As if our players were not playing too much rugby, NOW THIS !!!!

The Oracle wrote:As the Ben Kay article above implies, in the current climate of player welfare, concussion concerns, over playing, etc, this might be the attempt to address that and have a contingency plan/proposal in place  in case the 15 man game that we know and love is in some way binned for being too dangerous.

geoff999rugby wrote:Is this the same Ugo Monye who talks about player welfare and reducing game time.

What a hypocrite

Rugby Fan wrote:Ugo Monye is acting as some kind of ambassador for this proposal. On the BBC Rugby Podcast, he claims to be fielding calls from players who have expressed an interest.

On the same show, Danny Care said he would love the idea of playing alongside some of the best players in the world for a few weeks. He and Monye likened it to the kind of experience you get with the Barbarians, with the promise of a better payout.

If enough quality players want to see where this plan goes, then it won't die yet. Monye conceded that it would need to fit into the rest of the schedule but doesn't regard the global calendar, as it stands, as fit for purpose.

If World 12s offers high compensation for less bruising contact, it's easy to see why players would want to see where it leads. More are choosing to go to Japan these days, as the money is good, without the wear and tear of other leagues, so that trade-off is already on the table.

There's just not enough detail right now for fans to make anything other than a negative judgement. The plan won't get off the ground if it can't attract top name players. Marshalling player interest is probably the easy bit, though. Everything else involves winning over people who have a vested interest in this proposal going away.

Brendan wrote:Regarding health a safety if we are happy to only see sevens played we aren't going to have safe rugby.  We can reduce risk, and we can use technology identify issues but all sport has issues as does everyday life.  Just look at the Olympics with all the risk of injury in many of the sports.

The organisers of a proposed new world 12-a-side tournament want to recruit England head coach Eddie Jones and have insisted they have the finances in place to make the project become a reality.

The World 12s concept was launched last week as a £250 million equivalent to cricket’s IPL, with the proposal for the top international players to be recruited via a franchise system to play in 30-minute matches over three consecutive weekends next August and September.

Ian Ritchie, the former Rugby Football Union chief executive who also went on to become chairman of Premiership Rugby, has brought credibility to the proposal as chairman and has begun exploratory talks with the key stakeholders in the northern hemisphere.

Ritchie, whose former New Zealand RU counterpart Steve Tew is leading negotiations in the southern hemisphere, said the plan to recruit the world’s best talent included coaches as well as players.

The project came to life when Jones’ agent Craig Livingstone approached Ritchie after Jones had used the concept of 12-a-side in his training sessions when he was head coach of Japan and also with England.

Ritchie said the ambition would be to attract Jones and other international head coaches such as Ireland’s Andy Farrell and insisted that it would be beneficial for both players and head coaches to be involved.

“Eddie has nothing to do with the operations side of it but as a rugby concept he has used it and been engaged with it,” Ritchie told Telegraph Sport.

“He has obviously got a full-time job to say the least and we would need to discuss that with Bill (Sweeney, the current RFU CEO).

“If I was still chief executive, I think I would say two things – how much time is it and how much does it detract if at all from the day job?

“But I don't know any of the top coaches who don’t work unbelievably hard. And just as we think the best players in the world will benefit from playing alongside each other, it is the same with the coaches.

“I know there was some negative stuff about Eddie working with Beauden Barrett in Japan. But Beauden was quoted as saying what a great coach Eddie was.

“So who learns about whom - Eddie about Beauden or Beauden about Eddie? And where was that balance of advantage? Most great coaches, and across different sports, are actually very happy to share things. I think most people recognise that is a good thing to do and I think this enhances the possibility."

Ritchie said he hoped to talk to both the RFU and Premiership club owners to present the business plan and address key issues including player welfare, and that the organisers had engaged performance consultants to analyse the impact on workload.

He insisted that as the financial payments to the players would also fall outside the Premiership’s salary cap, it could be a key incentive for the top internationals to remain with their clubs in England and had the potential to bring new audiences to rugby, in a similar way to The Hundred in cricket.

“I believe that we can put an economic model in front of them that makes sense for player release,” Ritchie added. “It's not diluting their commerciality.

“My opinion is that this is complimentary, it is additive. For example a load of 15 year-olds who have never watched rugby very much before and then they say ‘I’d really like to watch a Six Nations game or go to a game in the autumn, that would be brilliant.

“Anybody who runs a business - and sport is a business now - has to embrace innovation, you've got to look at doing something different. If you look at The Hundred in cricket, it's attracted a whole new load of people who have never even watched the cricket game before. And I think this has the possibility of that. And I don't think it's going to stop people going to Harlequins or to Bath, nor would we want it to.”

To get the concept off the ground, agreement would have to be reached by January. Ritchie knows more than most how difficult it is to affect change to the global calendar but insists it is worth a shot.

“I think the interesting thing to me, having done loads of informal conversations, is the number of people who said that they think it is a great idea but ask how are we going to make it happen? Ritchie added.

“My view is that if it is a great idea, and you think it is beneficial, let’s try and see if we can make it happen.”

Matt Giteau, the former Wallaby back, has recently been appointed as an ambassador for the proposal as well as former Springbok Schalk Burger.

“I think we've got some undoubtedly legends of the game who think this is a decent idea” Ritchie added. “I think more of the players when they think about it would hopefully think it's a good idea and I hope the clubs will as well.

“I have watched the Lions documentaries and seen Sir Ian McGeechan say to the players this is something they will never forget for the rest of their lives. Well, what we are proposing is sort of a super Lions – if you get the best 192 best players in the world and mix them up.”

Irish Londoner wrote:Has anyone who's not a retired player/coach actually said they'd sign up to it?

Exclusive: World 12s 'dead in the water' after World Rugby refuses to sanction new format

The launch of the prospective World 12s tournament has been torpedoed after World Rugby told organisers that it would not sanction a new model of the game, Telegraph Sport can reveal.

Backed by big names such as World Cup-winning coaches Jake White and Steve Hansen, organisers claimed it could bring the biggest players together in an annual 12-a-side tournament, which it said would bring £250 million into the sport over five years. The first men’s tournament was scheduled to take place over three weeks in August 2022 and chairman Ian Ritchie, the former chief executive of the Rugby Football Union, claimed to have received more than 10 significant approaches from organisations looking to invest in their franchise model.

However, despite receiving strong interest from the players, who could stand to make £90,000 each, it has sparked a backlash from clubs and unions who were unwilling to sanction the release of their prized assets to effectively a rival competition. Telegraph Sport can reveal that Premiership Rugby, the Ligue Nationale de Rugby (which represents the French league), the United Rugby Championship and some home unions wrote to World Rugby expressing strong opposition to the proposal.

World Rugby has now communicated those feelings to the organisers which leaves the tournament “dead in the water” according to one high-placed club source.

“However, organisers of the World 12s have continued their planning and have now revealed how much money is on offer to players in the remuneration packages they unveiled on Thursday.

A statement read: “Twenty-four players from tier one and developing nations will each form one of eight franchises, with rugby’s first-ever player auction planned for spring 2022. An overall salary cap of £2.15million in year one, alongside the starting salaries for category A players, means it is highly likely some of the leading international players could achieve in excess of £250k for their participation in the three-week tournament.

“In line with the tournament’s aim to be revolutionary and provide tangible benefits on and off the pitch to the players involved,  the players themselves will select their own base price for the player’s auction. Each player will enter the band which represents the minimum salary they would be willing to accept in the player auction. There is no ceiling on what franchises can bid for players.

“However, each franchise will have a £2.15m salary cap when assembling their whole squad. Based on the salary cap, the average player salary will be approximately £90,000 for each franchise. Franchise owners will bid for the individual players they want with bidding starting at the relevant base price.

Category A players: Base price of £125,000
Category B players: Base price of £90,000
Category C players: Base price of £70,000
Category D players: Base price of £45,000
Category E players: Base price of £20,000
Category F players: Base price of £10,000

“In addition to the player salary, the top three teams at the end of the tournament will also win a share of the £1,000,000 price pot. Clubs and unions releasing players for the tournament will receive an additional fee.”

World 12s CEO Rowena Samarasinhe said: “In response to the high interest we have received from potential franchise owners, and from over 500 current players from around the world, we are delighted to confirm the starting base salary structure for our inaugural tournament which we are planning to stage in the UK next August. From the beginning of this process, World 12s has stressed that we believe this tournament will complement the existing XVs game.

“It aims to help provide the players, clubs and unions with financial reward for their participation, as well as broader development benefits. The figures announced today are starting prices for the auction, and the players themselves will have the power to determine their base price, and at which level they enter the auction.”

“In addition to the financial rewards, the feedback we have had from players at all levels around the world, past and present, is that one of the most attractive benefits of this tournament is the chance to play alongside players from around the world, and be coached by one of the world’s leading coaches.”

The salary cap for each franchise is expected to grow in line with future tournament growth. All eight franchises must also include a minimum of two international U20 players and will choose from a pool of players from tier one nations as well as developing nations to further aid player development.”

Brendan wrote:The only players that can afford to live on those wages are people who don't have a club, in between clubs or retiring or just aren't good enough.

May see players from SR stopping off at it on the way North but none of them can be current internationals so rules out  RC players.  Most players moving from one NH team to another normally don't have any down time. Can't see anyone signing a player who could make the pre-season but chooses not to.  All the 6N players who went on tour will be on enforced rest.

Only saving thing i can think of to save it is the wage Cap rules and using this to bend it. Would clubs under the wage cap use it to get around rules.  Allowing certain players to play this but reduce their wages by 50% of what they get would that work. If the Sarries backers had one of the 12s teams could they just sign all the Sarries lads and add 2.1m onto their wage cap.

Also would be curious if payments to clubs to release players could be written off against wages as you are effectively loaning the player out to another team.

STILL NOT GOING TO BE BLOCKBUSTER or even happen

The Oracle wrote:

Brendan wrote:The only players that can afford to live on those wages are people who don't have a club, in between clubs or retiring or just aren't good enough.

May see players from SR stopping off at it on the way North but none of them can be current internationals so rules out  RC players.  Most players moving from one NH team to another normally don't have any down time. Can't see anyone signing a player who could make the pre-season but chooses not to.  All the 6N players who went on tour will be on enforced rest.

Only saving thing i can think of to save it is the wage Cap rules and using this to bend it. Would clubs under the wage cap use it to get around rules.  Allowing certain players to play this but reduce their wages by 50% of what they get would that work. If the Sarries backers had one of the 12s teams could they just sign all the Sarries lads and add 2.1m onto their wage cap.

Also would be curious if payments to clubs to release players could be written off against wages as you are effectively loaning the player out to another team.

STILL NOT GOING TO BE BLOCKBUSTER or even happen

If the tournament was in the summer, why would it not be top players (already in contracts) getting this pay on top of their current salaries? After all, top players play for teams other than their club each year and get paid e.g. International, BaaBaas, Lions. So getting additional pay for other rugby appearances is nothing new.

I’m against this 12s thing in principle, but I’m not sure that payment for appearances would preclude those in contract currently.

Brendan wrote:Essential the contract the players signed would not have included them playing for private owned teams.  Players from SR or Japan who have short seasons but year long contracts can't just rock up to Europe offering their services without their employers giving them permission to do so.

My thought is that the bigger English Clubs (French Clubs don't have any space to release players) if they want to can use it as a way to pay above the cap. Could Bristol afford to let 10 players go and miss some pre-season but happily accept lower wages at the Club.

Would star players pick English Clubs if they could get a 200k top up via this going to English but not if they pick a French team.

The Oracle wrote:I understand from the club point of view.  Just questioning whether clubs would really be able to stop them going.  Yes, I think your wording sums it up - "WR sanctioned".  If it is not, and they've turned it down by the sounds of it, then the international windows won't matter anyway.  But generally, if things are sanctioned  then players go off to all sorts of things as mentioned.  7s is another one to throw into the mix.  As far as I know, for things like 7s, internationals, BaaBaas, Lions........ the clubs don't reduce their salary in line with the payment the players get for these.  That would be silly.  There'd be nothing in it for the player then!  Rather, the players top up their salaries with these extra events/tournaments.  What does happen though is that the insurance payments are covered by the Lions/National team, etc. during these periods so the club is not responsible for them during that time.

Unclear wrote:I fear you may be right Phil, but the contract and insurance issues will be complex.  Not that that will stop them being solved if there is enough money to make it worth everyones time.  The failure to agree a more co-ordinated season leaves the door open to this sort of proposal.

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:Essential the contract the players signed would not have included them playing for private owned teams.  Players from SR or Japan who have short seasons but year long contracts can't just rock up to Europe offering their services without their employers giving them permission to do so.

My thought is that the bigger English Clubs (French Clubs don't have any space to release players) if they want to can use it as a way to pay above the cap. Could Bristol afford to let 10 players go and miss some pre-season but happily accept lower wages at the Club.

Would star players pick English Clubs if they could get a 200k top up via this going to English but not if they pick a French team.

Have you considered future player contracts that will see them not paid for the "off season" with their club, this freeing them up to play in this kind of jamboree?

Take a team with a £9.6m wage bill. £800k a month. If their players earn the same from their club PER MONTH but work only 10 months a year, the employing club receives a £1.6m discount and the players get to play in this tournament.

PhilBB wrote:

The Oracle wrote:I understand from the club point of view.  Just questioning whether clubs would really be able to stop them going.  Yes, I think your wording sums it up - "WR sanctioned".  If it is not, and they've turned it down by the sounds of it, then the international windows won't matter anyway.  But generally, if things are sanctioned  then players go off to all sorts of things as mentioned.  7s is another one to throw into the mix.  As far as I know, for things like 7s, internationals, BaaBaas, Lions........ the clubs don't reduce their salary in line with the payment the players get for these.  That would be silly.  There'd be nothing in it for the player then!  Rather, the players top up their salaries with these extra events/tournaments.  What does happen though is that the insurance payments are covered by the Lions/National team, etc. during these periods so the club is not responsible for them during that time.

With private equity becoming more and more of a bigger player in rugby, the time of "World Rugby sanctioned" is beginning to end.

Unclear wrote:Much like the success that was made of Formula 1?  I think there is plenty to fear, even accepting the failures of the current administrators. I'm not saying better the devil you know, but change for changes sake is no recipe for success either.

Brendan wrote:
You mean the clubs won't care if the players go to another league or do whatever they want and show back up tired and maybe broken with no compensation.  Only sports players I know who don't get paid for the off season are semi-pros or pros on 1 season contracts.

If it were that simple all the Sarries Boys would have been on 10 month contracts and then worked 2 months for the "Wray money fund not rugby related company"

formerly known as Sam wrote:
Two things, if it's not World Rugby sanctioned then a lot of players insurance won't cover. Players don't just have club medical insurance a lot of them will insure themselves. They may find that hefty sums are suddenly demanded in order to stretch to non-sanctioned tournaments.

Some of the biggest football clubs in Europe recently tried something without the approval of the governing body and that went really well for everyone involved.

Unclear wrote:Did Formula 1 increase its popularity?  Have any of the "lesser" teams benefited from the additional funding (I'm guessing not all of the £6bn went back to the teams).  CVC took an already well established international competition and did very little with it.  I was going to say and made a lot of money for themselves but as I said above I have no idea how the increase was split.

I agree that things need to change but I'm not convinced selling a major stake to private equity is the best way to go or that CVC are the experts they are cracked out to be.

I don't know if they are part of the proposed funding of this new venture or whether they would see this a competition for their current investments.

PhilBB wrote:

Unclear wrote:Did Formula 1 increase its popularity?  Have any of the "lesser" teams benefited from the additional funding (I'm guessing not all of the £6bn went back to the teams).  CVC took an already well established international competition and did very little with it.  I was going to say and made a lot of money for themselves but as I said above I have no idea how the increase was split.

I agree that things need to change but I'm not convinced selling a major stake to private equity is the best way to go or that CVC are the experts they are cracked out to be.

I don't know if they are part of the proposed funding of this new venture or whether they would see this a competition for their current investments.

I'm not sure how you can claim CVC 'did very little' with something they sold for four more times than they paid for it. That seems a completely contradictory claim.

A firm that bought a sport, sold it for four more times than they paid for it, is somebody I'd want to listen to when it comes to getting more money into a pro sport that has been nothing but hindered by "World Rugby" (which are, of course, just a back slapping, back protecting cartel of Blazers).

To underline, my original point was about private finance, not just CVC.

Irish Londoner wrote:
CVC made money for CVC, that's what they are good at. They'll undoubtedly flog rugby when the price is right for them.

Unclear wrote:My memory is that CVC provided the money and Bernie Ecclestone continued to run the show.  Bernie also helped facilitate the sale, so it was Bernie who added value not CVC.  I don't think the current rugby administrators are in Bernie's league for commercialisation.  I worry it will end badly for both parties, but CVC losing money worries me considerably less than the mess rugby could end up in.  

But I'm a kinda glass half empty guy.  Perhaps they will knock heads together to get a properly co-ordinated season and sort out relations between the clubs, leagues and the International game.

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:
CVC made money for CVC, that's what they are good at. They'll undoubtedly flog rugby when the price is right for them.

Good, as that makes them incentivised to grow its value.

Irish Londoner wrote:
The problem is that by and large they didn't do a great deal to make the sport more valuable or better, they only tied the sport into high value but low viewership TV deals and sold out as soon as they were on the books.

The question also stands as to where players get the time to play in this competition - a domestic/European season from October to May (with the AI's and 6Ns in the mix), then a summer tour to the SH in June/July before two months of rest and preseason. Are they going to play in the summer after a full domestic season plus an international tour? So much for game management and player safety.

Who's going to play in this - anyone seriously think that internationals will give up tours to play in a circus? At best it'll be another sevens event where there's some serious drinking going on while the rugby carries on in the background.

There's more chance of me leading out the Lions at Wellington than this being a serious competition.

Irish Londoner wrote:Let me guess it'll be one with just the Welsh and English teams because the English PRL and the clubs love Wales so much that they'll happily give up a share of their TV money in order to bring the Welsh sides on board? Is the chance to play Championship rugby in England that important to the Welsh clubs?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I mean this is never going to replace the normal rugby leagues so really needs the buy in from unions leagues and players. And it won't have it for the top guys.

I'm sure the prl and others have thought about going toe to toe with their union but they'll likely come limpng out of it. The money is in the international game.

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:Let me guess it'll be one with just the Welsh and English teams because the English PRL and the clubs love Wales so much that they'll happily give up a share of their TV money in order to bring the Welsh sides on board? Is the chance to play Championship rugby in England that important to the Welsh clubs?

I think that counts as bickering.