The Official English Rugby Thread

[SaintK]

Harlow have played 4 matches to reach the final, two of them away. Played Cockermouth from Cumbria in the SF at home though.

Well done Cockermouth for travelling
RFU were only subsidising £750 for long distance travel expenses
Looks like a match too far in the final for Harlow. Outstanding season though

[Kawazaki]

Harlow have played 4 matches to reach the final, two of them away. Played Cockermouth from Cumbria in the SF at home though.

Well done Cockermouth for travelling
RFU were only subsidising £750 for long distance travel expenses
Looks like a match too far in the final for Harlow. Outstanding season though

Yes, I watched some of it online but couldn't go to Twickenham unfortunately though lots did, about 500 fans. Dulwich College Old Boys were too good for the Essex mixed comp lads!

Still, great memories and a great experience to play at HQ. Jealous!

[Torquemada 1420]

I don't know if Eng will still have a no overseas player policy for next season but Willis was superb for Toulouse again last night.

[dpedin]

I don't know if Eng will still have a no overseas player policy for next season but Willis was superb for Toulouse again last night.

They need to review this policy now given the financial mess the English game is in. If not then they won't be able to play most of their best players in a year or two time. Policy is fine when you think you can compete with the highest payers in the game, when you are struggling to keep most of your teams afloat financially then it is shooting yourself in the foot at international level.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

[Random1]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

Indeed. Just central contract them like they do in cricket. I have never understood the resistance - it could work for everyone involved.

[petej]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

Yes, why not give more authority to the RFU. Those with competent bodies like the Irish frequently think this will help but the rfu is an inept and incompetent organisation. Never quite sure why the clubs take so much of the blame. Did the clubs renew jones's contract? Did the clubs appoint Dean Ryan as the head of player development? Are the clubs the reason why some of our better coaches aren't involved in English rugby?

Edit: We've seen a lot of the better players at the clubs be ignored and how many players broken by Jones training.

[Torquemada 1420]

I don't know if Eng will still have a no overseas player policy for next season but Willis was superb for Toulouse again last night.

They need to review this policy now given the financial mess the English game is in. If not then they won't be able to play most of their best players in a year or two time. Policy is fine when you think you can compete with the highest payers in the game, when you are struggling to keep most of your teams afloat financially then it is shooting yourself in the foot at international level.

I agree. The policy choice rationale itself should be entirely divorced from the national team i.e. it's fine to enforce it if it's good for the club game because, by extension, that should assist the national team. If it has no impact on the club game then it's a ridiculous stance which simply harms the national team.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

Yes, why not give more authority to the RFU. Those with competent bodies like the Irish frequently think this will help but the rfu is an inept and incompetent organisation. Never quite sure why the clubs take so much of the blame. Did the clubs renew jones's contract? Did the clubs appoint Dean Ryan as the head of player development? Are the clubs the reason why some of our better coaches aren't involved in English rugby?

Edit: We've seen a lot of the better players at the clubs be ignored and how many players broken by Jones training.

Fwiw I'd lean more on the side of the clubs than the RFU in all this, but even then it's not as simple as apportioning blame because the two sides want different things, and the clubs themselves are then more than a little disparate in intent.

Also fwiw I think both the RFU and the clubs are pretty badly run

Still, there's a deal to be done and one with strong competing interests going into it. And one whether other points of friction exist between the RFU and the clubs which could easily get dragged into the equation when it's hard enough to sort a deal to begin with.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

Indeed. Just central contract them like they do in cricket. I have never understood the resistance - it could work for everyone involved.

It clearly doesn't work in cricket, in practical terms nobody watches county cricket. Partly hardly anyone would anyway, partly the counties have in all this made themselves largely irrelevant in their own right

But maybe this is the future. And then we get on to how many would come under central contract, what are the mechanisms for moving in/out and how would that practically work at club and player level in terms of planning 2-3 seasons ahead. And too we'd cementing an idea already somewhat in place, that form in the domestic game is as relevant as county cricket when thinking of England selection

[Kawazaki]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

The lack of leadership, vision, desire and creativity from the RFU is 90% of the reason why we are here. The clubs really have done very little wrong other than to bankroll the RFU's incompetence for 25 years.

[Kawazaki]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

Indeed. Just central contract them like they do in cricket. I have never understood the resistance - it could work for everyone involved.

The RFU simply couldn't afford it, not even close. They pay the clubs £80k a year per player to have access to to them for just under half the season. They're paying peanuts at the moment and they're still losing money.

[Torquemada 1420]

It clearly doesn't work in cricket, in practical terms nobody watches county cricket. Partly hardly anyone would anyway, partly the counties have in all this made themselves largely irrelevant in their own right

As you point out, cricket is oddball. It's a victim of the instant gratification, low quality/high volume society. No has the time or wants to spend the time needed to watch a multi day event.

[Torquemada 1420]

The lack of leadership, vision, desire and creativity from the RFU is 90% of the reason why we are here. The clubs really have done very little wrong other than to bankroll the RFU's incompetence for 25 years.

Probably the stance we'd all expect from a Sarries fan but the clubs have done plenty wrong. Pretty much to a man, they've run unsustainable business models and Sarries' cheating accelerated this suicidal arms race.

The same drivers exist in Fra but the difference there is there is enough commercial clout all round to keep enough teams solvent. The JIFF rules have had a big impact in reducing the saturation of foreign imports but, ironically, the limitation has allowed the Fre clubs to concentrate their overseas budgets and pick off the best players available.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

The lack of leadership, vision, desire and creativity from the RFU is 90% of the reason why we are here. The clubs really have done very little wrong other than to bankroll the RFU's incompetence for 25 years.

I don't think there's a club who doesn't spend a far too great a % of revenues on player wages. So even before considering anything else they all shit the bed in god awful fashion when it comes to running a business. At that point even if they do everything else well, and they don't, they're inept.

It's understandable ineptness given how they view competing (and in some instances cheating), but it'd be ridiculous to claim they've done and they're doing nothing wrong.

[Kawazaki]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

The lack of leadership, vision, desire and creativity from the RFU is 90% of the reason why we are here. The clubs really have done very little wrong other than to bankroll the RFU's incompetence for 25 years.

I don't think there's a club who doesn't spend a far too great a % of revenues on player wages. So even before considering anything else they all shit the bed in god awful fashion when it comes to running a business. At that point even if they do everything else well, and they don't, they're inept.

It's understandable ineptness given how they view competing (and in some instances cheating), but it'd be ridiculous to claim they've done and they're doing nothing wrong.

The club owners have pumped £500m+ into English rugby over 25+ years with literally zero return or, as it often turns out, any thanks or even respect. They've been benevolent sponsors without whom there simply wouldn't be a domestic competition in England worthy of the name. The best English players would all be overseas assuming that the best athletes in schools even bothered to give rugby a second glance.

[Paddington Bear]

Borthwick wants the change, the clubs really do not. And the RFU needs to negotiate a new contract with the clubs taking into account post Covid finances, their desire for more control over the players, and perhaps even a reduced number of clubs.

One thing I will note is given England have typically been bad for the last 2 decades, or at least significantly underperforming, the notion we need to protect a failing system is clearly risible. You might want to keep it for the politics of it all, and that's far from nothing, but you couldn't claim it's been working as hoped.

Indeed. Just central contract them like they do in cricket. I have never understood the resistance - it could work for everyone involved.

It clearly doesn't work in cricket, in practical terms nobody watches county cricket. Partly hardly anyone would anyway, partly the counties have in all this made themselves largely irrelevant in their own right

But maybe this is the future. And then we get on to how many would come under central contract, what are the mechanisms for moving in/out and how would that practically work at club and player level in terms of planning 2-3 seasons ahead. And too we'd cementing an idea already somewhat in place, that form in the domestic game is as relevant as county cricket when thinking of England selection

Nearly every county cricket club is profitable, unlike their rugby counterparts. About the same number of counties get 10,000+ gates as do Premiership clubs, and more are capable of hitting the 20,000 mark. TV audiences are comparable, and Sky plumped for cricket over rugby when push came to shove. And they exercise wage restraint. More of a model for rugby than you might at first think.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The county cricket sides are sort of profitable, but it depends what you mean. It's very likely county cricket has way more debt attached to it than the Rugby clubs would, even if a lot of that is investments in grounds principally by those clubs who host test matches, so profitable if looked at from a certain point of view

My issue with county cricket would however be more around nobody watches, and it's a bad tournament to advance players capable of playing for England, even those breaking into the game with actual talent. Granted I would concede I don't care about the one day, t20 or 100 events they partake in, so I'm really only looking at the first class game

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The lack of leadership, vision, desire and creativity from the RFU is 90% of the reason why we are here. The clubs really have done very little wrong other than to bankroll the RFU's incompetence for 25 years.

I don't think there's a club who doesn't spend a far too great a % of revenues on player wages. So even before considering anything else they all shit the bed in god awful fashion when it comes to running a business. At that point even if they do everything else well, and they don't, they're inept.

It's understandable ineptness given how they view competing (and in some instances cheating), but it'd be ridiculous to claim they've done and they're doing nothing wrong.

The club owners have pumped £500m+ into English rugby over 25+ years with literally zero return or, as it often turns out, any thanks or even respect. They've been benevolent sponsors without whom there simply wouldn't be a domestic competition in England worthy of the name. The best English players would all be overseas assuming that the best athletes in schools even bothered to give rugby a second glance.

Meh, even if I accepted all that as being indicative of running things well, and I don't, I could simply say that's in the past, what are you doing for me today?

I prefer the idea of the clubs being Independent and securing their own future. But that they've spent a fortune on wages which builds debt in the now and doesn't as such invest in the future is something they've done more than it's worthy of praise

[Monk]

The county cricket sides are sort of profitable, but it depends what you mean. It's very likely county cricket has way more debt attached to it than the Rugby clubs would, even if a lot of that is investments in grounds principally by those clubs who host test matches, so profitable if looked at from a certain point of view

My issue with county cricket would however be more around nobody watches, and it's a bad tournament to advance players capable of playing for England, even those breaking into the game with actual talent. Granted I would concede I don't care about the one day, t20 or 100 events they partake in, so I'm really only looking at the first class game

did county cricket draw large crowds in the past? when did that end?

[Ovals]

The county cricket sides are sort of profitable, but it depends what you mean. It's very likely county cricket has way more debt attached to it than the Rugby clubs would, even if a lot of that is investments in grounds principally by those clubs who host test matches, so profitable if looked at from a certain point of view

My issue with county cricket would however be more around nobody watches, and it's a bad tournament to advance players capable of playing for England, even those breaking into the game with actual talent. Granted I would concede I don't care about the one day, t20 or 100 events they partake in, so I'm really only looking at the first class game

Whilst there is a gulf between 1st class County Cricket and test level - the counties still produced the players that have won 10 from their last 12 tests. We've also produced World Champion sides in T20 and ODI formats. I think we'd be quite happy if our Rugby side was that successful.

The structure would not work for Rugby though. Centrally contracted cricketers rarely turn out for their counties and the England team play a ridiculous amount of days/games and that's where the money comes from to support the Counties and Grass roots. The counties don't have the same competition for players that Rugby clubs have (outside of the IPL window). There[s no other elite competition on our doorstep.

Edit - and Domestic cricket attendance is quite similar to that of Rugby - with around 2 Million - and, beacuse games are longer, sales of drinks and food are probably more substantial than for Rugby matches. Surprisingly, attendances for the County Championship (4 day games) is higher now than it was at the end of the last century, before T20. The key to a county's revenue is prmarily number of members they have. Surrey has the highest membership @ 14500.

[sockwithaticket]

I don't know if Eng will still have a no overseas player policy for next season but Willis was superb for Toulouse again last night.

They need to review this policy now given the financial mess the English game is in. If not then they won't be able to play most of their best players in a year or two time. Policy is fine when you think you can compete with the highest payers in the game, when you are struggling to keep most of your teams afloat financially then it is shooting yourself in the foot at international level.

No they don't. As I've pointed out in several posts over the last few weeks when people bring it up, realtisically there are just two markets where English players could earn more than the Prem - the Top14 and Top League. Both have increasingly stringent quotas on foreign player numbers and any English player looking to leave the Prem to compete there is competing with the rest of the rugby world for a decreasing number of spots in France and Japan.

At the moment our 'exodus' is a few prime players who, for various reasons, have only ever been fringe internationals up to this point and a few who are getting close to the end of their careers, for whom participation in the next world cup is unlikely. I'll eat my shoes if our losses abroad ever get worse than that

We hear a lot about the small number of leavers, but don't often seem to note traffic coming back the other way. Tom Willis and Zach Mercer are notable returnees highly likely to be able to cover the loss of Jack Willis and Sam Simmonds for the national team; Joe Launchbury should mean Dave Ribbans departure won't be felt.

I won't pretend the game is hunky dory in England, just that we don't have to worry about changing existing policy about where players ply their trade.

[sockwithaticket]

Stewards' enquiry for the team that Sarries put out. I had Bath by 15+ based on that joke team sheet.

I had them +17
Sensible selection by Sarries given play off semi next weekend

Of course. It's a loophole that it's hard to see anything being done about (bar when Agen threw their Parker Pen game away at Ebbw Vale).

To an extent you earn the option to do that when you've secured a home semi-final and are 15 points clear of the 3rd place team. Stretching out a league lead like that allows them to use the last couple of weeks to manage the squad, including adhering to the enhanced rest requirements of their England players laid out in the EPS agreement.

[Kawazaki]

I don't think there's a club who doesn't spend a far too great a % of revenues on player wages. So even before considering anything else they all shit the bed in god awful fashion when it comes to running a business. At that point even if they do everything else well, and they don't, they're inept.

It's understandable ineptness given how they view competing (and in some instances cheating), but it'd be ridiculous to claim they've done and they're doing nothing wrong.

The club owners have pumped £500m+ into English rugby over 25+ years with literally zero return or, as it often turns out, any thanks or even respect. They've been benevolent sponsors without whom there simply wouldn't be a domestic competition in England worthy of the name. The best English players would all be overseas assuming that the best athletes in schools even bothered to give rugby a second glance.

Meh, even if I accepted all that as being indicative of running things well, and I don't, I could simply say that's in the past, what are you doing for me today?

I prefer the idea of the clubs being Independent and securing their own future. But that they've spent a fortune on wages which builds debt in the now and doesn't as such invest in the future is something they've done more than it's worthy of praise

What are they doing for you today? They are subsidising English rugby and writing off £millions every year that the RFU don't have to finance. They are underwriting about 60-90% of England players salaries so those players remain in England. They are investing £millions in stadia where rugby has primacy of tenure. They are spending £millions marketing rugby union and co-managing elite development pathways for future England players. And much much more besides via supply chains and secondary functions.

Frankly, it's a miracle to find any person in England who has the wherewithal to make £millions in business every year to touch English rugby with a bargepole let alone try to find a dozen of them.

[Paddington Bear]

The county cricket sides are sort of profitable, but it depends what you mean. It's very likely county cricket has way more debt attached to it than the Rugby clubs would, even if a lot of that is investments in grounds principally by those clubs who host test matches, so profitable if looked at from a certain point of view

My issue with county cricket would however be more around nobody watches, and it's a bad tournament to advance players capable of playing for England, even those breaking into the game with actual talent. Granted I would concede I don't care about the one day, t20 or 100 events they partake in, so I'm really only looking at the first class game

Completely respect not caring about short form cricket and agree to a large extent with your criticism of the championship, but it makes the comparison pointless given that the equivalent to discuss with rugby is t20 and to an extent the hundred.
And yes the counties are profitable even accounting for investment in their facilities (to further the point the county with the greatest long term financial issues is Middlesex - the only one that doesn’t own a ground), accounting for the same premiership rugby clubs are not.

[Paddington Bear]

The county cricket sides are sort of profitable, but it depends what you mean. It's very likely county cricket has way more debt attached to it than the Rugby clubs would, even if a lot of that is investments in grounds principally by those clubs who host test matches, so profitable if looked at from a certain point of view

My issue with county cricket would however be more around nobody watches, and it's a bad tournament to advance players capable of playing for England, even those breaking into the game with actual talent. Granted I would concede I don't care about the one day, t20 or 100 events they partake in, so I'm really only looking at the first class game

did county cricket draw large crowds in the past? when did that end?

Long form? Probably 50s/60s. Others may be able to be more precise. Between the wars cricketers and media made a justifiable if debatable claim to being the national sport.
Short form? They still do.

[fishfoodie]

I don't know if Eng will still have a no overseas player policy for next season but Willis was superb for Toulouse again last night.

They need to review this policy now given the financial mess the English game is in. If not then they won't be able to play most of their best players in a year or two time. Policy is fine when you think you can compete with the highest payers in the game, when you are struggling to keep most of your teams afloat financially then it is shooting yourself in the foot at international level.

No they don't. As I've pointed out in several posts over the last few weeks when people bring it up, realtisically there are just two markets where English players could earn more than the Prem - the Top14 and Top League. Both have increasingly stringent quotas on foreign player numbers and any English player looking to leave the Prem to compete there is competing with the rest of the rugby world for a decreasing number of spots in France and Japan.

At the moment our 'exodus' is a few prime players who, for various reasons, have only ever been fringe internationals up to this point and a few who are getting close to the end of their careers, for whom participation in the next world cup is unlikely. I'll eat my shoes if our losses abroad ever get worse than that

We hear a lot about the small number of leavers, but don't often seem to note traffic coming back the other way. Tom Willis and Zach Mercer are notable returnees highly likely to be able to cover the loss of Jack Willis and Sam Simmonds for the national team; Joe Launchbury should mean Dave Ribbans departure won't be felt.

I won't pretend the game is hunky dory in England, just that we don't have to worry about changing existing policy about where players ply their trade.

Congratulations !

You've just successfully argued that there is no significant market for EQ players overseas, & are simultaneously arguing that it's necessary to have a policy preventing such unlikely moves !

The current policy is designed to give English clubs a stick to beat down players wage demands, by allowing them to point out that players won't be available for English selection & the associated match fees, & so they should accept a lower wage from an English team than one they might potentially get from an overseas one.

[Margin__Walker]

I think the post made perfect sense.

Panic stories of an exodus are often overblown when you look at the how many foreign player spots there are in the two leagues where one would realistically go for a fatter contract. Fringe England players of the sort that are heading over can still pick up non derisory contracts here pretty easily. They will just be slightly lower than they may be in France. If they want to move and broaden horizons, then cool and good for them, but it doesn't mean rules need rewriting.

NZ seem to always manage this kind of arrangement without much fuss. NZ SR teams don't play market leading rates, but players know the score on moving abroad with respect to All Black selection.

If you look at the players actually moving this summer (rather than the agent talk), it's not especially terrifying from an England squad point of view. Willis is the biggest loss, but you're talking about a player who has only just broken through and there are other players of a similar standard still on the scene (T Curry, Earl, Pearson etc). Simmonds has been a disappointment at international level really and you have Mercer and T Willis heading the other way. Nowell is finished internationally. LCD is definitely in last RWC territory assuming his body even holds up that long, and sounds like that deal fell through anyway. Marchant is a tidy player, but was on the fringes of the international set up.

Fundamentally the policy makes sense and isn't the primary cause of the England team's malaise at the moment. Having England players fully available for camps and not playing big T14 games on a Sunday evening and then travel to catch up and back it up the following Saturday makes sense.

[Torquemada 1420]

The club owners have pumped £500m+ into English rugby over 25+ years with literally zero return or,

The epitome of an unsustainable business model?

[SaintK]

I think the post made perfect sense.

Panic stories of an exodus are often overblown when you look at the how many foreign player spots there are in the two leagues where one would realistically go for a fatter contract. Fringe England players of the sort that are heading over can still pick up non derisory contracts here pretty easily. They will just be slightly lower than they may be in France. If they want to move and broaden horizons, then cool and good for them, but it doesn't mean rules need rewriting.

NZ seem to always manage this kind of arrangement without much fuss. NZ SR teams don't play market leading rates, but players know the score on moving abroad with respect to All Black selection.

If you look at the players actually moving this summer (rather than the agent talk), it's not especially terrifying from an England squad point of view. Willis is the biggest loss, but you're talking about a player who has only just broken through and there are other players of a similar standard still on the scene (T Curry, Earl, Pearson etc). Simmonds has been a disappointment at international level really and you have Mercer and T Willis heading the other way. Nowell is finished internationally. LCD is definitely in last RWC territory assuming his body even holds up that long, and sounds like that deal fell through anyway. Marchant is a tidy player, but was on the fringes of the international set up.

Fundamentally the policy makes sense and isn't the primary cause of the England team's malaise at the moment. Having England players fully available for camps and not playing big T14 games on a Sunday evening and then travel to catch up and back it up the following Saturday makes sense.

I tnink that sums it up pretty well!

[JM2K6]

Tis fun how many non-English posters with a fairly superficial and/or blinkered view of the sport in this country seem to think they hold all the answers. It should tell you something that aside from R&C who has his own unique take on things, you have pretty much every English rugby poster united in their view of what the clubs and the RFU actually do and offer, what the overseas rule actually means, and what the 'exodus' is.

When Margin, Toga, me, and sock are all arguing the same thing, it's probably self evident tbh.

PRL as an entity may have made multiple blunders and ultimately there's a lot of blame to share around, but it cannot be ignored that club rugby in this country was taken from a piss-poor situation where sides had godawful stadia, no fans, and were playing dreadful rugby day in day out, to something worthy of being a professional sport. A huge amount of effort went into growing crowds, improving the matchday experience, improving the quality of player being produced, and trying to work towards being sustainable. The last 6 years has torpedoed that but there's multiple reasons for it. The clubs are in an existential crisis, no doubt - but it shouldn't be forgotten that professional rugby only exists in one of the biggest rugby nations in the world because of the money they've been willing to piss down to the plughole. And keeping hold of the best players is quite important when you want to improve the product and retain supporters.

As for the RFU, they're barely competent and almost every part of the game they're involved in is deeply unhappy with them.

Whether the rule that prevents overseas selection stays or goes, it's a sideshow. It's a drum being beaten by vested interests. I'm pleased that Jack Willis is doing so well for Toulouse, but it's a weird situation having him be the spokesman for the case against the rule, what with him spending most of his career injured, his club going bust, and him having a handful of caps.

[JM2K6]

The club owners have pumped £500m+ into English rugby over 25+ years with literally zero return or,

The epitome of an unsustainable business model?

Sustained for 25+ years.

There's a big difference between "we lose money but can afford to do so" and "we can't afford to keep going". In the former scenario, you can work towards breaking even or even profitability. The league wasn't far off that in the last decade.

[Torquemada 1420]

The club owners have pumped £500m+ into English rugby over 25+ years with literally zero return or,

The epitome of an unsustainable business model?

Sustained for 25+ years.

There's a big difference between "we lose money but can afford to do so" and "we can't afford to keep going". In the former scenario, you can work towards breaking even or even profitability. The league wasn't far off that in the last decade.

I agree. And the collapse of 15% of Prem clubs (Wasps and Wuss) suggests the latter has been reached? Plenty of others on the brink too?

taken from a piss-poor situation where sides had godawful stadia, no fans, and were playing dreadful rugby day in day out, to something worthy of being a professional sport.

You missed a key word there before "professional" i.e. viable.

I haven't offered a solution but I do have a suggestion. And it's aimed at rugby as a whole and not just England. Everyone to wake up and realise professional means getting paid but it does not mean getting paid football type wages to play.

[JM2K6]

The epitome of an unsustainable business model?

Sustained for 25+ years.

There's a big difference between "we lose money but can afford to do so" and "we can't afford to keep going". In the former scenario, you can work towards breaking even or even profitability. The league wasn't far off that in the last decade.

I agree. And the collapse of 15% of Prem clubs (Wasps and Wuss) suggests the latter has been reached? Plenty of others on the brink too?

taken from a piss-poor situation where sides had godawful stadia, no fans, and were playing dreadful rugby day in day out, to something worthy of being a professional sport.

You missed a key word there before "professional" i.e. viable.

I haven't offered a solution but I do have a suggestion. And it's aimed at rugby as a whole and not just England. Everyone to wake up and realise professional means getting paid but it does not mean getting paid football type wages to play.

I didn't miss anything. Professional club rugby in England was looking pretty healthy at one point not that long ago.

No disagreement it's in trouble now. A combination of a salaries arms race driven by a couple of big backers plus CVC's influence meant sustainable losses / the drive towards breaking even became an impossibility if sides wanted to compete; Covid was then a hammer blow that mortally wounded clubs and badly damaged many others.

[Torquemada 1420]

No disagreement it's in trouble now. A combination of a salaries arms race driven by a couple of big backers plus CVC's influence meant sustainable losses / the drive towards breaking even became an impossibility if sides wanted to compete; Covid was then a hammer blow that mortally wounded clubs and badly damaged many others.

Compete with whom?

There needs to be a realisation/acceptance, across rugby that there will be haves and have nots. Pompey can't compete with Southampton. Southampton can't compete with Man City. Man City can't compete (ish) with Real Madrid. Football gets it to some degree in some places. Even an internal arms race (domestic league level) is simply a fact of life (cheating Sarries or City or not). Brive will always yo-yo between Pro 2 and Elite 1 and, in fact, are more likely to go the other way or, at least, remain rooted in Pro 2.

The Prem as a viewing spectacle has been great this year and far more enjoyable (mostly) than T14. And the fact that it always felt like watching a level down in terms of absolute capability doesn't alter that**. I'd rather watch NPC over Soup any time.
** Yes, that may reflect at intl level but Celtic routinely struggles against the likes of Dukla Prague and Scotland can't beat Peru reserves because that's the way it is.

What is not possible is to have a league where every side has a tilt at top dog unless you invoke rebalances like the draft. What might actually be impossible is competing at intl club level and/or intl team level (one does not necessarily lead to the other).

With the current resources available (because crowds aren't materially increasing), what does England want? A healthy, viable domestic league or a tilt at European kings? Because IMHO the former is possible at present if the latter is foregone but pursuit of the latter is going to result in a failure of both.

[inactionman]

No disagreement it's in trouble now. A combination of a salaries arms race driven by a couple of big backers plus CVC's influence meant sustainable losses / the drive towards breaking even became an impossibility if sides wanted to compete; Covid was then a hammer blow that mortally wounded clubs and badly damaged many others.

Compete with whom?

There needs to be a realisation/acceptance, across rugby that there will be haves and have nots. Pompey can't compete with Southampton. Southampton can't compete with Man City. Man City can't compete (ish) with Real Madrid. Football gets it to some degree in some places. Even an internal arms race (domestic league level) is simply a fact of life (cheating Sarries or City or not). Brive will always yo-yo between Pro 2 and Elite 1 and, in fact, are more likely to go the other way or, at least, remain rooted in Pro 2.

The Prem as a viewing spectacle has been great this year and far more enjoyable (mostly) than T14. And the fact that it always felt like watching a level down in terms of absolute capability doesn't alter that**. I'd rather watch NPC over Soup any time.
** Yes, that may reflect at intl level but Celtic routinely struggles against the likes of Dukla Prague and Scotland can't beat Peru reserves because that's the way it is.

What is not possible is to have a league where every side has a tilt at top dog unless you invoke rebalances like the draft. What might actually be impossible is competing at intl club level and/or intl team level (one does not necessarily lead to the other).

With the current resources available (because crowds aren't materially increasing), what does England want? A healthy, viable domestic league or a tilt at European kings? Because IMHO the former is possible at present if the latter is foregone but pursuit of the latter is going to result in a failure of both.

The cap and the academy catchments are intended to keep things at a relatively even tilt, but of course that only goes so far - and you'll still get teams with wealthy backers gravitating for the cap to be raised.

We don't want a situation like football, with haves and have nots, noting that many haves are not really there by merit or design (Man City and Chelsea, for example). It's boring, for one thing, and it's also ultimately far more precarious. For every Chelsea there's a half-dozen clubs ruined by overly ambitious owners who either asset strip, lose interest, lose their money or just fuck it up.

Still, as many have said, I think the club rugby is good - and no real idea why you state it's a level of capability down. There are a few club sides - Leinster in particular - tearing it up at the minute but that's not always the case. The death of English club rugby seems very greatly exaggerated.

I wish we could go for fan ownership under a not-for-profit arrangement, to keep money in the game just to money raised by the game - but that was never really going to fly, even at the birth of professionalism, and it's definitely a no-go now.

[Torquemada 1420]

The cap and the academy catchments are intended to keep things at a relatively even tilt, but of course that only goes so far - and you'll still get teams with wealthy backers gravitating for the cap to be raised.

We don't want a situation like football, with haves and have nots, noting that many haves are not really there by merit or design (Man City and Chelsea, for example). It's boring, for one thing, and it's also ultimately far more precarious. For every Chelsea there's a half-dozen clubs ruined by overly ambitious owners who either asset strip, lose interest, lose their money or just fuck it up.

Still, as many have said, I think the club rugby is good - and no real idea why you state it's a level of capability down. There are a few club sides - Leinster in particular - tearing it up at the minute but that's not always the case. The death of English club rugby seems very greatly exaggerated.

I wish we could go for fan ownership under a not-for-profit arrangement, to keep money in the game just to money raised by the game - but that was never really going to fly, even at the birth of professionalism, and it's definitely a no-go now.

Ideally I agree but sport is a business world now and so the ability to restrict success directly from the cheque book (or unrepaid loan) seems severely limited. Money is merit these days. If success was based on per £ spent, Luton Town would be the top of the Prem by a mile. Instead, they might squeak promotion and then would lose every game next season because the cost of their entire squad is less than pretty much the price of every single Prem transfer player.

Because it is a "capability" down. It feels a shade less physical and a shade slower. And I think that's reflected by what's happened in Europe in recent seasons in terms of results. I also think death is/was closer than anyone's been prepared to admit (financially) even after Wasps/Wuss. If anything, it feels like a bit of any more bad news being so damaging, the other clubs still in a hole are being ignored from too close scrutiny.

Last line: yeah. No chance that was ever going to fly. Even in England where it's a "toffs" game and so per capita, the fans will have the largest pockets in the world by some margin.

[JM2K6]

No disagreement it's in trouble now. A combination of a salaries arms race driven by a couple of big backers plus CVC's influence meant sustainable losses / the drive towards breaking even became an impossibility if sides wanted to compete; Covid was then a hammer blow that mortally wounded clubs and badly damaged many others.

Compete with whom?

There needs to be a realisation/acceptance, across rugby that there will be haves and have nots. Pompey can't compete with Southampton. Southampton can't compete with Man City. Man City can't compete (ish) with Real Madrid. Football gets it to some degree in some places. Even an internal arms race (domestic league level) is simply a fact of life (cheating Sarries or City or not). Brive will always yo-yo between Pro 2 and Elite 1 and, in fact, are more likely to go the other way or, at least, remain rooted in Pro 2.

The Prem as a viewing spectacle has been great this year and far more enjoyable (mostly) than T14. And the fact that it always felt like watching a level down in terms of absolute capability doesn't alter that**. I'd rather watch NPC over Soup any time.
** Yes, that may reflect at intl level but Celtic routinely struggles against the likes of Dukla Prague and Scotland can't beat Peru reserves because that's the way it is.

What is not possible is to have a league where every side has a tilt at top dog unless you invoke rebalances like the draft. What might actually be impossible is competing at intl club level and/or intl team level (one does not necessarily lead to the other).

With the current resources available (because crowds aren't materially increasing), what does England want? A healthy, viable domestic league or a tilt at European kings? Because IMHO the former is possible at present if the latter is foregone but pursuit of the latter is going to result in a failure of both.

Compete with each other.

Sport doesn't need to be a financial arms race. Rugby is not football. Apart from the insanity of holding up one of the most ridiculous sports on the planet as being an example of how inequality is a fact of life in sport, a sport that no-one should be looking to for inspiration, the issue is that rugby in this country cannot survive with haves and have-nots because it is not popular enough a sport to survive. Clubs aren't going to get Sunderland-level attendances and football-level TV deals. No-one is going to buy London Irish shirts in Japan. Football and rugby operate in entirely different worlds and the relationship with the fans is completely different. It's taken a huge amount of work to double attendances and viewing figures and it's still a small percentage of what mediocre football clubs achieve, with no fear for those clubs that the fans will walk away or new fans might not appear. It was a huge amount of work to make top level English club rugby an actually good & attractive professional spectator sport with enough fans and income to aim for a better financial future. It was badly damaged in the space of a few years. The gains in terms of supporters are equally at risk.

But more importantly, all you're saying here is to let the sides with backers who have an order of magnitude more money to spend actually spend that money. That doesn't improve the health of the sport one bit. None of these sides are financially "viable" in your eyes. They just have sugar daddies with much deeper pockets. You say that a haves-and-have-nots situation should be accepted. But everyone is a have-not. Letting a handful of sides set money on fire in vast quantities is going to damage the other sides, who are already at risk. Fuck that. Where's the benefit to anyone who isn't one of the tiny number of people who are either fans of the clubs in question or employed by them?

[inactionman]

The cap and the academy catchments are intended to keep things at a relatively even tilt, but of course that only goes so far - and you'll still get teams with wealthy backers gravitating for the cap to be raised.

We don't want a situation like football, with haves and have nots, noting that many haves are not really there by merit or design (Man City and Chelsea, for example). It's boring, for one thing, and it's also ultimately far more precarious. For every Chelsea there's a half-dozen clubs ruined by overly ambitious owners who either asset strip, lose interest, lose their money or just fuck it up.

Still, as many have said, I think the club rugby is good - and no real idea why you state it's a level of capability down. There are a few club sides - Leinster in particular - tearing it up at the minute but that's not always the case. The death of English club rugby seems very greatly exaggerated.

I wish we could go for fan ownership under a not-for-profit arrangement, to keep money in the game just to money raised by the game - but that was never really going to fly, even at the birth of professionalism, and it's definitely a no-go now.

Ideally I agree but sport is a business world now and so the ability to restrict success directly from the cheque book (or unrepaid loan) seems severely limited. Money is merit these days. If success was based on per £ spent, Luton Town would be the top of the Prem by a mile. Instead, they might squeak promotion and then would lose every game next season because the cost of their entire squad is less than pretty much the price of every single Prem transfer player.

Because it is a "capability" down. It feels a shade less physical and a shade slower. And I think that's reflected by what's happened in Europe in recent seasons in terms of results. I also think death is/was closer than anyone's been prepared to admit (financially) even after Wasps/Wuss. If anything, it feels like a bit of any more bad news being so damaging, the other clubs still in a hole are being ignored from too close scrutiny.

Last line: yeah. No chance that was ever going to fly. Even in England where it's a "toffs" game and so per capita, the fans will have the largest pockets in the world by some margin.

Football has never had a salary cap, has never had any regulations around national team selection and - in England - the Premier League is a separate entity to the governing body, the FA. It's no real surprise that any control over finances has been completely lost - although not helped by a meaningless and utterly unfit for purpose fitness for purpose test.

Rugby really wants to avoid this fate, and its fate is currently - to a greater or lesser extent - in its own hands. (Sadly, for England, anyway, that means it's in the RFU's arthritic, shaky hands)

Still can't see this wild capability gap - some Irish and French clubs are in very good nick, but I've been subjected to a fair few dross matches in those leagues. Not quite sure I go with your 'feelings' on this. Sorry. If anything, it feels like the national side and the top teams in England are at the bottom of a cycle and I think people are reading far, far too much into it.

[JM2K6]

The Telegraph has a take on this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... to-fix-it/

Lots of talk about how losing players to England is a huge problem. I agree and it's always been an insane part of things. But no-one wants to talk about the actual fix there: a sane international schedule and a sane league schedule. It absolutely should be possible for England players to play every game for their club and be available for every England game and training camp. Furthermore, it should also be something that is not detrimental to the club or the player's health.

That cannot be an impossible predicament to solve.