• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Ring fencing premiership and championship

I mean legally the championship clubs fall under the RFU though and would need permission.

For example London Scottish need permission from the RFU to join the super 8, RFU seem fine with it last I heard as long as it remained in England and it's youth age groups remained with the RFU. But London Scottish are a amateur side anyway and super 8 wouldn't change that.

Going to the URC is a very different matter.
 
RFU confirm that Doncaster and Earling will not be prompted due to not fitting the criteria
 
Ealing have withdrawn their appeal

 
I don't see what they thing an appeal with achieve other than bringing more attention to the situation unless the appeal gives them a chance to get their ducks in a row and be reassessed on the basis of their new level of preparedness. They knew the criteria, they knew they didn't meet them and chose to apply anyway. Surely an appeal is just going to confirm these facts.
I very much stand by this. They knew they didn't meet the criteria, and evidently did nothing to alter this, so the appeal has confirmed what they knew anyway - they didn't meet the criteria! Madness.
 
It'll be interesting what happens with the Challenge Cup format next season then, 15 teams you can get away with but not 19 as it's a prime number.
 
It'll be interesting what happens with the Challenge Cup format next season then, 15 teams you can get away with but not 19 as it's a prime number.
Probably something similar to this year's premiership cup, but with more teams getting through to the knockouts
 
A league with no relegation and no salary floor is just the URC or Major League Baseball. Which means 25% of the league just exists for reasons other than winning games.

The women's premiership also wants to lower the limit on foreigners (who are mostly tier 2). This would not only hurt the women's international game but also hurt the national team as they would be playing weaker competition week in week out.
 


Would rather it was just permanently 5k but it's a move in the right direction - I wonder if ground shares count as part of their plans, not just building on/expanding your current stadium?
 
A move in the right direction, but not far enough IMO.

Ultimately, it's the 10k minimum that is the problem, albeit one I believe is not of RFU/PRL's making, but DCMS. I can't work out why you can't have the same standards for everything, but with 5k seats, and still meet the required standards for the relevant safety certificate.

10k is just such a random, magical number. The issues should be so many seats per 10m, so many access channels, maximum distance from fire escapes, maximum number of people per defibralator etc etc -- and they should apply whether the stadium seat 100 or 100 thousand.

I can understand PRL then saying "crowds of a few hundred would hurt the brand" - and want to set a minimum capacity, but it should be viable achievable, in the real world, for the challenging clubs, not a method of ring fencing by default - they should also set up a fund, and provide contacts to contractors, to help get the work done.
 
If fans don't want to go then minimum 10k is worse in terms of optics as he stadium just looks more empty.
 
crowds of a few hundred are possible in a 10k or 5k stadium. Probably a little more likely if they are forced to a ground share or to build a stadium further from their traditional home.

I think a big issue is that it's a lot harder for a club in the championship to receive financing for stadium improvements than a team in the premiership. Hopefully this rule allows teams with ambitions to not have to be so careless with money and maybe have more sustainable growth.

Stadiums are getting smaller here in America cause of the TV experience, maybe expecting every topflight rugby team to draw 10k+ every match is not reasonable.
 
I see in the recent Falcons Pod Cast, our GM Matt Thompson says he doesnt see there being relegation introduced for a good number of years yet. Not as planned for next season.
 
Ealing and Doncaster are committed to fielding top flight teams and PRL is going out of their way to shut them out. The RFU needs to step in. The Gove... haha
 
Ealing and Doncaster are committed to fielding top flight teams and PRL is going out of their way to shut them out. The RFU needs to step in. The Gove... haha
I would let them in. Doncaster especially for me. Next nearest after Sale !. But I reckon either or both of them would be seriously cut adrift at the bottom.
 
I would let them in. Doncaster especially for me. Next nearest after Sale !. But I reckon either or both of them would be seriously cut adrift at the bottom.
A Yorkshire team would be really good for the league.
Ring fencing still the way forward for security of the pro game.

Aim should be
  • 16 team Pro League (4 groups of 4 playing 18 match season, plus play offs of 4 weeks)
  • 64 Team Development (semi Pro & academy) competition - 4 regional sections with 2 groups of 8, playing 14 game season with semi final and Finals to give Regional Champions, then a final 4 to create a National Champion (18 matches in total)
  • Community Game - County Leagues with teams in divisions of 10 teams playing 18 game season.
Less games for everyone, with the opportunity for County Championships for Community Game and Tours at end of season.
At Pro end, less games and the opportunity to farm squad and academy players to Championship teams, will mean less costs for pro teams.
 
Ealing and Doncaster are committed to fielding top flight teams and PRL is going out of their way to shut them out. The RFU needs to step in. The Gove... haha
Are they? Neither met the MSC audit last time out. That's a pretty crucial step in showing a commitment to promotion IMO.
 
Once again, I'm left wondering if Ealing think that they're making some sort of clever point by applying and getting turned down, but to me, it reflects pretty poorly on their governance that for a second time, they couldn't figure out how to meet the criteria.
 

Latest posts

Top