• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

England 2023/24

It will be interesting to see if the plan for Mitchell's recovery is now changed as Borthwick now gets the final say
 
Chessum, Martin and Itoje suggest one is playing at 6.
With no Willis in the squad I'm predicting CCS gets at least one start at 8 this international period
Wouldn't be surprised if Borthwick is eyeing up a Chessum/Earl/CCS first choice backrow for the 6N
 
In the press articles I've read the contract lengths are quoted as varying between 1 and 3 years and there's no mention of any intention to hand out more, instead just saying that SB's concentrating on his 'core' players.

Begs all kind of questions.

As for Dan, he's lucky but George is running out of steam and rightly or wrongly SB has clearly identified him as the successor. So the logic's fine if not the judgement.
 
I thought it was supposed to be 25 central contracts? If so, 8 more to give out as players make a claim.
 
In the press articles I've read the contract lengths are quoted as varying between 1 and 3 years and there's no mention of any intention to hand out more, instead just saying that SB's concentrating on his 'core' players.

Begs all kind of questions.

As for Dan, he's lucky but George is running out of steam and rightly or wrongly SB has clearly identified him as the successor. So the logic's fine if not the judgement.
Apparently some more might be given out post six Nations.

I suspect we will see a good few of those who missed out leave England in the coming years.
 
Worth remembering that we've been told repeatedly that players won't have their feet held to the fire to sign these contracts.
Some will want the security of signing, others would rather take the gamble that they'll play more than 6(?) times anyear, and get paid more in match fees.

Wouldn't be surprised if 25 were offered, and 8 declined.
 
Worth remembering that we've been told repeatedly that players won't have their feet held to the fire to sign these contracts.
Some will want the security of signing, others would rather take the gamble that they'll play more than 6(?) times anyear, and get paid more in match fees.

Wouldn't be surprised if 25 were offered, and 8 declined.
Surely more would have declined if it means decent chance of a pay cut. And why none of the big names have declined?
 
I get the feeling the press are not happy with the set up. Quite a lot of negative framing about who has missed out etc.
 
Given that contracts are cheaper than PAYG - that's unlikely
But it does mean no unneeded rotations of those 17 to avoid paying effectively twice.

Also match fees always feel like a bit of an issue with big training squads involving lots of training work and being away from home and then not getting paid as much due to not making the 23

Plus I do wonder how any players will feel if they do feel they have got less money because in the end they would got more on match fees. Might where come 2028 they is a demand for top up on top of these p.
 
Last edited:
England players, including captain Jamie George, have voiced extensive concerns about their workload to the Rugby Football Union and raised player welfare issues facing international stars before agreeing their new contract. (The Guardian)
 
Players Id have liked to see being offered a central contract (whether they'd accept or not):
Underhill - starts when fit, and needs his game time carefully managed.
AOF & Fasogbon - too young to be playing much, already with concerning signs around that. A limit from above could prolong their career by 1-2 RWC cycles!
 

Latest posts

Top