Relegation (or lack thereof)

[higgik]

14 team premiership. Playing season like Pro14. 2 groups of 7 home and away in group (12 matches), then other group home or away (7 matches). Play one other team from other group, 20 matches in total.

 

[Bristol_Shoguns fan]

I personally think it would be a damaging blow to English rugby. Sure, 99% of lower league teams don't have the ground to play in the premiership, but as Ealing have shown over the last few years, the smaller teams need to be given a chance. Packages need to be offered to these teams to bring their infrastructure up to scratch, not be frozen out completely. Football teams just tried to ring-fence the biggest clubs and thankfully the fans said no. Please don't let this happen to rugby.

 

[Which Tyler]

I personally think it would be a damaging blow to English rugby. Sure, 99% of lower league teams don't have the ground to play in the premiership, but as Ealing have shown over the last few years, the smaller teams need to be given a chance. Packages need to be offered to these teams to bring their infrastructure up to scratch, not be frozen out completely. Football teams just tried to ring-fence the biggest clubs and thankfully the fans said no. Please don't let this happen to rugby.

I've been thinking the same throughout this affair with the football clubs

 

[McTallshort]

Has anyone yet stated what will happen to Saracens next season?

No relegation so technically that means no promotion.

Financial records need to be in line with Premiership standards for at least 2 seasons, Saracens have only had one season.

If they were promoted how would a 13 team Premiership work.

I think we all know Sarries will be playing in the premiership next season but it will be interesting to see what rules they break to get them there.

 

[higgik]

I personally think it would be a damaging blow to English rugby. Sure, 99% of lower league teams don't have the ground to play in the premiership, but as Ealing have shown over the last few years, the smaller teams need to be given a chance. Packages need to be offered to these teams to bring their infrastructure up to scratch, not be frozen out completely. Football teams just tried to ring-fence the biggest clubs and thankfully the fans said no. Please don't let this happen to rugby.

Yes, I understand about jeopardy, but relegation is not about meritocracy.

Just look at football, the league positions are well correlated with financial status and NOT playing ability. All that will happen is big money will buy the best players, and those clubs without backing will not be able to afford squads even up to the salary cap.

I always find it amazing, that in the most capitalist country in the World, runs sport in a socialist way, (and I mean typical socialist practice), so that those in the cartel earn more together than they would individually.

In this country, we still believe in true capitalism, where the fittest survive, but that will only end with fewer clubs capable of maintaining the demands.

Look what is happening to football. The top 6 want to earn even more money, Leicester and Wolves have just had some serious investment, enabling them to compete and the promoted teams will probably be the 3 relegated teams last year. Sounds familiar doesn't it.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Has anyone yet stated what will happen to Saracens next season?

No relegation so technically that means no promotion.

Financial records need to be in line with Premiership standards for at least 2 seasons, Saracens have only had one season.

If they were promoted how would a 13 team Premiership work.

I think we all know Sarries will be playing in the premiership next season but it will be interesting to see what rules they break to get them there.

They confirmed promotion still happening

 

[Which Tyler]

Yes, I understand about jeopardy, but relegation is not about meritocracy.

Just look at football, the league positions are well correlated with financial status and NOT playing ability. All that will happen is big money will buy the best players, and those clubs without backing will not be able to afford squads even up to the salary cap.

Correction - it's entirely about meritocracy and playing ability.
Which in turn is affected by finance; though the salary cap helps even that out (when not ignored)

Capacity to be promoted through merit, and capacity to be demoted through demerit = meritocracy.
Protection racket to prevent the rich from failing = protection racket, and is the antithesis of meritocracy.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Correction - it's entirely about meritocracy and playing ability.
Which in turn is affected by finance; though the salary cap helps even that out (when not ignored)

Capacity to be promoted through merit, and capacity to be demoted through demerit = meritocracy.
Protection racket to prevent the rich from failing = protection racket, and is the antithesis of meritocracy.

See my only disagreement with that would be that beyond Sarries obvs, none of the Championship sides are better that the prem ones - unless that is the measure, is it really a mertiocratic system

Winner of the Championship doesn't mean you are a better team than the bottom of the Prem

 

[Which Tyler]

No, but (play-off pay-days aside) it means you're better than everyone else you've played against, and deserve to test yourself against better opposition.

I see your point there but shy of combining every club in the country into 1 league that can never be played, a tiered league structure is the closest approximation to a "true" meritocracy as you can get.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

No, but (play-off pay-days aside) it means you're better than everyone else you've played against, and deserve to test yourself against better opposition.

I see your point there but shy of combining every club in the country into 1 league that can never be played, a tiered league structure is the closest approximation to a "true" meritocracy as you can get.

Yeah I agree in theory, but can also see why a ringfenced League is also sensible.

There's 13 clubs with a realistic ability to compete in the top flight and only 12 spots. The bottom club gets threatened with bankruptcy for a year and then comes back up. Not a great system all in all

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah I agree in theory, but can also see why a ringfenced League is also sensible.

There's 13 clubs with a realistic ability to compete in the top flight and only 12 spots. The bottom club gets threatened with bankruptcy for a year and then comes back up. Not a great system all in all

But that's not an argument for ring-fencing though; it's an argument for actually supporting the next level down.
The only argument in favour of ring-fencing is to protect the wealthy from the consequences of their bad decisions. Every other argument (that I've seen, at least) is just wrapping that up in more palatable spin.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Well the "wealthy" by prem rugby standards is more like the not as poor for all but like a handful of prem clubs.

 

[higgik]

Correction - it's entirely about meritocracy and playing ability.
Which in turn is affected by finance; though the salary cap helps even that out (when not ignored)

Capacity to be promoted through merit, and capacity to be demoted through demerit = meritocracy.
Protection racket to prevent the rich from failing = protection racket, and is the antithesis of meritocracy.

So, playing ability is impacted by finance, hence those with deeper pockets rise to the top. That is financial meritocracy NOT sporting.

 

[higgik]

But that's not an argument for ring-fencing though; it's an argument for actually supporting the next level down.
The only argument in favour of ring-fencing is to protect the wealthy from the consequences of their bad decisions. Every other argument (that I've seen, at least) is just wrapping that up in more palatable spin.

Only so much money to go around though. Spread that too thinly and it is worthless.

 

[Which Tyler]

So, playing ability is impacted by finance, hence those with deeper pockets rise to the top. That is financial meritocracy NOT sporting.

No, it's sporting meritocracy. It's the sporting performance that is rewarded/punished.
Hence you get upsets where teams with less money can still do well - because it's the sporting performance that's rewarded.
Otherwise, Saracens would never lose, Exeter would still be in the Championship, Leicester would never have done well in the football... etc etc etc.

Sporting leagues are NOT just a measure of wealth - welath sure as hell helps, but it's sporting performance that is judged meritocratically.

Only so much money to go around though. Spread that too thinly and it is worthless.

Which is only the case because the possibility of growth has been fought at every available opportunity - it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy and the way to break that chain isn't really to allow the current top carte-blanche to ignore everybody else and close the gates behind them. Which isn't any kind of meritocracy - it's a protection racket. It's also a pretty good example of pretty much everything that is wrong with this world.

 

[higgik]

No, it's sporting meritocracy. It's the sporting performance that is rewarded/punished.
Hence you get upsets where teams with less money can still do well - because it's the sporting performance that's rewarded.
Otherwise, Saracens would never lose, Exeter would still be in the Championship, Leicester would never have done well in the football... etc etc etc.

Sporting leagues are NOT just a measure of wealth - welath sure as hell helps, but it's sporting performance that is judged meritocratically.



Which is only the case because the possibility of growth has been fought at every available opportunity - it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy and the way to break that chain isn't really to allow the current top carte-blanche to ignore everybody else and close the gates behind them. Which isn't any kind of meritocracy - it's a protection racket. It's also a pretty good example of pretty much everything that is wrong with this world.

Ok, but still, the owners with deepest pockets will tend to end at the top.

And Leicester City now have some serious investment.

Pro sport has become bragging rights amongst the very rich and super rich.

We are at a crossroads with rugby, either
1. continue on the current path of big investment at the top with the natural conclusion of franchises or,

2. Reset with restrictions on player wages, investment and having fan input, resulting in weaker teams, but a fairer sport.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yes "tend" - which is not absolute - and because "merit" is decided on sporting performance, not depth of pocket.

Because they did well on the pitch.

Unfortunately so - selling out even further is NOT the answer to the problems created by selling out.

False equivalence, and consequently, not true

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

If the rich always prosper over the poorer teams why are Bath Bath then?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Future of relegation and ringfencing -


The COVID Recovery Plan is aimed at improving the financial stability and sustainability of professional rugby during the next three seasons while also providing benefits for England Rugby and the community game.
The Covid Recovery Plan, with a temporary pause on relegation, follows a detailed consultation that was announced in February after the RFU Council voted in favour of no relegation from Gallagher Premiership Rugby or the Greene King IPA Championship for the 2020/21 Season. The extensive consultation included Premiership Rugby and their clubs, Championship clubs, The RPA, RFU Board and RFU Council.
The changes that will now be introduced include:

• The expansion of the Premiership to 14 clubs at the end of the 2021/22 season through the promotion (subject to meeting the required minimum standards) of the winner of the Championship, while supporting player welfare by maintaining the maximum game play limits and guaranteed rest periods*.
• Revised minimum standards criteria for clubs wishing to be promoted to the Premiership with wider game benefits such as financial sustainability, governance, player welfare, stadium facilities, medical provisions, safeguarding and community plans.
• A 2022/23 season in which no side will be relegated from or promoted to the new 14-team Premiership, allowing clubs to plan with greater certainty and supporting the recently promoted clubs in making the transition between leagues.
• A play-off in the 2023/24 season between the club finishing bottom of the Premiership and the winner of the Championship (subject to that club meeting the required minimum standards), with the result to decide which club plays in the Premiership during the following season.
• From August 2024, the intention is to move to a position where there is a mandatory England Qualified Players (EQPs) system under which Premiership clubs must have a minimum of 15 EQPs in each match-day squad and the end of the foreign player rule to provide better England player development opportunities while giving greater flexibility for Premiership clubs to select non-EQP players of any nationality. There is further work to do to agree the detail of this subject to a new Professional Game Agreement (PGA) and introduction into regulation
• Increased preparation time for the England men's squad ahead of the 2023 Rugby World Cup as a result of an earlier end to the Premiership season in May 2023.
• A commitment by the RFU and PRL to maintain current levels of funding to the Championship until the end of the PGA in 2024, providing a greater level of certainty for member clubs.

Changes after season 2023/24 will be subject to the agreement of a new PGA and the approval of the RFU Council.
Unless Council agrees otherwise, from season 2024/25, promotion and relegation between the Premiership & Championship will revert to being on an annual one-up, one-down basis.
Speaking about the vote RFU President, His Honour Jeff Blackett said: "I would like to thank my Council colleagues for their extensive debate and consultation around these structural changes for the next three seasons. Council has carefully considered how to ensure a healthy professional game to support successful winning England teams that generate income to support the game at all levels, while maintaining the integrity of future league structures. The changes will undoubtedly benefit the game of rugby in England as we recover from the effects of the pandemic.
"This is not ringfencing the Premiership as some have suggested. In three of the four seasons covered by this, and our previous decision, a Championship club will have the opportunity to be promoted. Council has control of what happens thereafter and is committed to maintaining the integrity of the league structure by ensuring that access to the Premiership will be retained in the future.
"I would also like to thank Government for their enormous support for the community game with rugby clubs in England having a significant boost through an allocation of £30 million of government funding, the biggest single investment in the community game, following collaboration between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Sport England, the RFU and the grassroots game.
"We are all looking forward to the start of next season and the welcome return of volunteers, players and fans."

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Mostly lame as ****, but I do like:

From August 2024, the intention is to move to a position where there is a mandatory England Qualified Players (EQPs) system under which Premiership clubs must have a minimum of 15 EQPs in each match-day squad and the end of the foreign player rule to provide better England player development opportunities while giving greater flexibility for Premiership clubs to select non-EQP players of any nationality. There is further work to do to agree the detail of this subject to a new Professional Game Agreement (PGA) and introduction into regulation