ADULT COMPETITION REVIEW 2
Printed From: National League Rugby Discussion Forum
Category: League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk
Forum Name: Clubhouse chat
Forum Description: For rugby related posts that fit nowhere else.. When you're ready Sandra.
URL: http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=17999
Printed Date: 08 Nov 2024 at 05:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: ADULT COMPETITION REVIEW 2
Posted By: DICKON
Subject: ADULT COMPETITION REVIEW 2
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2019 at 21:50
|
Cant believe this is not getting more airtime - you all happy to let this happen from the end of this season? Adult Male Competition Structure Group Why is this work happening? There has been over 30 years of league rugby in the adult male game in England, with arguably relatively few major changes in recent times, and this is set against the context of a greatly changing socio-economic landscape and new standards of player welfare considerations. Whilst the game generally continues to buck the downward participation trend seen in some other team sports, there is an accepted view from all available evidence that it is the female and age grade sectors of the Game that are supporting this. In the adult male game whilst the playing pool continues to grow, players are playing less often, and have different wants and needs than 30 years ago, which with relatively little change in the way competitive rugby is delivered, means more players are required to fulfil a 1st XV league season, which is having a corresponding negative effect on Lower XVs. This has been evidenced more clearly in recent times through data from Electronic Matchcards which shows on average 43 players to fulfill a 1st XV league season and some correlation with those clubs that use more players, having declining lower XV teams or increased walkover rates of Lower XVs. Alongside this there is a prevailing trend of less teams in the English Clubs Championship with teams dropping out into merit leagues, but also the merit leagues seeing some decline in teams in some regions. All of this is supported by insight from sources such as the National Rugby Survey (NRS), as well as anecdotally through club engagement, which highlights that players value ‘flexibility’ and ‘variety’ in their rugby offer as key in allowing them to maintain/increase their frequency of engagement with rugby. Whilst it is recognised that different levels of the community game and regions have different challenges and opportunities, the general question as to whether the competitive structure we have is the best one to ensure the future health of the Game had been raising its head in Club and CB forums throughout the last 12 months, and through competitions management issues coming to the surface in various areas of the country. With the ongoing work the RFU are undertaking in ‘Project Union’ to, amongst other things, strengthen and unite rugby union in England under the guiding principles of ‘players first’, ‘open to all’ and ‘financially strong’, and set against the context above, The Adult Male Competition Structure Group was created as a task group of the Community Game Board. What is the purpose/scope? The Group’s purpose is to review the adult male competition structure of the English Club Championship from Level 3 downwards and recommend an optimal playing offer and structure that protects the future health of the Game for adult men by meeting the needs of current and future players, balancing quality of experience and player welfare needs with less travel whist at the same time protecting the (financial and other) sustainability of clubs. The Group will consider a number of areas and in particular the Group shall review and make recommendations to the CGB on: the principles and rationale behind how league rugby will be organised, the optimal number of matches including any cup and friendlies, the extent to which promotion and relegation is applied and the principles of playoffs, the optimal structure for management of competitions, the extent to which CB boundaries should be used to define leagues; what, if any, restrictions there should be on lower XV teams participating in leagues and the provision of national cup competitions. Finally the group will debate whether any recommendations should be put in place for the 2020/21 or 2021/22 season noting that CGB had already endorsed implementation for 2020/21. The group is Chaired by RFU Board member, and also a Council Member, and contains other Council Members including the Chairs of the two major Competitions Committees, members from other Unions / Sports, and RFU Staff. What is the timeline? July-Oct 2019: Information gathering Nov / Dec 2019: Wider review with the Game via listening group(s) and RFU Council Dec 2019: Final update to CGB Jan 2020: CGB decision on recommendations Feb 2020: Discussion at Council March 2020: Review work and further information gathering April 2020: Council decision June 2020: Regulation changes put to Council for approval Summer 2020: Communication with the Game September 2020: New structures in place What is the progress and what next? The Group has met twice, and considered insights and data from electronic matchcards, national rugby survey, case studies from the Game, and knowledge / feedback from those who sit on the Group. Outline principles have been agreed; Competitions are delivering for players fist (i.e. a great player experience - convenience, accessible, fun), with less maybe being more at certain levels, whilst ensuring appropriate level of competition and financial viability for clubs. The next stage of the process is to move to creation of various Competitions ‘models’ based on player insight. These will be agreed by the Group and then presented to CGB at end of October, along with a methodology for how and where these will be socialized, tested, researched with the Game. At its meeting on 24th October, CGB were updated on the Groups purpose, terms of ref., membership and insights, discussions, and direction of travel to date. This Included Group member’s views and other feedback given since the last meeting from stakeholder groups such as the NCA and DOCs. CGB were asked to endorse the principles of the work done, namely creating a future structure that is delivering for players first and a great player experience (taking into account travel, welfare, changing socio-economic factors and the desired amount of matches players want to play at different levels, set against the impact of current structures). CGB endorsed the principles of the Groups work, and the method / content for socialising with the Game. The plan is that this will happen via 8 listening panels covering players and all non-playing roles across regions over the next 4-6 weeks. The Competitions team in Rugby Growth are working through the details on this now and can share more in due course. It is planned that we will provide 3 options for season structure and league structures at these meetings (ranging from an evolution to something that more fully answers the insights and principles discussed), and then a facilitated discussion would be held allowing feedback to be captured and any new models / ideas proposed. The options would not include the status quo but this will no doubt be discussed. There would also be listening panels with RFU staff, to provide a comparison. CGB continued to endorse the timing of implementation in September 2020, though it was noted this was particularly tight and there may be areas that should be prioritised over others in a final recommendation, depending on further feedback from the Game and the nature of recommendation. The listening panels are not the only stage of this process, nor will a final decision be made at the end of them. They are the first stage in a wider review, which will include with CGB and RFU Council, before wider socialisation of the final options with the Game in the New Year after February. The feedback from these listening panels will support the Group to provide a recommendation to CGB in January. The most recent meeting of the Group was 14th November, there will be an update for discussion at RFU Council is on 29th November, and the final group meeting is planned in early December. For further information, questions or feedback please contact your RFU Council Member or directly to: Competitions-Development@RFU.com |
Replies:
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 18 Nov 2019 at 22:03
| Think on this - the vast amount of league club rugby in this country is played beneath the national leagues, and GMS has only been in use for 2 seasons at most at those levels. Clearly then, not substantive enough to draw any conclusions about the direction of travel of required squad sizes, and there is no empirical evidence in here to back up any of the claims. There is nothing in this review that addresses player recruitment and retention, bar suggesting that the amount of rugby played is too much and travel too far. Brilliant - so the solution to reducing playing numbers is... to play less rugby and reduce competition. There are some clubs in this country thriving and growing - why not use these as the basis for a best practice study, rather than completely rewire the framework on which they are based? Don't bleat about this once its implemented folks - act now! |
Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2019 at 08:07
|
"the process is to move to creation of various Competitions ‘models’ based on player insight. These will be agreed by the Group" I know many players at various levels and not one has been asked for his opinions yet "the Group" are going to make decisions ( on models already decided on apparently) "based on player insight"
|
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2019 at 09:53
Dickon totally agree re your comments about player retention. Consultation meetings to be held on dates and at venues below. Given the number of rugby clubs within the M25 slightly surprised that if you are a London club the nearest venue will be either Tunbridge Wells or Old Albanians. At these meetings 3 options will be presented. Not sure what listening has occurred prior to these options being formulated. Group being chaired by an RFU Board member and Council member fills me with dread. Have not in last 10 years met any of these who actually are closely involved with the running of a team/club week in week out. Why not ask current players/managers/coaches to take a lead? Very important as many as possible who are closely involved actually attend. My fear is if it is not put right now the game will not recover
|
Posted By: paddym
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2019 at 10:16
The same happened several years ago when this first reared it’s ugly head. I spoke to to players, coaches and DoRs of quite a few of our opposition clubs at the time and none had had any contact from the competition review group. Nor were we asked by asked by our CB board member what our thoughts were on the subject. |
Insignificant Tick wrote:Posted By: MikeGC
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2019 at 13:08
I would be interested in seeing the strategy followed by these clubs. We've tried all sorts (fresher's weeks at the local universities; schools initiatives; newspaper coverage & etc.) Part of our perceived problem is that there are 10+ clubs within a 10 mile radius (i.e. Sale FC - although I note they struggle to get a 2nd XV out) including 3 in the same league last season (two of whom were paying players) We've recently and very sadly, relinquished our 4th XV. |
Posted By: sidelined
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2019 at 20:34
| By my (rough) reckoning there are over 250 clubs, level 3 and below, in the Southwest, yet there is only 1 of the, so called, listening panels (Bridgwater 2nd Dec). If there only 20 spaces for delegates this is can hardly be representative of all the views of these clubs. |
Posted By: CalderVale
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2019 at 21:01
|
I would be interested in seeing the strategy followed by these clubs. We've tried all sorts (fresher's weeks at the local universities; schools initiatives; newspaper coverage & etc.) Part of our perceived problem is that there are 10+ clubs within a 10 mile radius (i.e. Sale FC - although I note they struggle to get a 2nd XV out) including 3 in the same league last season (two of whom were paying players) We've recently and very sadly, relinquished our 4th XV. Which Club? |
Posted By: MikeGC
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2019 at 21:11
Burnage |
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 19 Nov 2019 at 22:53
|
Was told at our club this evening to attend the listening sessions at the 8 different clubs you actually have to apply to be invited. Anyone know how you apply/actually applied/been invited? Who will end up going to these meetings? Least open consultation process I have ever encountered-even for the RFU! |
Posted By: Alfred
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 06:12
Marigold - see https://www.englandrugby.com/news/article/have-your-say-in-adult-rugby-review
|
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 07:30
|
Alfred -many thanks |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 08:12
|
No system is perfect and given the CBs are mainly based on
boundaries drawn by the Anglo-Saxons and grouped into Division based on
Railway lines it is possible hat there is a better arrangement. However,
that would assume an open mind and we migh end up with something
looking like Redcliffe-Maud (though that was 50 years ago and rejected
as too radical) and I doubt we need 61 leagues. I
suspect that they will endup doing something trivial that makes no
difference to the majority of clubs but adversely affects a minority
(which will mainly be the NCA clubs). I
also not sure I trust the figure of 43 players in a season - I can
believe it as a maximum, but not an average which would mean many clubs
using more than that. Also where a club uses 40 players in its 1st XV -
the 20 not selected on any match day are often playing 2nd XV unless
they are injured. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: @boatyjames
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 10:38
| Hi Dickon - would you like to talk about this and agree some WRFC / LCRFC approach to Surrey etc on this? I have had a few interesting conversations with Paul Ashbury this season and there is something afoot. Think Malcom Caird is on this committee which fills me with an amount of dread based on his club history. |
Posted By: Dad
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 11:11
Agreed - a more useful figure would take into account the number of teams put out by a club. A single team club using 43 is very different from a club with multiple teams and an active colts side using 43 in it's 1st XV during a season
|
Posted By: PiffPaff
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 11:35
|
Interesting that there ate no planned meetings in the North West? maybe they think the issues is sorted? The lowest number of player churn 1st XV selection-wise last season according to GMS occurred in the Lancashire County Leagues. Less travel commitment being the main factor in that and a slightly relaxed competition regulations. I understand that Cheshire have asked the North DOC/RFU competitions to implement a combined Cheshire & Lancashire RFU League structure incorporating all the Lancashire League clubs for next season. Interesting development considering they weren't in favour of it when Lancashire suggested something similar prior to the Lancashire Clubs going their own way 18 months ago. ------------- Crouch, Bind, Tweet! |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 11:56
| Think the RFU are petrified of a Lancs scenario playing out in other parts of the country, and that driving through change as expediently as possible will head this off at the pass. However, that is a case of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, as a blanket approach across the country is simply not required - what works in the South-West may not work in London, for example. As for the Representation Groups and the locations of the meetings, I agree with previous posters - if this is really open, why filter those seeking to attend? |
Posted By: Thunderbird
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 12:11
|
Fully agree with all you points Dickon. Some of us have been here before. My clubs 1st tam travel over 5000miles a year, most of which I have organised over the last 3 years I have yet to here a player moan about distance. Its more likley to be the facilities or the pitch that gets the bad press. I am really worried for the outcome with regards to National league rugby. As you say the listening sesions are restricted to those chosen after filling in a survey.
|
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 12:26
| If the RFU are afraid of more splits, they may end up creating some in driving through an over hasty review.... |
Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 20 Nov 2019 at 13:21
|
If anyone knows of someone being "selected" for the panel in any region can they put up their details on here so as to act as a conduit for points to be made. ( after gaining their permission of course )
|
Posted By: BE57 REF
Date Posted: 21 Nov 2019 at 22:00
|
This was announced in the RFU's Community Game Update on 14 November which goes to constituency body and club chairman, secretary and treasurer. Very limited circulation and very short notice. Non-player registration is now closed across all venues. It looks suspiciously like a stitch-up (now where have I heard that before.....). The Community Game update has a link to http://links.emails.rfumail.com/ctt?kn=14&ms=NzgxMzgzOAS2&r=MjY5ODA2ODYwMTcyS0&b=0&j=MTM5MTY3MTM3OAS2&mt=1&rt=0" rel="nofollow - - this
document - not sure if this will work here or not! http://links.emails.rfumail.com/ctt?kn=14&ms=NzgxMzgzOAS2&r=MjY5ODA2ODYwMTcyS0&b=0&j=MTM5MTY3MTM3OAS2&mt=1&rt=0" rel="nofollow -
The only way to get views across if not able or selected to attend a "listening panel" is to write to the organisers at mailto:competitions-development@rfu.com" rel="nofollow -
------------- Just call me "Sir". |
Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2019 at 18:17
|
Applied for the "panel" and got this response. Good Afternoon, Thank you for your interest in attending the upcoming
listening panels. Unfortunately we have not been able to allocate you a place on
this occasion. In selecting members for the listening panels we have tried to
find a balance of volunteer roles and different types of
experience. The
listening panels are not the only stage for players and club officials to
provide feedback, nor will any decisions be made at the end of them. They are
the first stage in the wider review, which will include the Community Game Board
and RFU Council, before wider socialisation of the final options with the Game
in the New Year. For further
information on the process and background of the work of the Adult Male
Competition Structure Group please see http://links.emails.rfumail.com/ctt?kn=1&ms=Nzg0NjgxOAS2&r=Mjk4MzIyMDA1NzYyS0&b=0&j=MTM5MjQxOTU0NgS2&mt=1&rt=0" rel="nofollow - this document . If you have any further feedback please submit it to: mailto:competitions-development@rfu.com" rel="nofollow - competitions-development@rfu.com
Kind Regards, Competitions Development Team |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2019 at 10:08
| If anyone attending an event can report back here, that would be very helpful! |
Posted By: PiffPaff
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2019 at 12:41
Same Email for me, apparently only 20 places per meeting are up for grabs and they are being quite selective and more towards the playing base, guess they figure listening to the been there/done that brigade (Sorry Dickon I'm including both of us in that) has little value so they want it direct from the Front Lines and not the Generals! They will get differing views from players at the various levels so not really sure if it going to give them the insight they think. ------------- Crouch, Bind, Tweet! |
Posted By: workerbee
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2019 at 10:02
| Interesting developments in the latest round of discussions the "selected" groups are to be presented with three options for the restructuring of the leagues , the current structure will not be one of them. I looks as if the RFU have decided what they want and are determined to get it this time after the last botched attempt failed mainly because the Clubs did not want it. I am sure that after arbitrarily culling travel expenses off clubs to make traveling so expensive they hope that clubs will accept a structure which will mean only playing local clubs in reduced leagues, which will result in a drop in gate and bar income and eventually the folding of many clubs. Is that what they really want? Some leagues now have clubs only playing at home 11 times in a 30 week season. As for the idea that clubs want Cup rugby just look at the Championship and see how serious they take it with fringe players making up teams and low gates. Cup Rugby will never replace leagues and at level 4 and 3 a 16 team league works, clubs like it so why change? |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2019 at 11:39
| Ultimately, if the RFU drive this thru I can see more clubs breaking away from the Union. |
Posted By: workerbee
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2019 at 14:56
| I would suggest that one of the most likely options they want to put through is to split Nat 1 into North and South |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2019 at 15:19
No one is going to break away from the RFU. The worse that will happen is clubs will form Regional leagues outside of the National pyramid. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Sid James
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2019 at 17:15
I would take issue with a point you make as I believe you are not correct. My club were promoted from N2N to play in National One this season. Our travel expenses have more than doubled at a time when the RFU assistance has been cut to next to nothing. This means having to find further money to pay to travel all over the country. This also comes at a time when our attendance/gate receipts go down because when a Northetn club like us are promoted to Nat 1. we no longer have the more local derbies that we did in N2N. Whilst it is great to play these clubs around the country, it is also a great burden financially and will carry on so until we get adequate RFU funding for Clubs playing below the Championship. I would not knock 'regionalisation' below the Championship. ------------- All Knwoing All Seeing |
Posted By: workerbee
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2019 at 17:42
| I would agree with you to a point but I would predict that when they do split National 1 it will be into 2 14 team leagues with a two match play off between the top team in each league for promotion into the Championship so most teams would lose two home games and all the income that would entail. There are far fewer Northern Nat 1 teams if you include Leeds for next season there would be 6 so the North National 1 would consist mainly Nat 2 sides. Sides like Sale , Rotherham, DMP , Birmingham Moseley and Hull Ionians would be very strong in comparison to the mid table Nat 2 sides thus reducing the quality of the games. |
Posted By: Redted
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2019 at 21:47
|
More sensible option would be to merge Nat.1 and Nat.2 into a new level 3 of South West/West Midlands, South East/East Midlands and North. Play off for promotion, 3 league winners plus best 2nd place team. This would reduce travelling, no need for overnight stays and keep up playing standards. |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 00:03
|
Oddly I suggested that here first time around. With nine division level 4 and then 27 county leagues and then further leagues below that as a way to reduce travel and try to maintain standards. Because just rearranging level 3 and 4 has no effect on travel for everyone else.- you do need to flatten the pyramid so most sides play locally. I would have three second team leagues for level 2 and 3 clubs - with the Zoo league for London/SE and two others covering the rest of the country. I think you need to permit second teams in the county leagues - but you might need a second tier of merit table. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: PiffPaff
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 08:10
|
So I've been informed that the meetings held in the North did not go to plan with a mixed bunch of invitees turning up and in some case only a handful of the expect list. That's hardly a quorum for views, sounds more like the RFU excuse preparation ...…….. "Well we did hold listening meetings and this is what we came up with...." ------------- Crouch, Bind, Tweet! |
Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 08:10
|
2nd teams need clubs to select their own levels as there are many mismatches in the Zoo league. Teams get hammered as their league is decided based on the 1st XV level and very few sides have strength in depth that reflects their 1st XV position. This results in not enough front rowers / players crying off as they don't want to get stuffed every week / too much travelling, so ironically what started out as a good idea to get 2nd teams decent competition and regular games turns into reasons not to play.
|
Posted By: workerbee
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 10:37
|
With Level 6 leagues now looking at County leagues what do the rest want, only to play the next village? Cheshire already have three clubs in the Isle of Mann. What happens to them and in the South there is Jersey and Guernsey. The Northern leagues include teams like Anwick which is a 200 mile trip from Cheshire. Who would Redruth play in their local South West League. It is not easy to get a one structure that fixes all. In the North west the main problem is fitting in the Cumbrian clubs into the lower leagues but there are insufficient clubs in Cumbria to make a competitive league of their own but Lancashire clubs do not want to travel. I know the answer is not easy but to dumb down the leagues below level 2 will only lead to the loss of interest , certainly from the North as it is already losing ground on the London Clubs financially and we have had a breakaway already in the Northwest from RFU leagues although that could have been resolved if the RFU had not come up with this review. It would seem that the meetings have been structured in such a way that clubs will not be included in the decision process. One has to ask who actually decided to call for the review and why?
|
Posted By: sidelined
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 13:18
|
I think it's generally accepted that the RFU want to split Nat 1 North/South. I wonder what they want to do with Nat 2, stay with what they've got or split Nat 2 down into regional leagues. If the later might they move counties around? For example:- Berkshire and Buckinghamshire to London& SE Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire to Midlands This would, basically, make the M4 the divide between North and South. Moving counties to different regions could, probably, be done by the RFU without necessarily going through the review process.
|
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 13:56
|
Told this weekend that a total of 4 people turned up for the listening panel at Old Albanians including 2 from the home club! Hardly listening to the community game. Also told that an NCA meeting last week was more concerned with size of leagues at level 3 and 4 than North/south split. 30 league matches-not a single Saturday off between beginning of September and end of December -was main topic with the majority of clubs stating a desire for less matches. |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 14:45
|
A sensible approach might be - phase changes in from end of season after this one, giving clubs at least some time to prepare/budget - phase changes in level by level ie Level 3 in 2021/22, Level 4 in 2022/23 etc - allow regions to determine own structure beneath Level 4 - remove county boundaries to allow leagues to be organised around distance - host a few online presentations (a la the GMS intro ones) to see what is being implemented so that we can ALL see - separately, start focusing on best practice at a national grass roots level rather than local one, so we can all share ideas on how to tackle common issues. Richard - I stand corrected. What I meant was that some clubs might go down the route of the Lancs leagues if the RFU get this wrong, which I would suggest is exactly what the RFU are hoping to head off with this review. Not breaking away from the RFU, but breaking away from the RFU league structure.
|
Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 15:24
|
Lookig at yesterday's Rugby Paper, and the implications of a proposed expansion of the Premiership woud not be to put the break below the Championship, but above it with the Chamionship relegated to the regional part-time tiers. How woould they do this? By expanding the Premiership outside England, generating two tiers of multi-national premiership.
|
Posted By: Kentish Man
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 15:48
|
As a Chairmen of a club with 1600 members who returned the invitation to a meeting At Tunbridge Wells to review this within an hour of receiving I was disappointed but not surprised to firstly not to receive an invitation or a acknowledgement that I was not selected. A unprofessional approach from the CB to what in a commercial context are their customers. Another restructureing where they think they have the answer without understanding the clubs issues, motivations and concerns, hopefully it goes the same way as the John Douglas review 3-4 years ago.
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 02 Dec 2019 at 15:57
|
The Lancashire clubs were are levels 7 and 8 so to reduce their travel you need to expand the number of leagues at this level. Whether they are based on counties or towns or some other geography is not the point. The point is that there are always going to be cases like Cumberland or the Isle of Man where someone needs to travel. If everyone pulls up the drawbridge, then these clubs get cut adrift. So someone external needs to take input and draw the boundaries so as to spread the pain as fairly as possible. But fiddling with level 3 on its own does nothing. If you want more time between games , kill the county championship - and have four more weeks. The problem with the last AGR was they actually increased the number of games and the required travel for almost every club below level 5 while reducing the number of games for the gate taking clubs (who might actually want them). ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2019 at 09:58
|
So this was the structure I proposed last time round. http://www.eightflames.org/rugby/rpn.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.eightflames.org/rugby/rpn.html It was done on the back of the proverbial fag packet, so I am sure details can be improved. It did have the feature that no Lancashire club had to go to Cumbria, as
no Cumbrian club made it to the Northern Division and Cumbria was
placed with Northumberland and Durham in a league split 5/5/4 Exact names will have changed, as clubs rise and fall - but I suspect the shape remains the same Then I was assuming two national leagues Championship and Nat 1 would survive, now I am much less sure. A 14 team Premiership and 16 team Championship and then the three divisions of 16 may work better - but actualyl does nto change the shape that much. That would only rduce the top divisions by 10 clubs. I had also not included second teams - but I could be convinced that second teams should be permitted to enter and find their own level - possibly limited to one team per club per league. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Neasham
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2019 at 11:41
|
Of course it's much easier to get to Cumbria from Lancashire than it is by crossing the pennines from the North East. However, the power and introspection of the Lancs and Cheshire clubs is a key element in this whole fandango.
|
Posted By: PiffPaff
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2019 at 14:38
Absolute Tosh, irrespective of a hill being in the way, which you wouldn't go over if it was bad weather its less than 2 hour trip from Bish to Workington on the same A Road. Add another 50 miles for the Lancashire clubs to do the same trip via 2 or 3 motorways and hitting the same range of hills when they getting less 3/4 of the way there. This old and outdated argument has zero relevance especially as the North DoC have Green lighted a Cheshire/Lancashire structure already. ------------- Crouch, Bind, Tweet! |
Posted By: workerbee
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2019 at 16:10
| I would suggest you check your Google maps before making assumptions the main problem regarding traveling from South Lancashire and Cheshire is that the M6 goes to the East of Cumbria and the non motorway mileage off the M6 to most Cumbrian clubs makes the journey that much longer in time not mileage , have you ever played Egremont, Huckleberryermouth , Wigton, Aspatria, or Workington I think you will see the problem is time and that creates extra costs with coaches. Remember that Drivers have taco's and they need 3/4 Hour stop every 4 1/2 hours. |
Posted By: Neasham
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2019 at 17:12
|
Clubs from the North East have to get to the A66 or A69 to cross the Pennines just to get to the M6 which they then have to cross to get to the Egremont’s of this world. No motorways involved and much worse weather conditions over the tops in winter. Having said that I’m sure Durham and Northumberland clubs will just get on with it in the spirit of rugby. Just don’t agree with the Lancs and Cheshire clubs raison d’etre. |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2019 at 21:07
|
The talk of a British League will change the concept of the leagues below. The 12 Premiership clubs plus 10 of the 14 Pro 14 teams (I'm excluding the Italians and South Africans) gives 22 teams. The 13th English 'Premiership' club would get an invite due to the CVC involvement, which leaves one place to round up the numbers. There is no guarantee that this would be an English club, Scotland or Wales might be offered a place for all we know. At best I can see the lowest place England club having to take place in a playoff but I think the drawbridge will be firmly closed. Without access to the top flight there is no need for any club to be fully professional and clubs will revert back to semi pro. I envisage a 16 team national League, with three regional feeder leagues, then smaller regions/county leagues below. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2019 at 21:54
Is there talk of a British league? What happens to the Italian clubs? I can see why Pro14 clubs would want it given the amount of broadcasting revenue disparity, but why would the Premiership clubs? ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 03 Dec 2019 at 22:17
Yes there is. Was front page of the Rugby Paper. Expected 2021 when the current TV deals run out, but as the RFU/Premiership agreement runs to 2024 I can't see it being plain sailing unless one side caves in.... The CVC is investing into both leagues and need a return for their money. They think a British League is that return on their investment. The Welsh clubs are up for it, the Scots probably tag along but the stumbling block is Ireland but I feel they will follow, for want of an option. The European competition would have to be revised, otherwise it just becomes the same with the odd fixture against the French. I see a more streamlined comp in due course. The Italians will be left to their own devices I suspect. The South Africans will probably fold. But who knows what the future holds??? ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: islander
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 07:07
As well as the Rugby Paper the story about the possibility of a British League was covered on BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50608122" rel="nofollow - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50608122 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50608122" rel="nofollow - I hope that, if it does go the way you envisage Richard, that the national league would have fewer than 16 teams. Have long thought that 30 games is too many for semi-pro players and I'm sure contributes to shortening careers.
|
Posted By: Bigmal
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 09:15
|
I've only recently come across the sad story of South Leicester which is relevant to the majority of well informed comments on this thread. The furore surrounding Carnegie is also relevant. As Dickon has so clearly spelt out in his detailed "opening submission" times have changed BUT the RFU appear to have trouble adapting. By all means have national leagues but it is clear to me that below a certain level payment of players is unsustainable. I don't have any figures but I suspect that the growth of mini/junior rugby masks the drop off in the adult game. The vast majority of clubs have established grounds and facilities created BY THE PLAYING MEMBERS many years ago. This sort of commitment is on the wane and so the future may not be that rosy?
|
Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 09:56
|
Playing members of yesteryear are part of the problem as they are now the committee members of the clubs. As such many try to recreate the club as it was in their playing days which, whilst enjoyable at the time, is not appropriate today. Players do not need a club to socialize, as they have social media to chat instantly, or to spend their entire Saturday night at these days. A new model for the facilities & services ( players ?) and appropriate costs for those services & facilities is required. |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 11:15
And that is the Catch 22 situation. Reading this thread, and others, there is a clear dichotmy. Income versus Player safety is the simple headline argument. If clubs stop paying 'silly' money to their players then they need less income to meet the bills. Less income needed means they would need to play fewer games and this provides a cushion for the players. Ditto if clubs stop travelling long distances then they need less income to meet the expenses. Less income needed means they would need to play fewer games and players benefit from having more free time. However if clubs keep paying 'silly' money then they need more income to meet the bills and this increase in income comes from having more games and this impacts more on the players, so you recruit more players to provide a leeway and this just pushes up the bills even more, causing a downward spiral. If you look at a typical club season from the beginning of September to the end of April you have approx 35 Saturdays. 16 teams means 15 home games which is less than that half the season when the facilities will not be fully utilised (especially if you don't run second and beyond sides any more). Smaller than a 16 team league and more 'waste' occurs. 16 teams provide for 30 week, allowing 5 'spare' weeks for weather cancellations, rest etc. However saying all this, I do think (and I have said it before on this board) that the thinking behind a seasonal structure is wrong - all we are doing is fiddling sizes of leagues only to revert back a few years down the line. We should be thinking far more radical. Split seasons for example, where you play 'local' games in part of the season, then a 'national play-off' at the opposite end of the season. This approach could mean no promotion/relegation between certain levels but leagues at certain levels more balanced. The goal would be to be 'National Champions' rather than promotion. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Bigmal
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 13:48
I can see where you are coming from IT but the committee members remain important because they deal with a number of key administrative, logistical and practical issues all of which are needed to ensure the smooth running of a club. I live near The Downs in Bristol which hosts a large number of football games every Saturday during the season. Each club has its own identity but essentially rents the playing and changing facilities with upkeep being the responsibility of a third party. Interestingly many rugby clubs forming the Bristol Combination used to use the Downs pre WW2 but then either folded or developed their own facilities along traditional rugby club lines. I'm not sure that we are ready for wholesale change but it is possible to (say) develop a purpose built facility with an AW pitch capable of handling ( say) 7 matches over Fri/Sat/Sun leaving clubs to pay to play and the developers to benefit from the catering/bar revenue and come to an arrangement regarding admission? I think I'm right in saying that many hockey clubs use this model and there are rugby clubs who have similar arrangements ( Sheffield used to fall into this category). Stockport acquired additional pitches some years ago to supplement the three senior pitches ( 2 very good and 1 above average) established back in the 60s when the ground was developed. The idea was to use the additional pitches for mini/junior rugby on a Sunday but every time that I go there is always 1 and often 2 pitches free given the drop of in interest lower down the sides. If this is the case elsewhere then traditional model is somewhat obsolete as IT has suggested. Any thoughts on this?
|
Posted By: Bigmal
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 13:58
|
Richard Lowther's most recent post raises some good points backed by rational analysis. There is a clear need for lateral thinking as it would appear that a 26 match season requiring a squad of c 30 seems to suit most teams at Regional Premier level. This means that the focus is on the first XV whereas the introduction of more social rugby could help maintain and even expand playing numbers. Either way the cost of paying players to perform at a similar level to that reached by Wakefield or indeed Davenport back in the late 70's/early 80s is unsustainable long term.
|
Posted By: Cannon
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 15:00
|
I have long suggested here in Surrey that the Merit tables (and now I suggest 1st XV leagues below Level 3) be reduced to smaller leagues of 6 or 7 and you play home and away pre and post Xmas. There is then promotion and relegation twice a calendar year and as there are hopefully more regionalised leagues it will mean less travel and more evenly levelled games. I'm sure there will be those that disagree but I think too many leagues have huge disparity between top and bottom. ------------- Rucks and mauls may bust my balls, but whips and chains excite me!! |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 15:20
|
While you can save on some of the travel by having regional leagues and a play-off ofr the top few teams - it does mean that those teams get to play extra matches and the rest stop earlier (now that might not be a bad thing). Howeve, if you have every tier on those league enter natioonal playoffs - to give all the clubs income - then more players end up with national travell - albeit just a few trips at the end of the season. But for all but those going for the title the travel is for essentially dead rubbers. So it could end up with more travel and more disgruntled players. Which is not to say that we should not look at it. Just carefully. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: @boatyjames
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 16:25
| IMO problem is that the RFU "listening" exercise will not actually listen to any players at all. Our Chair of Senior Rugby went to the session in T Wells last week and 8 administrators turned up and no players for their separate session. If they want to properly survey opinion they should agree a set of questions, get each club to do post training presentation then do a survey monkey and aggregate the results. Could easily all be done by mid January and they would then have some proper data to work with. |
Posted By: Rabbie Burns
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 16:47
|
The way this is going Rugby will only be a participation sport for the few it is slowly being killed of and we will reach the stage where it is in schools then the professional game with absolutely nothing in between similar to the NFL. IMO if you regionalise higher than level 4 you will simply drop the standard as you will never know the differences around the country. Nat 1 is a superb league that I don’t think needs fixing and many current England players got their first taste of men’s rugby here ------------- So many Christians not enough Lions |
Posted By: @boatyjames
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 16:56
Think you are absolutely right here. Many clubs have the ambition to play in Nat 1 and no higher. It gives a proper highest league to all those clubs who don't want to go fully professional now or ever but do want to offer a proper player pathway to ambitious rugby players outside the professional ranks. |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 18:36
| At the behest of repeating myself, there are clubs that are thriving and growing against the wider trend. These clubs dont pay their players, and the common thread seems to be that they also don't own facilities of their own. With no overheads, they can focus on coaching and social events to drive player involvement. I suspect their Committees are way younger than the average playing Committee, and they also appear to be happy to travel. Lets focus on some of what these clubs do to recruit and retain players, and eat some of that dog food rather than blame the structure of the leagues as the first line of attack. |
Posted By: islander
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 20:37
That just about sums it up. Elite pro players have a 30 game limit, so I don't see why semi-pro or amateur players should play more. Ok, their games may be less physical than test matches & Prem games, but the pros have access to the best conditioning and care between games... I think the top level below the Prem or British league should be national, in spite of the distances involved. If the pyramid has a flat top, the gulf between that and the elite level becomes an even bigger chasm...
|
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 20:55
Aah "the holier than thou brigade have surfaced" - there are many teams who claim not to pay players, some may not do so directly but there are usually payments made one way or another whether covertly direct from the club or indirectly through benefactors. As for the idea of hiring facilities for home games as many football teams do - I don't think this would work for rugby (certainly not at level 5 or above) as the clubs are too spread out to make it work. The football analogy talked about is there but only at local league level which is a level way below that of the rugby clubs being discussed. I really don't understand the RFU obsession with change - level 3 and 4 have had there expenses savagely cut but continue to provide entertaining competitive rugby week in week out - time for the Blazers to get their own house in order instead of telling others what to do. ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Bigmal
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 21:17
|
This thread has the making of a proper rational discussion but we are talking about complex issues and widely variable participants. I agre that it is time to allow the structure to settle down and definitely time for the RFU to sort themselves out. |
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 21:52
|
Bigmal/Raider Nat One and Two have had 16 teams for 10 years-how long does it need to settle down? It only went to that number because the Championship decided to reduce its numbers, not because level 3 and 4 wanted 30 matches. Playing 30 leagues matches year after year has lead to increasing numbers of players in their late 20s/early 30s leaving the game and very often their rugby club. The physicality of the game has significantly increased in the last decade and consequently the number of players injured both short and long term. As a result clubs have to drag up more players from the teams below so increasing the number of 2nd and 3rd teams no longer exist. Previously huge clubs like Rosslyn Park and Blackheath do not run second teams (although RP are seeking to this year for the first time in many seasons). Sale FC abandoned their 2s this season. The RFU do need to put their house in order but they must also take a lead in the structure of the community game-it cannot be left to the NCA and CB's. |
Posted By: islander
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 22:16
| At least one other Nat 1 club recently stopped fielding a regular 2nd XV - Chinnor withdrew from the Raging Bull (formerly Zoo) Shield last month... |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 04 Dec 2019 at 22:25
| Raider - my comment really isn't 'a holier than though' one. I make no judgement on those clubs who do pay, nor on those that claim they don't. Belsize Park have rented their pitches in Regents Park for the entirety of their existence, and are now fielding 6 male XV's each Saturday, with their 1s at Level 6. I agree that the RFU does seem set on change, but I suspect the root cause is more likely linked to the right royal mess someone has made of the finances... |
Posted By: Bigmal
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 14:35
| Speaking of which the 400k allegedly paid to someone who resigned could have paid for a few coaches ( of both types). |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 17:05
Apparently the RFU directors emoluments and expenses have risen by a further £400k - astonishing really when they are in a financial mess. ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 17:09
Can you think of any other clubs in the top levels who rent a pitch - I'm not sure if Barnes own or rent their pitch. London Scottish ground share with Richmond, London Irish ground share with Reading FC but these aren't hiring pitches in the same way you suggest. I could see this working in London where there are a concentrated number of teams, but not elsewhere ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Thunderbird
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 17:22
|
And over £200000 to Nigel Melville for six months work. Listening meeting at Peterborough had 3 delegates. There were more staff than invitees. |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 17:25
The trouble is - invite very few people of whom only a small percentage turn up. Those with strong views appear to have been blackballed. End result, the RFU can say they tried but no one was interested and impose whatever they want, irrespective of what level 3 and 4 clubs want. ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: @boatyjames
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 17:47
We had to fight to get our Chairman to the meeting in Tunbridge Wells as supposedly all the slots were gone and when he turned up there were only 7 attendees. Hopefully it will not be to bad in the end. I am hopeful of 14 team leagues at level 3 & 4 and a bit more focus on County Championship at end of season which is something our players enjoy and we have always supported. |
Posted By: Thatbloke
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 17:48
|
I think you'll find the RFU decide ahead of any meetings what they're going to do and then enter into a meaningless consultation process (with as has already been pointed out a gathering of the chosen few) just so they can tick all the boxes and say to the clubs "we asked you for your opinion" |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 19:34
The differences of opinions on this board show how much the clubs are split over the issue. so the RFU in a lose-lose position. If they do something, some one will complain, if they do nothing some one else will complain. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 21:32
|
The real point is, the RFU went thru this process a couple of years ago - the level 3/4 clubs threw it out then opting for the status quo. This option has been removed from the current review - it is as if the RFU have decided so everyone must toe the line and give in. Level 3/4 is the peak of the semi-pro game, barely supported by the RFU who now want to change a system which works! Why? I suspect it is to justify their own existence. ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 05 Dec 2019 at 22:39
|
But it is not working at level 2 or below level 5. And it is really hard to fix the low lecel without making some change at the higher level. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2019 at 12:22
Level 2 should be the peak of the semi-pro game. Everything below that should, in the RFU's opinion be amateur. I don't think you can just change two levels without realising that it impacts on those above and below. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 06 Dec 2019 at 17:28
|
But being semi-pro is not black and white, it is many shades of grey,depending on whether your match fee is £1 or £1,000. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: FHLH
Date Posted: 07 Dec 2019 at 19:56
|
Perhaps the recommendation could be the same as the SRU - scrap the RFU ------------- "My father told me big men fall just as quick as little ones, if you put a sword through their hearts." |
Posted By: Redted
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2019 at 12:20
|
The Redruth delegates to the 'local' listening panel in Bridgewater (circa 5 hours round trip on a working day) were not selected to attend. They were not informed of this either, just not contacted. Are there many others in this situation? Was there an issue with the on-line booking process? It would not surprise me given the RFU's record for poor IT. |
Posted By: Thunderbird
Date Posted: 08 Dec 2019 at 14:59
| Similar happened here,our delegate had to phone as he had no reply . Did have a place allocated . Only 3 delegates ,rfu staff out numbered them. This process is appalling, manipulative and divisive. |
Posted By: Bluepig
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2019 at 09:03
|
I too Attended the Bridgewater Meeting and i was made aware that the 2 others from my own club had been knocked back , strange as Clifton had 3 In Attendance , and one poor chap who had travelled up from Camborne , it was a odd evening , and quite rushed , although i suspect he did not want to be dragged down with individual clubs issues , a large table had been set up , but only 7 Persons In Attendance ?? the more odd point is Steve Hill Directly contacting the DOR`S of the clubs at level 3 & 4 for their view i think in the past hes been quite vociferous in asking for a cut in the number of games ------------- The Only thing that held me back was a lack of Talent |
Posted By: No 7
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2019 at 10:08
This is the real crux and the variety of payment / benefit given to players, money ( cash or declared income !), jobs, accomodation ,cars and even scholarships to University.some clubs offer work through sponsors. ------------- Ambition should be made of sterner stuff. |
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 09 Dec 2019 at 15:58
|
Got told at weekend Steve Hill was contacting all the D of Rs/Head Coaches, at the request of the NCA committee after an NCA meeting at Esher, to ask how many matches were wanted at level 3/4 from a players and coaches point of view. He was apparently wanting 26 not 30. By all accounts the original question asked by the NCA to the clubs was about change in structure not number of games. Can't see why NCA could not have asked this question themselves? |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 10 Dec 2019 at 00:31
|
It is obviously sensible to collect data - as long as the coaches actually give meaningful answers. I do not know what the players would say. At levels these levels , they are pushing themselves to the limit. I you are doing your own fitness regime every day and training two or three times a week - you probably want a game every week - ideally in the 1st XV. I know very few who if fit turn down county games and England Counties / Barbarians tours or sevens engagements over the summer, which suggests they are happy to play and numbers of games are not that much of an issue. Some might struggle with getting the leave for tours. But I am not a player. While they will say they want to play the best sides, I doubt anyone really wants to sit on a coach, so the players might vote for more regional structure. As to the clubs, they obviously want as many fixtures as possible in over to maximise income and spread the fixed costs of running the club. Any club that has taken out a loan for new facilities will have made assumptions about the number of games in their business plan. Players do not like leaky changing room and cold showers - but renovations cost money. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 12 Dec 2019 at 15:32
|
As we have identified above that the consultation process has been a complete sham, it's interesting that the latest edition of the RFU Council notes dated 29th November includes the following under ADULT MALE COMPETITION STRUCTURE GROUP UPDATE 5.2 There is already significant evidence (more than was available to the ACR (which actually demonstrated there was little or no empirical evidence supporting signficant change) that the male adult competition structure is not fit for purpose. (not one scintilla of evidence is provided, and no reference made to where the evidence exists) 5.3 The Group has met 3 times and already consulted widely. This is clearly NOT the case, unless widely means single figure attendances at some of the RFU filtered events 5.7 .it is hoped the recommendations will be adopted and implemented for the start of the 2020/21 season...if the changes help stabilise the game, the sooner they implemented the better.. I believe we would need 100 Member RFU clubs to sign a letter to the CEO requesting a Special General Meeting..... |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 12 Dec 2019 at 15:43
| Richard - the point is that the RFU seem intent on driving through change with as little consultation as possible, whilst producing no empirical evidence to back up the need for that significant change. They have also not produced any of the plans publically (barring stating at the consultation events that the status quo was not an option), which gives us all little or no time to review them. I disagree its a lose/lose for the RFU - any organisation that behaves in this way should be held accountable. |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 12 Dec 2019 at 16:52
But I read constantly on this board, and hear at some clubs, is that some clubs want change. What I don't read/hear is a majority of views towards a specific change. Simply put club treasurers want more games, club players want less...but even then that is misleading, and a whole range of factors come into play. What do you want the RFU to do? Listen to these mumblings of change and then try and understand them or ignore them? They are damned if they do and damned if they don't! Do you want them to produce plans before listening - because to some that suggests the RFU have already made up their minds, or do you want to have a consultation and then draw plans up after that consultation? Some days I think BREXIT is easier to resolve! ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 12 Dec 2019 at 21:04
|
I think the Lancashire League is proof of some disquiet. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2019 at 09:41
It is and it also a solution for those clubs that work for them. Not every club wants to progress up a National pyramid. Some are happy to play locally without major ambitions, others have some ambition but not on a national scale, whilst there will be those that who are ambitious and want to shine on the biggest stage. The structure should be able to accommodate all and allow for a mechanism that allows clubs who change their mind to move between the different structures as easily as possible with minimum disruption. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2019 at 09:49
I have it on good authority that the NCA did canvass their member clubs. All 48 responded to a number of questions - asking for preferred league size 14/15/16 clubs; the ideal league structure and the number of number of player appearances throughout last season. Clubs could also add their own thoughts and comments. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 13 Dec 2019 at 10:59
|
It may work for Lancashire, it is not clear that it works for the Cumbrian clubs. One of the duties of the Union is to come up with a structure that works for all its members. Which may include a mix of leagues with promotion and merit leagues without promotion. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2019 at 11:04
|
'I have it on good authority that the NCA did canvass their member clubs.
All 48 responded to a number of questions - asking for preferred league
size 14/15/16 clubs; the ideal league structure and the number of
number of player appearances throughout last season. Clubs could also
add their own thoughts and comments.' Richard for me the real conundrum who is replying on behalf of the clubs. Chairmen/treasurers/committee men are very important to clubs but do their views represent those of the most important section-the players? Most committee people played at a time when there were not 30 leagues matches, nationwide travel and the physical intensity of current rugby matches. For them turning up on a home Saturday is a real pleasure. Very, very few leave on the Friday evening from Bournemouth to travel to Redruth and then arrive back after midnight on the Saturday night, or from Darlington to Birmingham one Saturday and then to Blackheath the following Friday night, getting back early Sunday morning. The answer to the questions asked will be very different from these two groups. Rugby is not lacking/losing committee people it is losing active adult 15-a-side players. I really hope the powers that be take the views of this group as the priority.
|
Posted By: WEvans
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2019 at 12:11
Hold proper consultations, inviting proper representation and listen?
|
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2019 at 12:24
It's for each club to decide who replies. It's not for the RFU or NCA to dictate who should respond. Your post is just another illustration of how difficult it is for the RFU/NCA in this process, what ever the outcome there will be losers and complaints their views were overlooked. It is Rugby's version of Brexit... ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 14 Dec 2019 at 18:36
That would be a sensible start, also shouldn't discount the status quo as an option. ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: @boatyjames
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2019 at 17:25
|
So we have now been given the deck the RFU are presenting and will be presenting it to our players for their feedback in the New Year. They are only presenting 14, 12 and 10 team leagues with 6 or 7 Saturdays for a cup competition and 4 Saturdays for County games. More free Saturdays the smaller the league. One slide has these running in sequence league then Cup (March/April) then County (May). One has cup integrated into league season with County in May. Last One has League, Cup and County all spread through the season. Can't see how a Cup competition can work at the higher levels. How do you fill out 7 Saturdays with a knockout cup at Level 4? Would just end up with no one playing in the Cups (as now) and lots more empty Saturdays. |
Posted By: OldNick
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2019 at 18:03
Are you jumping to the conclusion that the cup is an entirely knock out cup, rather than guaranteeing matches by starting with a group stage? |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 16 Dec 2019 at 19:39
Why are the RFU obsessed with Cups? The championship cup is seemingly not well liked by clubs or supporters. The Premiership cup is basically treated as a reserve/academy competition by most teams. What makes them think that a level 3/4 competition will be any different? - play the same teams in a cup that you play in a league or have it Nationwide thus meaning a lot more travelling? Given the RFU are not giving status quo as an option I think most clubs will opt for 14 team leagues and say stuff the cup. ------------- RAID ON |