I think it should be good news for most but I'd like to hear thoughts from others involved completing this Application, probably best through a private message.

As a Club we had already agreed that we would not sign up to a loan scheme. We are prepared to provide the detail needed for the grant scheme that is being proposed for Clubs at Level 3 and down. How much of what is available will get taken up will be something to look at. We have stayed solvent with little income for nearly a year. This grant scheme helps with fixed costs and so is beneficial to everyone.

https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/96/962c62d0-a1b8-43ed-966f-fecf8d6b7185/WSSG%20FAQs%20and%20Criteria%20FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow - https://www.englandrugby.com/dxdam/96/962c62d0-a1b8-43ed-966f-fecf8d6b7185/WSSG%20FAQs%20and%20Criteria%20FINAL.pdf

I guess that as with most government grants they go to people who can fill a form in rather than those who need the money most.

My club has been offered the max £50k grant award and will accept but no 'list' was included in the documentation with that offer.

Like any other grant that is offered on application, you have to meet them halfway by filling in the form and make an application.

The RUWSF Grant was made available to clubs at level 3 and below. Therecwas no stipulation regarding being a fully 'Amateur' club and, luckily for some, there was no mention of the Club needing to be a 'Community Club'.

GJ

Personally I don't think telling the world who got what helps those clubs it just adds pressure.

Crowdfunds, grants, limited outgoings..........

And pay lots of lads next season

Definitely not allowed! 

So are you saying a condition of accepting a grant is you don’t pay anyone next season?

No, I’m saying that the grant cannot be used towards the payment of players. You are now going to argue that because Clubs have received this money it frees up other money to pay players next season. The answer to that is that Clubs first have to exist to pay players, secondly they will have to decide within their own budget structure and the payment limits how much they can afford to spend on players. Sadly, players don’t commit to long National League seasons for nothing anymore.

You have to provide records for an Audit on how you spent your grant.

That the fund doesn’t stipulate a pay back if you pay players (irrespective that these funds are not directly used to pay them - although whose checking?) is itself another example of the ludicrous protect at all costs notion of paying monies that clubs can’t afford.

Two clubs on that list still throwing money at players yet pleading poverty. Unbelievable doesn’t even cover it. 

Not singling you out, but this is the problem with threads like this - it's really difficult to navigate them and understand how to calibrate the outrage when people don't name the clubs.

Obviously, I can understand entirely why people don't want to - might be wrong, possible repercussions, etc, but it's all nods and winks.

I don't know enough of other club's finances to know who you're talking about, and whether I agree or not. 

Hell, I don't even know enough about the finances of the club I support...

Having said that, I can picture our set-up, in my mind's eye, and I'm more sympathetic to the argument from someone back on page one that if you've got a lot of plant - multi-hundred banqueting, full-time non-playing staff, etc, and those income streams have gone, then that's different to a club that has a match day bar and is hosing money at players. 

But as said I can't look at that list and work out easily which set up is which. 

Totally agree. There is more than two that I struggle to believe, especially if you count the Clubs throwing money at big name DoR's.

The qualifying criteria related to your Club accounts for the last full year pre Covid-19 but, what is entered in Cub accounts and what goes on elsewhere is another story. 

There are very clear guidelines on what you can and cannot use this money for but not sure of who will police this?.

If you have knowledge of false accounting HMRC are over there.

Otherwise it - like much of this thred - is so much white wine vinegar.

And you can say it based on half-truths, rumours and guesswork without ever looking at the real story!

My understanding is that wasn’t something asked, perhaps someone can clarify?

What it again shows is that club sustainability is an issue. If clubs are clearly arguing that their off field businesses have been so interrupted that these are bridging loans to allow them to get through a period of no income, then clearly they expect to resume income generation in due course. Therefore why can they not be asked to pay those funds back? 

All clubs have been affected to some extent. The smaller clubs on the list with no commercial revenues who don’t pay players are the ones support should be free. 

And I’m sure those who question my previous comment aren’t really as naive as they make out. 

Halliford, I’m sure you would be well placed to get this from the horses mouth. 

We’ve all had to find ways to navigate through difficult times. If this has taken you to the edge but as a club you’re intent on resuming your financial model of pre COVID times then clearly some clubs will never learn that you’re only ever one step from the brink if you live continuously hand to mouth. 

So we will be accepting a grant from the Government, as we have accepted other grants already, to enable us to open from 12th April with confidence that we can regenerate our income and build a new future.

Yes, that will involve paying players as we believe this is essential at National League level to recompense our players for the time and commitment they make to us. This is semi-professional rugby and we want to be successful in it.

I appreciate that there are those on this Forum to whom the payment of players is an anathema. They believe in a concept which predates professional rugby, where players play for pleasure and their own enjoyment. The game has moved on but all are, of course, entitled to their opinion. My Club will continue to live within its means, respect the player payment caps and provide good quality rugby as entertainment for both its players and its supporters of all ages.

My club’s lost revenue is significantly higher than the sum you disclose. 

My gripe is that clubs aren’t even attempting in some cases to be sustainable with reserves built in. The millions spent on playing wages each year is, in the main unaffordable. It stymies investment back into the game and provides limited long term planning.

This isn’t a comment on your club directly Halliford.

But there are clubs on that list who are hand to mouth because they clearly overpay and have nothing to reinvest into the game or build any resilience into their business plan.

Controlling wages as a percentage of revenue or some similar type of control has to be thought about. That clubs on this list who will get a bailout to pay their real bills but then spend hundreds/tens of thousands on player payments next season is plain wrong. 

Totally agree with the above.

The Clubs you refer to are generally made up of a very well paid 1stXV Squad, with no other senior sides, no Ladies teams and no Mini Junior section. They have no foundations, give nothing back to the game and have no engagement with the local community.

IMHO, any grants awarded to these Clubs should be carefully audited.