British League?

[Bullitt]

The GP has NOTHING to do with the club vs. Country row. That debate comes from the RFU wanting the game to still be ametuer, therefore not have to pay for the services of England Players, but as they can't they want the players contracts instead of the Clubs who pay their wages.

So, say for example, if these contracts were implimented chances are David Strettle would have one. For all we know, he may well enjoy life at Quins and would want to stay with them if they went down, but because the RFU owned his contract, he could be moved to, say, Bath at a moments notice against his or Quins wishes. But then could only play when Rob Andrew gives permission. Which would be twice a year.

Club vs Country is only an excuse created by the RFU to gain totalitarianism.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

The GP has NOTHING to do with the club vs. Country row. That debate comes from the RFU wanting the game to still be ametuer, therefore not have to pay for the services of England Players, but as they can't they want the players contracts instead of the Clubs who pay their wages.

So, say for example, if these contracts were implimented chances are David Strettle would have one. For all we know, he may well enjoy life at Quins and would want to stay with them if they went down, but because the RFU owned his contract, he could be moved to, say, Bath at a moments notice against his or Quins wishes. But then could only play when Rob Andrew gives permission. Which would be twice a year.

Club vs Country is only an excuse created by the RFU to gain totalitarianism. [/b]

I never once argued that the GP is at fault in the club v country row. What I am arguing against is fixture congestion. At present there are too many games. Cut meaningless games such as the EDF Energy Cup and fixture congestion won't exist. The problem with cutting these games if the current league structures remain the same is that there won't be enough revenue coming into the clubs. How do you increase revenue? I feel a bigger league will do it.

The RFU wanting to do away with clubs in favour of regions under their control is another issue entirely. For the record, it's one I completely disagree with because it will undo all the hard work which the clubs have done in the first 12 years of professionalism, not to mention artificially created teams won't drum up any support. The RFU should be working with the clubs for the mutual benefit of both bodies rather than fighting them.

 

[Bullitt]

I agree re: ditching the mickey mouse cup. Many voices for a long time have called for a 14 team premiership (which would remove the porblem of the same teams going up and down each year as there's only 13 of them) and getting shot of the EDF. 2 up-2 down would also help.

 

[DC]

I agree re: ditching the mickey mouse cup. Many voices for a long time have called for a 14 team premiership (which would remove the porblem of the same teams going up and down each year as there's only 13 of them) and getting shot of the EDF. 2 up-2 down would also help. [/b]

Thank you! The point i was trying to make in the EDF thread!

 

[chesh]

Alrite guys!!



it's a good idea in principle...but if thre are 30 odd teams, why not split them into an A and B league, that way there is still the excitement of relegation and promotion, but there is safety in the knowledge that they can never drop out of the "top flight" of rugby. Plus the teams in the lower league would play really exciting rugby as they have nothing to lose!



To bring on fresh talent impose a law stating 75 odd % of the squad must come from that country (ie. 75% of leicester's squad must be english) And each side must have a certain number of players under 25??



your thoughts??

 

[stormmaster1]

My 2 cents:


I wouldn't like to se a European or British superleague. i like the fact that Leicester v Toulouse, or Wasps v Munster is a rare feast of rugby to be savoured, not a regular fixture.

i don't think foreign players are holding the game back. Tigers have several foreigners, all of which contribute well and hasn't stopped them from churning out numerous quality players. of course that's just 1 club, but there is hardly a lack of good young plyers coming out of the premiership. The lack of these in England's WC squad was more due to more management from England than players not being developed.

International clashes? These will happen, i can't see a way round it. it devalues the league, but then this is changed anyway by the play-off system. Maybe their are positives to come out of it. Many players get 1st team experience during these periods, again increasing the GP's development potential.

given that the Club v Country row seems to be getting ironed out a little more, and more GP clubs are turning a profit I can't see why anyne on the English side would really want massive changes.

The biggest area for improvement could be NL1. If the top few sides get closer to premiership standard and create a competitive league then it could really add to the strength of English rugby. I wouldn't try to increase the size of the premiership when increasing the quality of ND1 could be done.

what about the Magners??

I don't know as much about the situation, but given how the league is devalued by clubs not taking it as seriously, i'd want to do something to increase the intensity. Somehow you need to get each match to actually matter, and 2nd teams to be used with less frequency. Would a much-hated play-off system be a good idea given that the league table isn't an accurate representation of which sides are top?

and the French??

Their club game is strong. would they want to leave their local derbies behind to join a European league. i don't see that they will get enough benifit.