make sense to work all-out to get EQPs into the EPS / central contracts system. That's all part of the incentive.

Appreciate your patience on this one Portnoy, I'm struggling a bit though to be honest

I agree that restricting the grinding down of key EPS players in the Jeff would be a move forward for the England team, but it has to be done so that it benefits both club and country.

I can't see where the reduction in salary cap fits in. If you reduce the salary cap for all teams irrespective of whether they have EPS players in their squad, doesn't that just mean that clubs with players that aren't EPS just have to pay their players less?

Personally I can see how it would be beneficial to clubs and country if EPS players are paid centrally and their wages are exempt from the cap, but only as far as those EPS players are concerned, I don't see how the club could strategically do anything other than arrange cover for the EPS players by drafting in NEQ cover.

I may just be being obtuse

Maybe that last V&T is to blame.

Interesting idea about those goals Portney.

I remember an interview with someone about the 87-89 ABs.
He said their only goal was to play the perfect game of rugby. They did not focus on winning and losing. Winning merely the outcome of playing perfectly.

I am currently leading change management in a Government Department in NZ (advised by a UK consultancy) and one of the best changes we have done is rid of management lead goals for staff.
I am trying to get everyone into the idea of continuous improvement and focusing on the learning aspect which ends up driving up individual and organisational productivity.

Anyway just a thought

Port,
Though I find I usually agree with your thoughts and proposals, I think we are going to agree to disagree here, on some points.

Goals first. Goals are always first. To me, winning the 6N every second year is admirable, but I would not do that. In this I agree with nganboy. The goal has to be playing great Rugby all the time and always striving to win with the best team. "You play to win the game".

I disagree about central contracts. The clubs are independent businesses. The RFU has no right to take control of any aspect or employee of these independent businesses. But, a proper win-win agreement between the RFU and the clubs is very important. And that does not really exist. Also needed is a proper agreement between the clubs themselves, and that does not exist, either. The clubs working together for the best interest of the Premiership and Rugby. "One for all and all for one". Possibly some form of revenue sharing.

I also disagree about lowering the salary cap. All that would do is force quality English talent to sell their services to nations (or an unnamed Principality) with higher salary caps. In other words, it would expedite the talent drain from England. I would require a minimum salary level as a percentage of the cap (75% of the cap for example). If clubs can't pay the £££, then clubs will need to re-evaluate their priorities and in some cases, new ownership will be needed. This proposal will force more competition for talent within England and make it more attractive for more talent to play in the North, for example.

Finally, playoffs are here to stay and I like them. They bring huge excitement and a lot of £££. And Rugby is not strong enough to sneeze at the extra exposure nor the extra money these bring in.

I absolutely agree with you, however on a few points: There should be no clubs playing during International windows. I very much like your 30 matches by 80 minute approach to playing time. Meat and drink.

Last point is I am not 100% sure where I fall out on relegation. But, it needs to be sorted. I do like Ian McGeechan's proposal, and think it should have more discussion.

doctor_grey wrote:Port,
Though I find I usually agree with your thoughts and proposals, I think we are going to agree to disagree here, on some points.

1. Goals first. Goals are always first. To me, winning the 6N every second year is admirable, but I would not do that. In this I agree with nganboy. The goal has to be playing great Rugby all the time and always striving to win with the best team. "You play to win the game".

2. I disagree about central contracts. The clubs are independent businesses. The RFU has no right to take control of any aspect or employee of these independent businesses. But, a proper win-win agreement between the RFU and the clubs is very important. And that does not really exist. Also needed is a proper agreement between the clubs themselves, and that does not exist, either. The clubs working together for the best interest of the Premiership and Rugby. "One for all and all for one". Possibly some form of revenue sharing.

3. I also disagree about lowering the salary cap. All that would do is force quality English talent to sell their services to nations (or an unnamed Principality) with higher salary caps. In other words, it would expedite the talent drain from England. I would require a minimum salary level as a percentage of the cap (75% of the cap for example). If clubs can't pay the £££, then clubs will need to re-evaluate their priorities and in some cases, new ownership will be needed. This proposal will force more competition for talent within England and make it more attractive for more talent to play in the North, for example.

4. Finally, playoffs are here to stay and I like them. They bring huge excitement and a lot of £££. And Rugby is not strong enough to sneeze at the extra exposure nor the extra money these bring in.

I absolutely agree with you, however on a few points: There should be no clubs playing during International windows. I very much like your 30 matches by 80 minute approach to playing time. Meat and drink.

5. Last point is I am not 100% sure where I fall out on relegation. But, it needs to be sorted. I do like Ian McGeechan's proposal, and think it should have more discussion.

Once again, I'll chop the quote into bite-sized chunks:

1. Winning come first. The style of victory is a bonus. Sure it's a preferable objective, but I am reminded of those back-to-back wins against NZ (in the wet) and Oz (in the dry) in 2002. The styles of victory was very different - but both were satisfactory. There's a bus-load of exciting talent. Problem that MJ's got is to pick the best team - not necessarily the best players.

2. Central contracts is not the be-all and end-all. The driver of my argument is control of player time for national and club interests. The Saints were a prime example this year. Leinster won not only because they were the better side, they were more worldly-wise and the Saints were knackered. Good attempt though.

3. If the English were paid for services of EPS / contracted players on a pro-rata basis, then on an agreed formula, this could be discounted against the cap. So clubs which give most, gain most. A lower wage cap is therefore targeted at your Newcastles, Sales, Leeds etc. to provide the mechanism to encourage survival, aspiration and growth.

4. I hate the playoffs. If you want the shop window, then may I suggest an FA Cup style competition with the early rounds played in the IWs.

5. You'll have to remind me of the Geech suggestion you are speaking of.

Portnoy, Geech's suggestion is not dissimilar to your point 3 above.

I'm sorry but I don't buy this 'Saints were knackered' line of argument either - Saints simply don't have the strength in depth that Leinster do, and that's more of a recruitment issue to my mind

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Portnoy, Geech's suggestion is not dissimilar to your point 3 above.

I'm sorry but I don't buy this 'Saints were knackered' line of argument either - Saints simply don't have the strength in depth that Leinster do, and that's more of a recruitment issue to my mind

Possibly As, but as the Sants weren't long back from the Championship.

In any case, if they didn't have the strength in depth to cover whilst the big cats were away, it suggests the 'big players' were knackered.

Mr. Portnoy,
Are our positions moving closer together?

Point 1. I agree completely. Style of winning does not matter. The goal is always to win, and the style we employ is not important.

Point 2. I do agree it is critical for success of the clubs and for success of England to have an equitable division of playing time. It must be difficult for players to start their season with their clubs under one management/coaching approach and style, then go to England with another approach during the AIs. Then back to the clubs, then back to England for the 6N, then back to the clubs. No wonder England players (and all 6N players, really) have their heads spinning at times. A logical approach to playing time is needed. How about compressing the 6N time period to 5 weeks down from the current 7 (just for a start)?

Point 3. This is a tough one for me. Maybe I need time to chew on this a little more. I do agree better compensation for the clubs who provide England players is necessary. But clubs which do not provide England players should not be punished, either. This will take a little more thought for my enfeebled mind.

Point 4. OK, here we are opposing camps. Originally, I was against the playoffs. But I have been co-opted by them. I enjoy the sense of a big match: The build-up, the hype, the slagging of the other side, the sense of climax after a long season. And, as I said, Rugby needs the money and the media attention. These things do help grow the sport because it is something the media can easily latch on to.

Point 5. Geech recently proposed a 14 team premiership with a 5 year freeze on relegation. His point is the Premiership needs the cost certainty of 5 years without relegation to ensure the financials are in order. Part of his argument is there are really few teams which could qualify for the top level anyway. I don’t think this is exactly the right thing to do. But I feel it is a good jumping off point for discussions about structure, economic survival, and growth of Rugby across England.

Here is a link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/13379325.stm