I could not get on and the link sent today does not play on any medium.

I heard the link 'crashed' after the presentation, so no questions answered.

Could anybody update as what was proposed?

Reasonable approach but I didn’t feel the team had actually done much work for Levels 3/4 since November. More work for Level 5 down.

Left a big question mark about Level 2!

Have they looked at a map.

Do they know how far it is from Redruth to Canterbury?

Its 325 miles.

Tynedale is only 20 miles further from Caterbury!

The natural thing is to look at the motorway network rather than the RFU Divisional areas, IMHO.

It is, but you can only really do that, I reckon, as part of a total review of the geography of the CBs themselves. 

Well, you could do it in isolation, but that would be just storing up problems IMO. If you take the M5 as the obvious one, then that does create a totally logical axis for that part of the country (as a Mose fan who has lived in both Exeter and Cornwall and has strong links with Bristol a Midlands (roughly based on North Midlands) and West division would make perfect sense to me). However, to the east of it are a host of clubs that look west for their local associations etc that you might have to make look east to even the numbers up.

Basically Midlands and West leaves you with North, and South Other. Midlands and West would logically take in Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire. But then what do you do about Wiltshire? And Dorset would be a really marginal call either way. And Notts, Derbys and Leics would want to be in the midlands too probably.

Basically IMO we've got too many CBs and the boundaries are in the wrong place. We do need CBs (again IMO), but I'd rip up all the existing ones and start again.

Does kind of prove my point though - it's 6 miles from Moseley's ground to Bournville's, both of which are in the same city. So would be disastrous to be separated from a crowd pov. 

Oh, and Moseley are quicker and closer to the M1 than Bournville, despite being on the bit of the M42 that's basically a spur of the M5!

If it came down to it I'd want to be in the M5 group though.

But that is going to happen somewhere - currently it is Licestershire where the split happens with one of two of the four sides (Hinkley, Leister Lions, Loughborough, South Leicester) going South and losing the local derbies.

As to the point of the CCB they run the county league and if we reain it - the County Championships

While the DOC run the regional leagues

And NCA run the National leagues

OK here was my attempt at a structure  - But I had expanded Championship and then lost National 1. I have 9 leagues at new level 4. Below that would be county leagues.

However, the RFu announcement suggested second teams would be permitted in the leagues and I think they would need to be allowed at the new level 4. Richmond 2 would stomp all over anything lower.

			Championship
			Saracens
			Ealing Trailfinders
			Cornish Pirates
			Coventry
			Ampthill
			Nottingham
			Jersey Reds
			Bedford Blues
			Doncaster Knights
			London Scottish
			Hartpury University
			Richmond
			Rosslyn Park
			Rams
			Chinnor
			Blackheath
North			South West			South East
Darlington Mowden Park			Plymouth Albion			Old Elthamians
Sale FC			Cinderford			Cambridge
Rotherham Titans			Birmingham Moseley			Bishop's Stortford
Hull Ionians			Stourbridge			Canterbury
Caldy			Luctonians			Hinckley
Fylde			Taunton Titans			Loughborough Students
Sedgley Park			Redruth			Tonbridge Juddians
Chester			Henley			Bury St Edmunds
Hull			Clifton			Leicester Lions
Wharfedale			Dings Crusaders			Esher
Huddersfield			Old Redcliffians			Worthing
Tynedale			Bournemouth			Old Albanians
Sheffield Tigers			Bournville			Barnes
Otley			Barnstaple			Westcliff
SKiwifruithorpe			Bromsgrove			Sutton & Epsom
Preston Grasshoppers			Maidenhead			Guernsey
Borders	White Rose	Red Rose	Central	Marcher	Peninsular	Anglia	Coast
Blaydon	Harrogate	Macclesfield	Newbury Blues	Drybrook	Weston-super-Mare	Kettering	Wimbledon
Billingham	Sheffield	Newport (Salop)	Bracknell	Nuneaton	Okehampton	Bedford Athletic	Dorking
Kirkby Lonsdale	Sandal	Bridgnorth	Royal Wootton Bassett	Broadstreet	Brixham	Peterborough Lions	Tunbridge Wells
Alnwick	Doncaster Phoenix	Sandbach	Havant	Old Centralians	Exeter University	Syston	Sevenoaks
Carlisle	Rossendale	Blackburn	Banbury	Dudley Kingswinford	Ivybridge	North Walsham	Sidcup
Morpeth	Burton	Lymm	Lydney	Kenilworth	Camborne	Oundle	Brighton
Kendal	Paviors	Wirral	Oxford Harlequins	Thornbury	Exmouth	Oadby Wyggestonians	Guildford
Durham City	Ilkley	Burnage	Marlborough	Hereford	Launceston	Old Northamptonians	Westcombe Park
Percy Park	York	Wilmslow	Eton Manor	Newbold on Avon	Hornets	Sudbury	Camberley
Vale of Lune	Derby	Northwich	Sherborne	Ludlow	Devonport Services	Lutterworth	Medway
Penrith	Lichfield	Altrincham Kersal	Buckingham	Keynsham	Sidmouth	Shelford	Cobham
West Hartlepool	Cleckheaton	Firwood Waterloo	Chippenham	Rugby Lions	Chew Valley	Market Harborough	Horsham
Keswick	Moortown	Birkenhead Park	Windsor	Old Patesians	Bridgwater & Albion	Peterborough	Chichester
Aspatria	Driffield	Whitchurch	Beaconsfield	Worcester	North Petherton	Towcestrians	KCS Old Boys

Halliford,

Not bad, but in the North you seem to have forgotten the three teams that were relagated this year (Otley, Preston Grasshoppers and SKiwifruithorpe) who will all be keen to get "promoted" thi sseason.

Camquin, good analysis! I suspect that Level 2 will actually go to 14 teams as that seems to come through very strongly in the RFU survey results for Levels 3/4. The NCA are insistent that there be 1 League at Level 3 but have accepted a 14 team League.

The current proposal will allow second teams to join the leagues but no higher than Level 6. Richmond are an exception, their second team is a Level 4 side and their third team a Level 4/5 team.

Don't they already have 2nd teams in the league (just in legal roundabout ways by "legally separate clubs") with London Irish Amateur, London Scottish Lions, Ealing 1871, Wasps FC, Saracens Amateurs, Harlequins Amateur, Sale FC, St Jacques and London Welsh Amateur (I know they're currently using the LW name but they were the second team) to name but a few who already skirt around the "no second teams" rule?  Not to mention the majority of Sussex 2 is made up of 2nd teams.

Think you left London Irish Wild Geese out of one of those leagues!

How do you work that one out? Other than Sale FC none of those clubs have any help player wise from their parent club as you insinuate.

Actually somewhere in the copy and paste I lost the last column with the entire London South Central league 

Which featured LIWG with the other Surrey Hants and Sussex London 1 and 2 sides.

Unfortunately the excel file is on the other computer.

Actually Surrey has far too many good sides,while Sussex has too few  so while everywhere else I would recommend county leagues at the level below  I would move split Surrey and merge rural Surrey with Sussex But frankly from Redhill it is probably as easy to get to Brighton as Mitcham.

There is one one side missing but it was not LIWG.

Ill take your word for it!!

The entry of 2nd XV is aimed primarily at Clubs from Levels 3-5, starting at the bottom of the League structure or close to it. There is a glass ceiling that says a Clubs 2nd XV can't go any higher than Level 6 (no idea how that is going to work) and lets just say Club A in National 1 does a original Richmond or London Scottish and gets dumped the bottom of the Leagues for some reason, do their 2nd XV then at Level 6 have to follow them? Indeed taking CQs implication that Richmond 2s are really good they could be at Level 6 within 2 or 3  seasons. Meanwhile Clubs that have been trying for x years to get up to Level 6 or higher will find their way blocked by a bunch of semi-Pro's from a higher placed National League Clubs. Change is needed, adding 2nd XVs is not.

CQ, so local lower leagues like in Lancashire seems a sensible idea now?

So I will not hold my breath.

Just watch how quick London Welsh Amateur have been rising up the league since the professional club's liquidation and that probably gives you your answer on what clubs really think. 

But when it comes to second teams and indeed third teams in the Sussex leagues for example. Mostly though this happens in the merit leagues. The 3rd team can't go above or in the same league as the 2s so they will get blocked from promotion or indeed if the 2nd team gets relegated, so too does the 3rd team.  So that's what would happen if Club A went bust and went to the bottom, the 2nd team would go in the merit leagues or probably be on league hiatus for a year. However, if you do as the teams I mentioned above did and go for the "separate club" angle, the "separate club" just takes the name of the bust club and don't have to start at the bottom  which is what London Welsh are doing.

Other things were not clear: the geographic split has been talked about in this thread but is far from thought through; the slides presented had to be corrected after the event because they showed the wrong number of leagues at L5; who is going to be responsible for administering the six L5 leagues - presumably not the current 4 divisions.

And the issue of lower XVs entering the league was only briefly discussed, albeit there seemed to be broad support for the idea - but having some experience of this (at lower level leagues) it is not without its problems - there is a 100 player limit for the registration system just now, that is rapidly reached by a club that had 3 XVs in the league system and - in effect - has to be ignored at the lower level; how do we ensure that the integrity of leagues are maintained and there isn't an en masse loading of higher players into a lower team if it suits the club to do so? Is a club allowed to forfeit a first XV match and still play their second XV fixture? How many times can a player play for a higher team and still be eligible to play further down? All of these have been problems in leagues I am familiar with - and if people will bend the rules to gain a point or two at Level 10, I am pretty sure that we need to watch for it at L6.

I am also of the view that there is no particular reason why a structure has to be uniform across the whole country - appreciate this forum is for national leagues and national clubs, but below that level if what suits the North does not suit the South West, why should they be put in the same straightjacket? 

My observation, for what it is worth, is that this work - regardless of its merits - is not ready for implementation, even if we were looking at a normal 2020-21 season. But given the likelihood of a significantly shortened season the chances of it providing a sound basis for such a radical realignment in 2021 is close to zero.

Time for the Council to assert itself

Are we surprised? Apparently the L3/4 went off air during the presentation.

If that is the case it will put more pressure on Level 3 clubs to consider regionalisation especially as the South dominates the league. The cost of Travel will be a big burden from the start as many clubs will have zero income. 

If that's the case, then N2S have about 25 return plane tickets to pay for. for Guernsey And as for LSE,  North Walsham in northern Norfolk and Havant are going to be in a spot of bother. Which in turn is going to see rugby be centralised in big towns/cities with good transport connections rather than smaller isolated outposts. This is not something I'd want to see.

Copied from Regional Premier Leagues 

Presentations are at 

I do not want to lead the jury, but I just sent an email to 

mailto:Competitions-Development@RFU.com" rel="nofollow - Competitions-Development@RFU.com

Well actually that is not trues ...

I do want to lead the jury. 

1. Player centricity / player welfare

2. Appropriate travel time/distance

3. Quality of player experience/quality of competition

4. Club sustainability

To me, there is but one, Club Sustainability. 

The loss of 2 home games at National 1 could be net income of up to £20,000. Even allowing for Pay/Play arrangements, the financial impact will be significant. 

Clubs are likely to have made substantial infrastructure / cent arrangements,  facilitated through RFU loans for one, which need to be repaid out of the bottom line, which is where any game reduction financial pressure will be felt.

Whose opinion is more important, DoR or Treasurer? 

And without a club the players have no base. You're lucky to get replacement commercial income at a level close to a match. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier (being a members club), to sell our 25 acres prime building land and revertvto The Joys of Level 7.

Marigold wrote: Matchday megabucks

I wrote "up to" and I've PM the calculations which come to c £9,000 but as the gate and bar are pure guesses I rounded up!

Yes, there will be Home and Away cost savings and I agree the future model has to be on a per match basis but keeping better players may be tricky without a retainer and associated contract to fend off deep pockets.

As a former Treasurer it's my perception that facilitating player demands isn't as easy as it seems without a sugar daddy which we have all agreed is not a good business model.

Try your own estimates for your club, look at the accounts and work it out.

What we really need are good local derbies which, in my experience, can bring in over 2,000 through the gate  (and that was at Level 4) Cambridge  v Shelford, but we have history.

A break 5 weeks into the season for National League?

One before Christmas works.

Should be looking to regionalise Nat 1? Travelling crazy. Nearest game for last 5 years at least 3 hours away.

I’m sure the National League clubs are all for it and the clubs at L6-7 and below are against it.

How many clubs on this forum will be submitting applications for their 2nd XV to join the leagues out of interest?

Novos, my club have said that if they allow 2nd XVs in the leagues they will leave and join the breakaway setup.

CF I am sure you have a good reason why you do nto want 2nd XV teams in the league.

But I am not sure I have grasped it.

Would you be so kind and explain what the problem is with the suggestion.

I  thought we were trying to arrange the best possible opposition with the shortest possible travel for the most number of sides.

- with the player registration limit set to 100 players and clubs having 3 or more teams in the league set up you rapidly reach the point when a club doesn't have enough registered players to manage their selection;

- there is no distinction in regs as they stand between a pro/semipro registered player and a third team social rugby utility back - so clubs can easily load a team to create an unfair contest - there are certainly occasions when a club deems a 2nd or 3rd XV relegation/promotion clash a higher priority than a mid-table 1st XV game - some very odd sets of results ensure;

- we had an example last season of a club pushing for promotion at 1st XV level simply withdrawing their 2nd XV from the league in March in order to manage their playing squad - undermining the integrity of the lower league.

And that is without considering the impact on small clubs with only one XV of the recruitment efforts of larger clubs around who seem to be quite happy to build the depth of their squad without regard to the restricted playing opportunities that will result from having more players than they need.

All of these things can be fixed with appropriate regulation and enforcement and with clubs showing a bit of self-restraint in the interests of the game as a whole but I am not holding my breath.

The 100 player limit would need to go.

I belive Richmond runs at least six men's senior sides.

So they would need more than 100 players registered as 90 would be on the pitch, with a few subs and the inevitable injuries.

I think Cambridge II is about level 5 or 6. Richmond II is possibly a little stronger.

I would expect Caldy's to be about the same standard and Fylde and Sedgely Park's to bit a little weaker.

My personal feeling is that all sides should be playing at the level they belong - no side should fear any of its opponents, though obviously some will be stonger than others.

Which suggests if 2nd XVs are in the pyramid they cannot be capped, or they would be too strong for their opponents.

However,  I  can understand tha tthe gate taking clubs want to be playing other 1st teams, as it would be harder to find sponsers etc for matches against 2nd teams.

I am not sure how far down the pyramid clubs take a gate.

And with the tendancy for clubs to say, "We donn't pay players but our rivals are all on full time contracts" it is very hardto get a real picture of club finances.

Of course the RFu have the accurate club accounts and the player contracts, so should know this.

oh look a flying pig.

I would not want another club to suffer loss of revenue if their first team played our seconds. 

Down in Eastern Counties 1, the players are paying match fees and beer kitty, so it does not matter.

I used to play a lot of hockey both here and in the Netherlands, and nobody took a gate, so it did not matter if you had a 1st XI a 3rd and a 6th in the same league, indeed clubs had two teams in the same league, as Richmond does in the Shield. The hardest fought match was the one internal to your club.  As a 3rd XI player we wanted to beat the 2nds much and they were not going to lose to us, ad nobody had a long drive home so we could stay in the bar afterwards. 

Good Morning CQ,

I better chip in here as I threw the handgrenade. Pretty much all my thoughts were covered in Piffpaffs explaination.

Some 1st XV teams at our lowest level here at 7 are not really up to playing that level and for them to be coming up against what could be good semi pro players could be off putting to say it mildly.

If a limit of level 7 is set then we would just be moving the Premiership division of the NOWIRUL Leagues to the RFU League pyramid, how does this benefit anyone, is it just to bolster the RFU numbers in the pyramid ?

I was on the consultation call for the North where 70% of the participants voted against 2nd XVs in the RFU Leagues. Is there not a case for regional rules at lower levels, the South can have 2nds and the North don't have to ?

Sometimes one size doesn't fit all.

Givne that the excuse for having this discussion is the complaints by the teams in Lancashire who did nto want to travel to Cumbriato lose matches - if we can solve that locally then there is no reason to change the structure anywhere else.

However, that has given the RFU an excuse to try to save money by paying out less travel support and cutting the number of matches played, so having to pay fewer referees expensive.

Though actually I have not seen a set of suggestions from the RFu at any point in this cycle rthat actaually looked like it would save money - as they keep reintroducing a National Cup andtherefore adding travel costs and games.

Though having said that, the Championship is broken and does need to be fixed. Either it needs to become professional, which takes a lot of money the RFU cannot provide and no sponsor has come forward to offer. Or it needs to go semi-pro in which case the Premiership needs to be expanded and ring fenced as the gap is going to be too big. It also needs to expand to ensure the clubs get sufficient meaningful home games to generate revenue.

if you put 14 teams i the premiership and 16 in the Championship then I am not sure you would find another 16 teams who want to be in a national league. So you will need to redraw the lower leagues.

And if you do that, I would want to see the league structure in the North West arranged so that the Cumbrian clubs get meaningful fixtures and the Lancashire clubs are happy to return to the main competition.

But that is going to take a lot of meetings with beer and sandwiches, if you are old enough to remember Harold Wilson. And then after a suitable period of rest, I would send the negotiaters to solve the crisis in the Middle East.

It sounds to me that there is no fundamental objection to amateur clubs 2nd XVs in the leagues - if the lissues rround registration are fixed.

However, it is becoming clear to me that there may be a need to retain a separate merit league for the semi-pro second teams, keep the Shield in London & the South East, keep NOWIRUL but perhaps include some Yorkshire sides, and keep have a similar structure in the South West and Midlands - assuming we keep the current Divisions.

I’ve been saying this for a long time. 1st XVs used to play 2nd XVs. However, of course this was before league rugby, and a meaningful competitive fixture didn’t have to be in a league setting!

My view is that both lower level 1st XV clubs and higher level 2nd CV clubs must compromise on this. If you don’t want 2nd XVs in the league, they NEED to have competitive fixtures. In the North East, the 5 or 6 big 2nd XV clubs only get a competing fixture when they play each other - it can’t be fun playing the same team 3-4 times a season every year. 

My resolution?

Leagues of 10 for L6 and below. 18 league fixtures a season. 

But you HAVE to be including strong 2nd XVs in your ‘Friendly’ fixtures that you arrange. They’ll be bloody competitive fixtures and neither side will want to lose. Who wants to lose to a 2nd XV? Nobody, no matter who it is. Additionally, this also means you can play your traditional ‘local’ fixtures and even chuck in the odd ‘touring’ game or whatever. Rugby wasn’t broken before the introduction of larger leagues. It sure as hell is now. The definition of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Let’s try something different and try and make it positive. 

The pigheadedness of many to refuse to accommodate either side and demanding leagues of 14 or even 16 (I’m talking about Regional leagues here) means that in the end we all lose and nobody will be happy.

Get fixture secretaries to become fixture secretaries again and arrange some meaningful fixtures for their clubs. If we can do that properly, it should negate the issues of 2nd XVs clamouring to join the RFU leagues.