Women's Prem

RFU showing its true colours again. The reshuffle of the Tyrrell's 15 premier has seen two of the pioneering clubs in the women's game Richmond & Waterloo, jettisoned for two new shiny names that haven't played a game in anger, namely Sale Sharks & Exeter Chiefs. It stinks to high heavens, it's become a franchise in all but name, based solely on money. 

Edited by Loo fighters - 07 Apr 2020 at 17:38

PP is a Manchester lad n he knows the score. I thought it was Sale 1861 that was being upgraded, but no, it a brand spanking new entity. He's right on the players. There is only a certain player pool in the NW, Loo have & have had the best around. Quite a few have been taken by Rugby League. Sale will find it very difficult to entice the girls from down south, unless they're going full pro, which I don't believe they are. So as PP said it will be relatively the same team rebranded. Their is a huge difference between playing local and Prem. Loo would put 50+ points on Sale 1861 team of this season, yet Loo were regularly up against a team of english international plus others. Quin's, sarries, Wasps, Loughborough, I think 90% of England play for these 4. teams Michelle Orange might have a dream, but it's about to have its nose rubbed in the dirt. The development league has been scrapped which is the backbone of the up n coming, just madness. Waterloo ladies have been  magnanimous in their response, but I know this hurts,& as a supporter it hurts me. 

Edited by Loo fighters - 07 Apr 2020 at 22:16

What I don't understand is why the Women's game is replicating the structure of the Mens game which doesn't work for the vast majority of its clubs and is a financial shambles. 

Richard, yes the point I was making. So if the 300K a season "investment?" in to SSW goes ahead then what do they get for their money. 30 players on 10K a season? Firstly I doubt some of the Semi-Pro's players would get that but I would guess you'll need 30 just ensure you have squad. You'll have overheads, coaching, medical, transport, kit to come out of it. Furthermore I would guess the Girls Centre of Excellence will be moving from 'Loo to Sale, that too comes with some expenses. Let say they improve on 'Loo's last place finish by one spot a season. After 3 years they will be 3rd from bottom and the wrong end of £1 Million pound investment. Lets hope KP (owners of Tyrrells) don't decide to pull their sponsorship otherwise the RFU might struggle to meet prize money payments. in short.... NUTS!

Edited by PiffPaff - 08 Apr 2020 at 17:11

Has the growth in playing numbers been matched by a growth in attendances for the Women's game? Club rugby, not internationals?

Attendance was  varied to say the least, dependant of course on the opposition. The top four international packed teams drew a three figure crowd with free entry. Quin's v Sarries is the biggest crowd of a few thousand. Great point regarding the model mirroring the men's. For me, the NW needs more than Sale Sharks across both men's and women's game. To grow the game they could have expanded the number to 12 or even 14, keeping Loo and mond plus Lichfield and Leeds West park. The England internationals could be centrally contracted and place two at each club to even up the league making it more competitive, at the moment I think quin's have 6or more current England players, closely followed by Sarries and Loughborough. So it comes as no surprise that some games were won by a landslide of 50+ points, sometimes more.

Pappashanga wrote: Robb, I believe that Aylesford was a halfway house from Richmond to Harlequins. Aylesford must have known this, as did the players. They wouldn't have moved to Aylesford ( miles away from Richmond, and way below them in the then league) except in the knowledge they would end up at Quins.

https://twitter.com/Waspsladies/status/1247972828617596930