Kawazaki wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:45 amRhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:33 am And by the way. Add up how much money Sarries invests each year into youth across England and then compare that to how much the RFU invests into youth rugby across England. If the argument is about the cost of such investment then for any of the top clubs they should be looking to pay the RFU, not the other way around.
Though that of course changes the debate to one where some will contend that's merely because the RFU hold the power and if the clubs had direct control and direct access to funding then it's not really the RFU doing the investment
The clubs would simply buy players from NZ, South Africa, Australia, Wales, Scotland, France, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga... well hopefully you'll catch on eventually.
They're free to do so, with the current agreement anyway, they'd merely lose all the EQP funding they get should those foreign players not be EQP. And intentionally losing funding is an odd undertaking if your contention is you don't get enough central funding.
And again, no one has stripped out the academy at their club and been successful. So if someone wants to chop off their nose an arm and one of their legs to spite their face let them crack on. I figure other clubs will develop their own players, will take advantage of players others in different catchment areas aren't advancing, and those clubs will be better placed for it, even if yes that might not be an outcome that takes 2-3 weeks, probably it'd take at least 2-3 seasons
If the salary cap was done in a way that allowed someone to ape Toulon, and someone was willing to fund it over the longer term that team could still be successful. Or if someone was willing to do a Sarries and ignore the salary cap and be willing to fund such that could work too, but you can't say as things stand Sarries for all their cheating overlook the importance of their academy