Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
rugbychris
British and Irish Lion
Joined: 02 May 2019
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 161
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Oct 2024 at 08:11 |
Professional rugby isn't sustainable in the Premier league where they manage to get gates of over 5k. Why are the RFU pushing this unsustainability onto the champ. Fully pro rugby is not even vaguely achievable.
|
|
Mark W-J
Coaching staff
Joined: 22 May 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3664
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Oct 2024 at 08:48 |
Se7en wrote:
islander wrote:
Those interested should check out the most recent episode of the Champ Clubs Podcast, in which Bedford COO Gareth Alred gives his take on some of the issues about expansion. Interesting that he appears to indicate no team is likely to be relegated from the Champ this season, so if all the existing clubs pass the minimum standards, which again seems to most likely outcome, and the Nat 1 winners come up, my maths suggests there would only be one vacancy left in order to get to the increased quota of 14 clubs.
|
That's not quite accurate. Alred says around the 23.50 mins mark that there is the possibility that some (unnamed) current Champ clubs that may not meet the MOS criteria. He goes on to say, quite rightly, that they have had enough time to get their houses in order to ensue that they do, which is a fair point if Level 2 does want to run more professionally. A decent, balanced overview from a man in the know who recognises that change is coming, and is needed.
|
He also says that no Championship club is going to be relegated because they don't meet the criteria (eg floodlights), having achieved the most important measure - on-pitch success in making it to the Champ.
|
|
Se7en
World Cup Winner
Joined: 18 Apr 2023
Location: Not given
Status: Offline
Points: 501
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Oct 2024 at 09:06 |
Again, slightly inaccurate. Both he and certainly Charlie Beckett (pretty much a subject matter expert on all things Champ) labour the point, quite sensibly, that the Tier 2 clubs will have to practice what they preach re certain standards on and off the pitch if they expect to remain at Level 2 - much of which does relate to infrastructure, which at the very least would be floodlights, media, hospitality, medical, stand(s) (some covered).
Somone else mentioned it before, but to have clubs at Level 2 of the game without floodlights at their grounds is quite remarkable, and something those club(s) will have to address moving forward if they think they are going to be staying at Level 2. Alred quite rightly alludes to the fact that there is a period of turbulence ahead for some clubs, which I'd have to agree with.
Edited by Se7en - 10 Oct 2024 at 10:53
|
|
Robb
World Cup Winner
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Location: South East
Status: Offline
Points: 1547
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Oct 2024 at 12:38 |
Mark W-J wrote:
Se7en wrote:
islander wrote:
Those interested should check out the most recent episode of the Champ Clubs Podcast, in which Bedford COO Gareth Alred gives his take on some of the issues about expansion. Interesting that he appears to indicate no team is likely to be relegated from the Champ this season, so if all the existing clubs pass the minimum standards, which again seems to most likely outcome, and the Nat 1 winners come up, my maths suggests there would only be one vacancy left in order to get to the increased quota of 14 clubs.
|
That's not quite accurate. Alred says around the 23.50 mins mark that there is the possibility that some (unnamed) current Champ clubs that may not meet the MOS criteria. He goes on to say, quite rightly, that they have had enough time to get their houses in order to ensue that they do, which is a fair point if Level 2 does want to run more professionally. A decent, balanced overview from a man in the know who recognises that change is coming, and is needed.
|
He also says that no Championship club is going to be relegated because they don't meet the criteria (eg floodlights), having achieved the most important measure - on-pitch success in making it to the Champ. |
Ah yes, the old Grandfather clause the Premiership used when they brought in the Minimum Standards Criteria when only 3 clubs at the time actually met them (and Bath still don't today!). Protectionism seeping down to the Championship too.
|
|
Richard Lowther
Coaching staff
Moderator
Joined: 19 May 2007
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 6578
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Oct 2024 at 13:56 |
I hope the due diligence process for any 'new' club is robust.
|
|
|
Nat1
First XV regular
Joined: 31 Dec 2023
Location: Not given
Status: Offline
Points: 111
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Oct 2024 at 14:26 |
Robb wrote:
Mark W-J wrote:
Se7en wrote:
islander wrote:
Those interested should check out the most recent episode of the Champ Clubs Podcast, in which Bedford COO Gareth Alred gives his take on some of the issues about expansion. Interesting that he appears to indicate no team is likely to be relegated from the Champ this season, so if all the existing clubs pass the minimum standards, which again seems to most likely outcome, and the Nat 1 winners come up, my maths suggests there would only be one vacancy left in order to get to the increased quota of 14 clubs.
|
That's not quite accurate. Alred says around the 23.50 mins mark that there is the possibility that some (unnamed) current Champ clubs that may not meet the MOS criteria. He goes on to say, quite rightly, that they have had enough time to get their houses in order to ensue that they do, which is a fair point if Level 2 does want to run more professionally. A decent, balanced overview from a man in the know who recognises that change is coming, and is needed.
|
He also says that no Championship club is going to be relegated because they don't meet the criteria (eg floodlights), having achieved the most important measure - on-pitch success in making it to the Champ. |
Ah yes, the old Grandfather clause the Premiership used when they brought in the Minimum Standards Criteria when only 3 clubs at the time actually met them (and Bath still don't today!). Protectionism seeping down to the Championship too. |
That's a good point, protectionism in 2 leagues. Will the Champ close up shop also and tell others to do as they say, but not as they do in order to join their gang?
Level 3 is the pinnacle of club rugby in England as many of us know it.
|
|
Nat1
First XV regular
Joined: 31 Dec 2023
Location: Not given
Status: Offline
Points: 111
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Oct 2024 at 14:28 |
Robb wrote:
Mark W-J wrote:
Se7en wrote:
islander wrote:
Those interested should check out the most recent episode of the Champ Clubs Podcast, in which Bedford COO Gareth Alred gives his take on some of the issues about expansion. Interesting that he appears to indicate no team is likely to be relegated from the Champ this season, so if all the existing clubs pass the minimum standards, which again seems to most likely outcome, and the Nat 1 winners come up, my maths suggests there would only be one vacancy left in order to get to the increased quota of 14 clubs.
|
That's not quite accurate. Alred says around the 23.50 mins mark that there is the possibility that some (unnamed) current Champ clubs that may not meet the MOS criteria. He goes on to say, quite rightly, that they have had enough time to get their houses in order to ensue that they do, which is a fair point if Level 2 does want to run more professionally. A decent, balanced overview from a man in the know who recognises that change is coming, and is needed.
|
He also says that no Championship club is going to be relegated because they don't meet the criteria (eg floodlights), having achieved the most important measure - on-pitch success in making it to the Champ. |
Ah yes, the old Grandfather clause the Premiership used when they brought in the Minimum Standards Criteria when only 3 clubs at the time actually met them (and Bath still don't today!). Protectionism seeping down to the Championship too. |
That's a good point, protectionism across the top 2 leagues. Will the Championship close up shop also and tell others to do as they say, but not as they do in order to join their gang?
Level 3 is clearly the pinnacle of club rugby in England as many of us know it.
Edited: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/articles/cyvy15gjdgeo
It's looks official then that Wasps, Warriors and Irish have all applied to become part of Tier 2.
Edited by Nat1 - 10 Oct 2024 at 15:49
|
|
islander
World Cup Winner
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Location: jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 7517
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 Oct 2024 at 16:25 |
Se7en wrote:
islander wrote:
Those interested should check out the most recent episode of the Champ Clubs Podcast, in which Bedford COO Gareth Alred gives his take on some of the issues about expansion. Interesting that he appears to indicate no team is likely to be relegated from the Champ this season, so if all the existing clubs pass the minimum standards, which again seems to most likely outcome, and the Nat 1 winners come up, my maths suggests there would only be one vacancy left in order to get to the increased quota of 14 clubs.
|
That's not quite accurate. Alred says around the 23.50 mins mark that there is the possibility that some (unnamed) current Champ clubs that may not meet the MOS criteria. He goes on to say, quite rightly, that they have had enough time to get their houses in order to ensue that they do, which is a fair point if Level 2 does want to run more professionally. A decent, balanced overview from a man in the know who recognises that change is coming, and is needed.
|
I wouldn't have flagged it if I thought it was unbalanced or not decent, or the person speaking wasn't in the know. He says it is "highly doubtful" an existing club wouldn't pass the standards hurdle in year 1, but with an eye on the future also stresses that the minimum standards are likely to be stricter/higher in year 3, and higher/stricter still in year 5, with gradually less leniency in order to increase professionalism etc.
|
|
Robb
World Cup Winner
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Location: South East
Status: Offline
Points: 1547
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 hours 46 minutes ago at 09:36 |
islander wrote:
Se7en wrote:
islander wrote:
Those interested should check out the most recent episode of the Champ Clubs Podcast, in which Bedford COO Gareth Alred gives his take on some of the issues about expansion. Interesting that he appears to indicate no team is likely to be relegated from the Champ this season, so if all the existing clubs pass the minimum standards, which again seems to most likely outcome, and the Nat 1 winners come up, my maths suggests there would only be one vacancy left in order to get to the increased quota of 14 clubs.
|
That's not quite accurate. Alred says around the 23.50 mins mark that there is the possibility that some (unnamed) current Champ clubs that may not meet the MOS criteria. He goes on to say, quite rightly, that they have had enough time to get their houses in order to ensue that they do, which is a fair point if Level 2 does want to run more professionally. A decent, balanced overview from a man in the know who recognises that change is coming, and is needed.
|
I wouldn't have flagged it if I thought it was unbalanced or not decent, or the person speaking wasn't in the know. He says it is "highly doubtful" an existing club wouldn't pass the standards hurdle in year 1, but with an eye on the future also stresses that the minimum standards are likely to be stricter/higher in year 3, and higher/stricter still in year 5, with gradually less leniency in order to increase professionalism etc. |
Just like what happened to the Women's Premiership. Kick-out long standing members (Litchfield), allow pro clubs to take-over others (Harlequins stealing Aylesford Bulls) or have a good uni (Loughborough), let it run a few seasons then eject the non-connected clubs (Richmond, Waterloo) or those who can't afford it (Darlington Mowden Park Sharks) to replace them with franchises connected to clubs that never had a team in the women's league before (Trailfinders, Exeter, Sale) or allow them to skip the leagues because of their connections (Tigers).
I fear that the Championship will end up in a depressingly familiar story.
|
|
Paul10
World Cup Winner
Joined: 24 Mar 2023
Location: Milton Keynes
Status: Offline
Points: 716
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 hours 44 minutes ago at 09:38 |
Yes. It looks familiar to that. And given England's dominance of women's rugby it can be seen as a success in HQ.
|
|
cheshire exile
World Cup Winner
Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2516
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 13 hours 25 minutes ago at 11:57 |
Given that the RFU only cares about the national teams, that’s right. Allegedly it has a responsibility to the wider game.
|
|
rugbychris
British and Irish Lion
Joined: 02 May 2019
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 161
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 hours 44 minutes ago at 12:38 |
Robb wrote:
islander wrote:
Se7en wrote:
islander wrote:
Those interested should check out the most recent episode of the Champ Clubs Podcast, in which Bedford COO Gareth Alred gives his take on some of the issues about expansion. Interesting that he appears to indicate no team is likely to be relegated from the Champ this season, so if all the existing clubs pass the minimum standards, which again seems to most likely outcome, and the Nat 1 winners come up, my maths suggests there would only be one vacancy left in order to get to the increased quota of 14 clubs.
|
That's not quite accurate. Alred says around the 23.50 mins mark that there is the possibility that some (unnamed) current Champ clubs that may not meet the MOS criteria. He goes on to say, quite rightly, that they have had enough time to get their houses in order to ensue that they do, which is a fair point if Level 2 does want to run more professionally. A decent, balanced overview from a man in the know who recognises that change is coming, and is needed.
|
I wouldn't have flagged it if I thought it was unbalanced or not decent, or the person speaking wasn't in the know. He says it is "highly doubtful" an existing club wouldn't pass the standards hurdle in year 1, but with an eye on the future also stresses that the minimum standards are likely to be stricter/higher in year 3, and higher/stricter still in year 5, with gradually less leniency in order to increase professionalism etc. |
Just like what happened to the Women's Premiership. Kick-out long standing members (Litchfield), allow pro clubs to take-over others (Harlequins stealing Aylesford Bulls) or have a good uni (Loughborough), let it run a few seasons then eject the non-connected clubs (Richmond, Waterloo) or those who can't afford it (Darlington Mowden Park Sharks) to replace them with franchises connected to clubs that never had a team in the women's league before (Trailfinders, Exeter, Sale) or allow them to skip the leagues because of their connections (Tigers).
I fear that the Championship will end up in a depressingly familiar story. |
I have tried on a few occasions to find the attendance figures for women's prem rugby but have never been able to. A fully pro England squad and I would imagine (happy to be corrected) less than 500 spectators per match. How is this sustainable?
|
|
Robb
World Cup Winner
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Location: South East
Status: Offline
Points: 1547
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 10 hours 26 minutes ago at 14:56 |
rugbychris wrote:
Robb wrote:
islander wrote:
Se7en wrote:
islander wrote:
Those interested should check out the most recent episode of the Champ Clubs Podcast, in which Bedford COO Gareth Alred gives his take on some of the issues about expansion. Interesting that he appears to indicate no team is likely to be relegated from the Champ this season, so if all the existing clubs pass the minimum standards, which again seems to most likely outcome, and the Nat 1 winners come up, my maths suggests there would only be one vacancy left in order to get to the increased quota of 14 clubs.
|
That's not quite accurate. Alred says around the 23.50 mins mark that there is the possibility that some (unnamed) current Champ clubs that may not meet the MOS criteria. He goes on to say, quite rightly, that they have had enough time to get their houses in order to ensue that they do, which is a fair point if Level 2 does want to run more professionally. A decent, balanced overview from a man in the know who recognises that change is coming, and is needed.
|
I wouldn't have flagged it if I thought it was unbalanced or not decent, or the person speaking wasn't in the know. He says it is "highly doubtful" an existing club wouldn't pass the standards hurdle in year 1, but with an eye on the future also stresses that the minimum standards are likely to be stricter/higher in year 3, and higher/stricter still in year 5, with gradually less leniency in order to increase professionalism etc. |
Just like what happened to the Women's Premiership. Kick-out long standing members (Litchfield), allow pro clubs to take-over others (Harlequins stealing Aylesford Bulls) or have a good uni (Loughborough), let it run a few seasons then eject the non-connected clubs (Richmond, Waterloo) or those who can't afford it (Darlington Mowden Park Sharks) to replace them with franchises connected to clubs that never had a team in the women's league before (Trailfinders, Exeter, Sale) or allow them to skip the leagues because of their connections (Tigers).
I fear that the Championship will end up in a depressingly familiar story. |
I have tried on a few occasions to find the attendance figures for women's prem rugby but have never been able to. A fully pro England squad and I would imagine (happy to be corrected) less than 500 spectators per match. How is this sustainable? |
I suspect a lot of it is subsidised by the men's clubs, or university in the case of Loughborough, and the RFU subsidising the England squad from the men's income. Hence why the RFU seemed keen to get rid of the likes of Richmond and DMP or allow just outright taking of another's team in the case of Aylesford/Harlequins because they want clubs that will pay the players and not risk going under.
Of course, technically Wasps Ladies were part of Wasps FC (and not the pro club) and yet they got kicked out probably for that reason that they felt the amateur arm couldn't afford them.
Edited by Robb - 10 hours 24 minutes ago at 14:58
|
|
Breakdown
First XV regular
Joined: 11 Apr 2023
Location: SW London
Status: Offline
Points: 82
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 5 hours 37 minutes ago at 19:45 |
Robb wrote:
[allow pro clubs to take-over others (Harlequins stealing Aylesford Bulls) or have a good uni (Loughborough), let it run a few seasons then eject the non-connected clubs (Richmond, Waterloo) or those who can't afford it (Darlington Mowden Park Sharks) to replace them with franchises connected to clubs that never had a team in the women's league before (Trailfinders, Exeter, Sale) or allow them to skip the leagues because of their connections (Tigers).
|
Just to get our history straight. After Harlequins subsumed Aylesford Bulls, what they really stole was the Richmond First XV, who had previously won the Premiership four years out of six, complete with their coach. There was a bit more to it than that, but if it had happened in the men's competition, there would have been an outcry far greater than anything we have seen in the past two decades.
|
Broken down. Beyond repair.
|
|