Todd Blackadder calls for play-offs to be expanded to Top 6.

[Leonormous Boozer]

ah you do denial so well Alpha...

I really don't see the evidence. The Champions Cup is yet to sell out a final, the current champions are a club whose supporters care more about international rugby than club rugby almost across the board and the same can be said about the losing semi finalists while the runners up have no fans. The Premiership Final didn't sell out, neither did the Pro 14.

The Top 14 is possibly the highest level of rugby you see in France these days, although this year wasn't the best vintage, that's not the case with any other tier 1 country. The club game has always rivalled the international game in France in terms of public interest and the final you had this weekend shows both ends of the spectrum as to why The Billionaire backed Mercs v the relatively budget town side galvanised by the passionate local following. Club over country is something that exists in France that simply doesn't elsewhere apart from a few exceptions that are generally fans who are especially close to their club rather than being disenfranchised with the international side. Rugby is far from popular enough in the Northern Hemisphere to see a shift favouring the club game and all the Southern Hemisphere countries are set up in a way to serve the international game through the club game.

 

[higgik]

The first thing is that there needs to be a complete separation of professional and amateur levels.

The idea of meritocracy only runs true if the finances are equal, but ATM, we have a system similar to football, where the team with the deepest pockets has the best chance of winning.

The Lancashire RFU have just split from the national leagues and are going back to a local league for amateur clubs.

My idea would be to send London Irish, London Scottish and a professional London Welsh to the Pro14.

Then have a 15 team, 3 conference league, where teams can bid for a place. They must show good financial records, good support/stadium, and successful, (over last 10 years). The top 15 teams rated according to those criteria, would get in.

This would allow clubs on the outside to have a chance, while also allowing those not in the list to play in the Championship, with no promotion.

My ideal though, would be a British & Irish League of between 28-32 teams, playing an NFL style season of 16 matches followed by play offs.

 

[RedruthRFC]

The first thing is that there needs to be a complete separation of professional and amateur levels.

The idea of meritocracy only runs true if the finances are equal, but ATM, we have a system similar to football, where the team with the deepest pockets has the best chance of winning.

Or if you have an enforceable salary cap. I'd have thought that 20 odd years into professionalism, everybody would have come to terms with the fact that money is important in success and that the challenge for each club is to achieve what they can with the resources they have / are able to attract.

What positive effect do you expect to come from stymying the ambitions of all but 24 clubs in the country, creating a chasm between professional and amateur leagues and destroying development opportunities for academy players?

The Lancashire RFU have just split from the national leagues and are going back to a local league for amateur clubs.

This is not true at all, I would suggest you read the LRFU's statement on the matter. They have not split from the RFU at all, however 24 of their member clubs have opted out of the English Clubs Championship (i.e. the league pyramid) in order to form their own league structure. The new leagues will be treated by the RFU as merit tables, the clubs will still fall under the auspices of the RFU and continue to enjoy the associated benefits as previously.

The main motivation for the move appears to be a reduction in travelling, but ironically, it has been suggested that another factor in the decision is to avoid proposed RFU restrictions in payments to players at lower levels.

My idea would be to send London Irish, London Scottish and a professional London Welsh to the Pro14.

What would this achieve for English rugby? As above, National 1 hasn't exactly got a queue of teams ready to make the step up, so I don't see what positive effect strong arming two of them into doing so would have.

 

[FrenchFan]

I really don't see the evidence. The Champions Cup is yet to sell out a final, the current champions are a club whose supporters care more about international rugby than club rugby almost across the board and the same can be said about the losing semi finalists while the runners up have no fans. The Premiership Final didn't sell out, neither did the Pro 14.

The Top 14 is possibly the highest level of rugby you see in France these days, although this year wasn't the best vintage, that's not the case with any other tier 1 country. The club game has always rivalled the international game in France in terms of public interest and the final you had this weekend shows both ends of the spectrum as to why The Billionaire backed Mercs v the relatively budget town side galvanised by the passionate local following. Club over country is something that exists in France that simply doesn't elsewhere apart from a few exceptions that are generally fans who are especially close to their club rather than being disenfranchised with the international side. Rugby is far from popular enough in the Northern Hemisphere to see a shift favouring the club game and all the Southern Hemisphere countries are set up in a way to serve the international game through the club game.

Evidence? SA Aus Fra are not the forces they used to be. The PI nations are bust. Georgia and Romania have been left behind. I don't see other nations filling the gaps.
The test game has been shrinking. The number of real contenders for the next RWC has diminished not expanded.

International rugby doesn't meet the demand for rugby in this country. There's just not enough games. The national team plays an average of 10 to 12 games. Not enough.

 

[higgik]

The first thing is that there needs to be a complete separation of professional and amateur levels.

The idea of meritocracy only runs true if the finances are equal, but ATM, we have a system similar to football, where the team with the deepest pockets has the best chance of winning.

The Lancashire RFU have just split from the national leagues and are going back to a local league for amateur clubs.

My idea would be to send London Irish, London Scottish and a professional London Welsh to the Pro14.

Then have a 15 team, 3 conference league, where teams can bid for a place. They must show good financial records, good support/stadium, and successful, (over last 10 years). The top 15 teams rated according to those criteria, would get in.

This would allow clubs on the outside to have a chance, while also allowing those not in the list to play in the Championship, with no promotion.

My ideal though, would be a British & Irish League of between 28-32 teams, playing an NFL style season of 16 matches followed by play offs.

Or if you have an enforceable salary cap. I'd have thought that 20 odd years into professionalism, everybody would have come to terms with the fact that money is important in success and that the challenge for each club is to achieve what they can with the resources they have / are able to attract.

What positive effect do you expect to come from stymying the ambitions of all but 24 clubs in the country, creating a chasm between professional and amateur leagues and destroying development opportunities for academy players?



This is not true at all, I would suggest you read the LRFU's statement on the matter. They have not split from the RFU at all, however 24 of their member clubs have opted out of the English Clubs Championship (i.e. the league pyramid) in order to form their own league structure. The new leagues will be treated by the RFU as merit tables, the clubs will still fall under the auspices of the RFU and continue to enjoy the associated benefits as previously.

The main motivation for the move appears to be a reduction in travelling, but ironically, it has been suggested that another factor in the decision is to avoid proposed RFU restrictions in payments to players at lower levels.



What would this achieve for English rugby? As above, National 1 hasn't exactly got a queue of teams ready to make the step up, so I don't see what positive effect strong arming two of them into doing so would have.

didn't say that the Lancs RFU had ceded from RFU, just that their clubs were leaving the league system, due to expenses.

As for 24 teams being pro and nobody else, this is how professional sport is going for better or worse, and the sooner Union realises that, then they will be ahead of the game. In football, a European League played at weekends for the elite clubs, with no or very little relegation is already planned.

Some of us need to also realise that professional sport is a business and also an entertainment. It is there to make money by encouraging us to attend games, buy merchandise and use pay TV to watch.

 

[RedruthRFC]

didn't say that the Lancs RFU had ceded from RFU, just that their clubs were leaving the league system, due to expenses.

Did it not occur to you to go back to your previous post and see what you had said? You said "The Lancashire RFU have just split from the national leagues and are going back to a local league for amateur clubs.", which is at best misleading, at worst flat out wrong and makes no mention of expenses.

As for 24 teams being pro and nobody else, this is how professional sport is going for better or worse, and the sooner Union realises that, then they will be ahead of the game. In football, a European League played at weekends for the elite clubs, with no or very little relegation is already planned.

Some of us need to also realise that professional sport is a business and also an entertainment. It is there to make money by encouraging us to attend games, buy merchandise and use pay TV to watch.

I didn't ask you if you thought it was a good idea, I realised this because you were advocating it. What I asked is why it is a good idea and why you think the downsides that I pointed out are an acceptable price to pay. Furthermore I would be interested to know why it is necessary to put an end to professionalism outside like 2 in order to achieve what you are advocating, but I won't hold my breath for a cogent explanation.

I'm still interested to learn how cutting Scottish, Irish and Welsh loose would be beneficial to the English game too.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Success in International rugby is the best for English rugby it's pretty clear in that the Rugby World Cup gave rugby it's biggest boost.
Success in club rugby is only good for that local area.
Personally I would rather have Tigers win Europe than England win the 6N's but I know that it wouldn't be better for the game, and I think most people can attest i'm club over country.

Club rugby will never be big enough to draw the same interest International does to attract new fans, look at the last couple of prem finals not selling out, the only reason we have such a good TV deal is the size of the English sports market not because the fan support as shown by club attendances on the whole and the amount of debt clubs are racking up.

What i'm arguing for is ring fenced 10 team league with Irish, Bristol and Worcester going TBH.

There really isn't a number of champ clubs that could make a go of it, pretty much all are miles off and it shows by the amount of wins newly promoted clubs get in the prem.
Your suggestion is to throw money at the problem by giving more funding but rugby doesn't generate enough money to make that sustainable clubs like Sarries and Wasps are already on a tightrope as is, having a 14 team league.

The Rugby clubs spending is massively inflated largely by the English clubs design, not the french clubs as the England draw is enough to limit that.


Let's look at football, England has the biggest club league out of pretty much everyone with the most clubs yet have the most under performing international team and IMO Club rugby is heading the same way.

10 teams ring fenced for 6 years, limit non EQP to 5 per team, and lower the cap giving incentives for academy products, and try to fix the mounting debt club rugby is growing before looking to expand. The league foundations need ripping up.

R/gatekeeping

 

[Sixways Cheryl]

What i'm arguing for is ring fenced 10 team league with Irish, Bristol and Worcester going TBH.

What you're arguing for is what Super League already tried and binned after they realised ring fencing doesn't work. Promotion/Relegation is essential to keep the season alive for those teams in the bottom half & to give those teams in the Championship something to strive for. Does anybody really want a league where half the teams are just going through the motions by December?

And if you were to get your 10 team Premiership I can't comprehend why you'd be getting rid of Worcester? There is a rugby culture here, the Warriors are the biggest team in the city & we get bigger crowds than Newcastle, Sale & Saracens (without their one off Twickenham/Wembley days). Why would we be booted out to accommodate areas where rugby is barely a footnote? Fail to see how that benefits English rugby.

 

[RedruthRFC]

What you're arguing for is what Super League already tried and binned after they realised ring fencing doesn't work. Promotion/Relegation is essential to keep the season alive for those teams in the bottom half & to give those teams in the Championship something to strive for. Does anybody really want a league where half the teams are just going through the motions by December?

I don't think it's reasonable to write off the idea based on Super League in the same way that the success of other ring fenced leagues can't be taken in isolation to prove that ring fencing is the way forward. I take your point about keeping the competition alive, but how much worse would it be than the current status quo? Last season, the top 8 teams were all within a shout for a playoff spot as the end of the season approached, in a ten team league, this would have been 80%, not half. In theory, the reduction to 10 sides would result in greater strength across the board, so an even more competitive league overall. As it was, the threat of relegation did little to keep the competition alive at the bottom of the table as Irish were so far in the mire.

And if you were to get your 10 team Premiership I can't comprehend why you'd be getting rid of Worcester? There is a rugby culture here, the Warriors are the biggest team in the city & we get bigger crowds than Newcastle, Sale & Saracens (without their one off Twickenham/Wembley days). Why would we be booted out to accommodate areas where rugby is barely a footnote? Fail to see how that benefits English rugby.

As a member of the board with no particular allegiance to any side (although I will admit to keeping an eye on Exeter as that's where all the Cornish talent ends up these days) and no particular malice against any side, I like to think I'm pretty objective. That being the case, I can't comprehend the difficulty in understanding why Worcester being in line from exclusion from a ten team league is hard to comprehend! My way of looking at the question would be to ask which two teams would make better candidates. The disparity in crowds among the bottom sides (Newcastle averaged more than Worcester but this may have been skewed by their trip to the football) isn't so huge as to serve as a massive bargaining chip to my mind, meaning that geographical distribution is a much more important factor. I think you underestimate the importance of the development pathway that a Premiership side in a region provides - would we be talking about the Curry brothers now is Sale weren't in the Premiership? Where as any Worcester talent could be easily absorbed by near by academies.