They are supported by the RFU who, after paying a bloated central office, gift vast sums to the top tier leaving the other 2,000 clubs relying on volunteers (which is not a bad thing) and saddled with significant infrastructure and playing costs if they want to go above, say, Level 5.

As ever, we find the RFU out of touch with the game at large and without any power over PRL and CVC.

After the current financial shenanigans, the answer lies in reducing the player funding cap, removing marquee players, cutting the number of foreign players and bringing academy funding into the Championship clubs but how would that sit with Caldy and Ampthill who are more akin to traditional rugby clubs than most? 

PS and throwing Worcester and Wasps to Level 12 for bringing the game into disrepute)

I'll see your Premiership and raise you the RFU and PRL.

Quite why any proper rugby club (like Caldy and Ampthill) would want to be part of the Premiership is a total mystery to me even if the disreputable and korrupt Premiership would let them in.

(I realise Caldy and Ampthill might have no desire to be in the Premiership anyway).  

1. There isn't a credible business model that says Premiership rugby can work financially at the current financial benchmarks - the owners are on a financially distressing carousel that they can't abandon without significant personal and professional reputational damage.....

2. The players are seduced into the dream that they can become the next Wilkinson or Itoje....for most squad players it is likely to be a 10-12 year mirage that leaves them ill equipped physically and financially for the remainder of their working lives.......

3. The RFU have built a huge management edifice to support professional rugby.....this is part of the problem and I am afraid rarely appears to be part of the solution....

I am not confident that there is an elegant way out of all of this

I'm afraid we are all frustrated at the RFUs last minute decision making and willingness to bow to the Premiership clubs sucking so much money out of the game. If there was a clear and consistent 10 year plan, including all 2,000 clubs we'd be happier.

I'm yet to find an RFU fan on this site.

Haven't you met Halliford?

We are a broad church with a multiplicity of opinions 😎 

International sides cannot function without clubs, sadly as a minority sport, the game is not well enough funded(or managed) to grow the game like many of us would like. It seems all(and I mean all) the rugby nations are having the same struggle. Ireland, New Zealand all subsidised, the French model is quite close to being run properly, but the others, Wales,Scotland, bankrupt and clinging on by the skin of it's teeth.

I guess what you really want is someone to finance the lower leagues, sadly there's not enough money going round to feed the populace and keep them warm, so no chance of the Championship or the National leagues finding any dosh.

The RFU is still "Carlings Old F@rts", always has been and it seems always will be, so I follow my old club in the National leagues as a member, follow my team from the town of my birth and try to get some enjoyment out of watching a game that sort of resembles the game I played a few decades ago and my son has just retired from.

I am sure we all want the top division, whatever it is called, to be the pinnacle of English rugby - not Anlgo-Welsh Rugby.

All clubs should be able to be promoted, regardless of whether they play on a park pitch, like Bath - or a stadium - like Darlington. Though it would be nice if they played on a full sized pitch.

There should be no link between the position of the men's and women's sides.

No promoted club should be required to buy shares, other than for a nominal fee - that is the replacement for PRL should be a company limited by guarantee.

The clubs should not be involved in player development - that is, they should not be running academies. Those should be run regionally by the RFU.

We want it to consist of sides that can stand on their own two feet - albeit with TV money -  and not rely on funding from the RFU. Ideally, it should actually generate income for the RFU.

We want oversight to ensure sides are financially sound, accepting a side into a league and having it fail is obviously a major problem and the organizing committee should resign.

The problem is that even a slimmed down Premiership side, with a single men's side, would require a budget of about £10m to £12m.

There is no way a second tier side can generate anywhere near that until it can get a TV deal, and we cannot get that without being on TV.

So there is a need for a major marketing campaign building the lower tiers.

1) Playing on a park? how does the home side manage a crowd of 10,000 or more people safely? How do they get their ticket money, this works only in a totally amateur league where finance is not required, ie the club has next to no overheads, do they exist in the National leagues?

2) I don't understand that statement.

3) The RFU are unable to run anything, the clubs are producing huge numbers of quality players, the facilities are immense at club level, that system is probably working better than any other part of the game at the top level.

4) I agree that the game needs proper governance, but the RFU didn't want to run the club game when it went pro. Premiership clubs are now businesses, any income generated is for the business to use to sustain and grow itself.

5) The French model where you have to prove the club can run for the season before the season starts, no funds then you are demoted, seems like a possible solution to me.

6) The game needs marketing, full stop and the RFU failed miserably by not taking advantage when England were world champions, sincew then interest has waned again.

Tiger,

1: As I said, Bath play on a park pitch with temporary stands - so it can be done. OK some of those temporary stands have been there as long as I can remember.

The Old Deer Park was perfectly safe, but it did not meet the then standards, and they were forced to play away from their base. If it is safe for a match with 4,000 fans in the Championship, it is safe for a match with 5,000 fans in the Premiership

The safety argument, and the spacing of urinals, was used to exclude clubs. It was just on the legal side of a cartel.

If we are going to have requirements, a pitch 100 m by 70 m with 10 m or deeper in-goal areas would be top of my list. One of the reasons there is no space in Professional rugby, is the fact they all play on narrow pitches.  A 65 metre wide pitch effectively gives the defence an extra man. When was the last time the touch line missed a tackle.

2: PRL shares cost £13m. In order to get the TV money, the promoted club must buy those from the relegated club. That too is iniquitous. IF PRL was a company limited by guarantee, its shares could be valued at say £100 and the purchase would be purely nominal.

Of course, if you took £13m from the balance sheet of every Premiership club, most would look decidedly dodgy. Some are close to insolvent now - and only trading due to the willingness of the director to support them.

3: If the academies worked, England would be winning the World Cup at a canter. And would have won the last several U-19 world cups.  Also the England team would be full on academy graduates, not imports from league or abroad.

But the big problem is, what happens to the academy of the relegated team.

4: No business has guaranteed income. All businesses fail in the end. The current model is unsustainable. The only way to be successful is to be a property company with a rugby team as a marketing gimmick. Most sides rely on having a fanatical supporter - like a cecil Duckworth - who is prepared to give away several million pounds a year.

5: There is meant to be oversight. But it has become croneyism. McCafferty and Thomas both moved over from the board of England Rugby Ltd  to the premiership Rugby board.

5: One of the reasons it was unable to take advantage was it had overspent on Twickenham, on England and on the Premiership. But, because it committed far too much money to the Premiership, it is cutting Development Officers and marketing staff.

that is one of the most lucid and insightful posts/articles on the subject that I have read. I agree with all of it.

The Premiership should be the pinnacle of the English club game. Clubs with ambition should be able to reach it based solely upon their playing abilities , as what happens in Football. Automatic relegation and promotion each season at every level. 

There should be a minimal set of viable/realistic/cost effective criteria for each ground but clubs should be free to play games elsewhere if they think it would benefit them. 

The major costs are the players. The RFU should be centrally contracting the 50 or so England players - the ones you would expect to have the biggest salaries - therefore removing one of the major costs to the clubs.  

These players should then be loaned back to the Premiership clubs.  

Players not centrally contracted should not be able to play for England unless under exceptional circumstances. Players to be limited to x games per season. This could be achieved by reducing the size of the Premiership.  Squad sizes capped. 

Make more use of centrally contracted players for outreach and publicity. Clubs should be encouraged to provide educational opportunities for their players. 

RFU to restrict number of overseas players by working with Home Office on Visa conditions. The Premiership shouldn't be a home for 'journeymen' but minimum number of 'stars' allowed. 

The RFU to run regional academies in conjunction with local Universities and not the Premiership clubs. Players graduating from the Academies go into a draft system with the newly promoted club getting first pick and the champions the last in each round. 

RFU income is shared more equitable around clubs but focussed on ground improvements, player development, participation, travel costs and not on player wages. 

If the published accounts for Manchester Sale Rugby Club Limited (Sale Sharks) are an indication of the rest of the Premiership clubs I think you are substantially wide of the mark there Camquin.

Sale Shark's P shares sit in the 30 June 2021 balance sheet at £17.89 million having been revalued upwards by £3.68m in that year. According to the note in the accounts the P shares represent 0.0004% of Premier Rugby Holdco Limited...to me that seems a very, very small percentage ownership!

The impact of this revaluation was to turn a pre tax loss of £3.27m into a pre tax profit of £403k

As at 30 June 2021 Manchester Sale Rugby Limited has accumulated losses of £18.35m

At the same date of 30 June 2021 Manchester Sale Rugby Limited's balance sheet discloses net assets of £1.9m.......without the £17.89m value ascribed to the P Shares the balance sheet would look somewhat ugly!

The valuation of the P shares (benchmarked by the CVC purchase price) may well be 'holding up' the valuation of the Premiership as a whole. In most spreadsheets this would be flagged as a 'circular argument'

Without the historical long term and continuing financial support from its directors and shareholders it is unlikely that Manchester Sale Rugby Limited would still be in business.

I do actually think the RFU would see these as beneficial to the game. My very limited exposure to the higher echelons of the RFU pyramid revealed they do generally see where the problems exist. However, they are so afraid of putting anyone's nose out of joint they refuse to make tough decisions. 

Vested interests and a desire to be seen as nice guys means the course of least resistance will prevail. Sadly.

Premier Rugby Ltd is owned indirectly by PRL Investor Limited and Cobalto Bidco which jointly own Premier Rugby Holdings LLP which owns Holdco which own PRL.

The P shares are in PRL Investor Ltd, (the clubs may also own 1 share in each of the subsidiaries - but essentially they are onion layers to separate types of ownership).

Shares in PRL Investors Ltd are not tradeable and must be held by a rugby club in the Premiership, or by the Company, except that a club relegated o the championship may hold them for up to a season.

I suspect, but have not proven, that Cobalto is the investment vehicle for CVC.

From the accounts. 

You don't support a premiership club and clearly never have, I would happily lead a revolution against such a list of ideas.

 I can only speak for Leicester Tigers, but they educate academy members, they are linked to universities, so not only are they getting the best rugby education, they also go to good local education facilities. Have a look at the current squad Tigers have, then see how many of their academy graduates are current internationals. Club players, part of a team is the only way to take a player forward, having centrally contracted players loaned is exactly what you all seem to hate on here, just the same as dual registered or loan players, no interest in the club really. What sort of club will exist with their best players missing, who the hell is going to buy a season ticket for a team that rarely has it's best players available? What sort of standard will the top league play, that is a recipe for dumbing down the club game. The RFU has shown itself to be inept from the outside and many former players have publicly criticised the way rugby is run. The obvious parallel to draw is the soccer Premiership, ask any fan of any club if they would accept their best players being grown at the club to then be taken away and rarely seen. 

The main reason England did not win the last World Cup or the last 6 Nations was not any fault of the PRL, that blame lies fairly and squarely with the RFU and their Minion Eddie Jones.

1] Correct but that allows me to independently and objectively make suggestions that are not based upon club bias for the future of the entire game not just 13 clubs. 

2] I can't quite understand your point. My idea is no different except that it wouldn't be the Tigers running the Academy. That would be the only difference. The same players would still be picked up by the Academy structure and would still have the same progression route and if good enough would still make it to the top.  

3] This happens already - players miss games whilst on International duty but clubs still carry on playing. All my idea does is remove the cost of these players from the clubs onto the RFU thus saving the clubs money. 

4]You make my point for me. Players are criticising the current way the game is run, so that is why we need to look to change. 

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

To change anything you need to look at the top and cascade the changes and ideas down, having old f@rts as Will Carling called them, still running the game means nothing much will change by tinkering lower down, an example is the mess we have as National league 2 West as an example, change to save the RFU money. Disguised as cutting down travel the Leicestershire sides are still travelling to Cornwall, don't think the clubs mind a trip to the seaside from land locked middle England, but it does highlight the RFU total understanding of the real world, they seem to be isolated and out of touch......................quite like poilticians really. (snouts in the trough for their own benefit is a possible acusation that I could not possibly make lol.............pass the Gin...........)

....and that PiffPaff is probably the root cause of the malaise and the lack of investment and regard for the 'Community Game' 

The dislocation amongst the group consisting of the RFU Council and Consituentcy Bodies and the 2,500 or so clubs ('RFU Shareholders'), and the separatiion from the group that consists of the RFU Senior Management and their employees, ('RFU Management') frustrates true democratic accountability

Because of the complexity and divergence of interest within the RFU Shareholder Group there is no effective control or oversight over the RFU Management Group. Until proper democratic control is exercised directly by the 2,500+ clubs (i.e. by passing the CBs and their nominated Executive Council members who are susceptible to being swayed by the RFU Management) I do not expect anything will change.

When the cuts got made to the RDO's. CRCs and other game support staff circa 130 made redundant it was seen as a necessary fiscal saving. At that time the Marketing/PR/Insights Department at HQ had about 25 or so staff, now its nearer 60. So in short get rid of boots on the ground spread across the country who were genuinely doing to their bit and replace them with a team of marketing executives and pollsters who get to ask people what the "Club of the Future" will look like. (That was one of their a talking points at the recent RFU Game Congress).

The club of the future in 10 years will look the same as the club of now but with less rugby being played and facing the very real fact of going out of business.

Absolutely and Halliford is of course perfectly entitled to his views. My post was in response to your comment "I'm yet to find an RFU fan on this site."

I believe Leicester "pay their own way" in the same way as all Premiership clubs do - via wealthy benefactors. All Premiership clubs are heavily in debt and that is the problem as there appears to be no sign of that ending.

Tigers have share holders, old season ticket holders were given shares, so a substantial amount of the "wealthy benefactors" are actually the fans. It is not easy for me to find out exactly who owns what, but the "main shareholder" a lifelong Tigers supporter living in the channel islands does not put any extra money in. Part of the reason why Tigers led the salary reduction a few years back when a few expensive players left, Manu Tuillagi being one of them, there was no extra money in the pot.

Leicester made money in 2012. 2013 and 2014, but has lost money every year since.

My general point is that players shouldn't be just rugby players and should have qualifications to fall back on. This could include apprenticeships.

It is interesting to note that in NCAA college sports players have to meet minimum education standards to play in their sporting activities. It is something that we should be encouraging over here. 

The RFU made a mistake in 1997 by not embracing professionalism and they have paid for it ever since. Clubs took control of the players and individuals driven by motives other than rugby took over the Clubs, leading to PRL which is a morally bankrupt entity.

Some years ago, misguided people at the RFU committed long-term funding to PRL, failing to link it to RFU profits. In recent years with the Pandemic, etc. the RFU has been forced into a difficult corner. 

Yes, things could be done better, but my experience is that the Executive is doing its best, hampered by an RFU Council which no longer represents the rugby we know. National League Rugby has 56 Clubs and 1 representative. Some CBs, such as Army Units, have fewer Clubs and more representatives. The Governance is outmoded but the belief and drive of the workers is still strong and supportive.

I don’t work for the RFU, I’m a Club Secretary who receives regular communications from them.

In 1997?, they made that mistake in 1895.

At very least, they should have organized a cup and league competitions.

They were even sent silver for the cup.

These though have virtually zero power.

Getting anybody at the RFU to reply to you is almost impossible.

The RFU built the Twickenham stadium and were debt free, then the professionals took over and we had the East Stand debacle, everybody kept their jobs and the RFU millions in debt making it much harder to weather Covid.

https://www.smbcollegegroup.ac.uk/college-life/our-campuses-facilities/brooksby-campus" rel="nofollow - Brooksby Campus | SMB College Group

DeMonfort University is also tied in with the Tigers as well as other local education establishments, an example is that Manu Tuillagi joined the Tigers academy as a 15 year and was educated locally. They don't just play rugby all day as academy students.

This explains it in more detail

https://www.leicestertigers.com/team/our-academy" rel="nofollow - Our Academy | Leicester Tigers

I've already mentioned apprenticeships as an alternative to University qualifications. 

What the sport should not be doing is having players with no future job plans because they concentrated on being full time professionals, a career which probably last 15 years or so maximum. 

I don't think that aim could in any circumstances be considered elitist, it is more having a duty of care. 

Totally agree on preparing players for their lives beyond rugby.

You are tarring all with the same brush, there are good clubs trying their best for their employees, members and supporters and of course their sponsors, clubs like Northampton and Leicester are well supported clubs with a long history doing a good job, now I admit the Worcester and Wasps scenarios have blackened the league as did Saracens and to a lesser extent Tigers and Bath by breaking the rules on finances allegedly.......................

Without the PRL there is no England rugby team for the RFU to mismanage, the game at Premiership level is now a business and needs the safeguards and strict protocols to manage it going forwards. To me the clubs should be governed by it's own rules within world rugby codes. The RFU should be managing the National team and the Championship and National leagues to grow the sport and assist the lower leagues in growing the sport at grass roots level. I think after a short period going forwards the RFU should be supporting the Premiership clubs less, they pay the clubs and pay the players another wage on top of what they receive from their clubs, that should be looked at and the funds going to game as a whole.

So the RFU Executive is being hampered by an RFU council which no longer represents the rugby we know? 

Well it's all the RFU and it still sounds like the RFU isn't fit for purpose to me.

That was rather my point about all Premiership clubs being heavily in debt. I take tigerburnie's point about shareholders and no apparent wealthy benefactors but someone somewhere is keeping them afloat and I think to call it "paying their own way" is a little generous.

Tigers bought the adjacent land that was Granby Halls and have had a hotel built on the ground, it is being run for them by a specialist company called Bespoke, that will be helping pull in some income.

https://bespokehotels.com/brooklynleicester" rel="nofollow - Home - Hotel Brooklyn Leicester (bespokehotels.com)

The off-field investments are not finished as a new stand is to be built in the future which will include a multi storey car park, further increasing revenue to help the club sustain itself. I am not certain, but I am told the reason for the profit short fall prior to covid is because of the re-investment in these projects.

But of the £20m turnover, £5m comes From TV and Gallagher, another £2m from the RFU and £3m from sponsorship that relies on being on TV.

and?

The tv companies want to sell the product and are prepared to pay for it, do you expect the clubs to give the money away? Companies who sponsor want their product to be seen, on the terraces is fine, but on the tv it is seen by more people and is easy to see the advantage of going with a successful product. Premiership rugby is watched all around the rugby world, just like the other top leagues.

The PRL is not making good decisions just now, now I agree changes need to be made, good governance and a league open to promotion and relegation, proper competition.

I think the point that Camquin is trying to make is that the income of Premiership clubs is fragile and reliant on a combination of commercial revenue and money from owners and that if one part goes it leaves a club vulnerable. None are really living within their means. 

For some clubs yes that is true, what I don't like is that some try to make the case that all are in a bad way, rugby is a minority sport, gates lower than footballs 1st division for some, that does not mean that the game isn't worth having. Soccer as a pro sport has been round a long time and they still get it wrong, see Derby County recently, vultures will always look for easy pickings, the RFU and PRL just need to up there game and come into the 21st century.

But the evidence is that all Premiership clubs are in a bad way. 

One season of turning a profit does not extinguish all the previous seasons of debt.

The other point is the Premiership is not self=-sufficient, in that it takes players, and officials - from the other 5000 clubs. Especially Leicester - who were always something of a Leicestershire select XV.

So, it is in its best interest to ensure those clubs are thriving and attracting more mini and juniors to turn up and take up rugby.

At the moment they are not standing on their own two feet, they are reliant on the RFU for 10% of their income, and actually more as the RFU do not charge for the team of four.

Outside the Premiership, the clubs that thrive are the ones where the 1st XV generates income for the club - from sponsorship, gate etc, and therefore the club can invest and grow. The clubs that fail are ones where the 1st XV sucks the money from the club, they might blaze for a little while using money from a sugar daddy, but they crash leaving a husk.

And that applies to the sport in general. To thrive, the Premiership should be bringing money into the game, not sucking money out of it.

But the entire structure and history of NFL (and other Professional American sports) is different.  

If you want to make comparisons it would be to compare NFL to the Football's Premier League, the latter also plays in front of packed stadiums and attracts a shed load of money from TV channels for coverage. The difference is it does that whilst maintaining relegation and promotion without blocking criteria. 

The other thing to mention about NFL is the 'socialistic' approach of the player draft - allowing the weakest team to have first choice of the best young talent to try and ensure a competitive league each season, whereas Premier League and Premiership go in the opposite direction and the richest clubs try to outspend their rivals to success. 

Says absolutely everything....@hitnailonhead

All very commendable but I still don't believe Tigers are "paying their own way".

I concede though that unlike many others they may do so in the future. 

The capital investment in the Granby land and hotel building would not be represented as a profit & loss cost but as an asset on the balance sheet. I suspect it may also be held in a separate company.

Notwithstanding that, hats off to Leicester for being proactive in addressing their parlous state.

Slightly off topic but it seemed like it should be in this thread:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/63403313" rel="nofollow - English Premiership: Players are the 'answer' to growing rugby union

England's professional players are the "experts" who need to be "trusted" with a major say in how the sport is run, according to the players' union. With more than 50 players still out of work following the collapse of Worcester and Wasps, the Rugby Players' Association [RPA] insist the players are "the answer to growing rugby". The RPA also believe players need a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the sport's authorities, like in American sports, to safeguard the game's future. 'Players need a say like in the US' In a wide-ranging interview, former Sale and Northampton lock Christian Day, now head of player affairs at the RPA, told BBC Sport: "We believe rugby is evolving to the point where players have to be part of the discussion, at the table, as signatories to the agreements. "Not anymore as a consulted group. If they want to buy into the players as the future of the game, get the players sat at the table with you and have them part of the discussion." Day says rugby union needs to look at other professional leagues around the world, such as the National Rugby League in Australia and the National Basketball Association [NBA] in the United States, where the players are part of a Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA]. "Professional sports around the world evolve and develop over time," Day explained. "Rugby union only turned professional in the mid-90s, the American professional sports turned in the 60s. "It's a bit of a misnomer to compare yourself to American sports but that is what athletes do, they want to look around the world at the global superstars. "The athletes in those leagues all have a say, they are all at the table, they are all part of a Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA], and they want to engage." The CBA at the NBA, as an example, is a 600-page document which includes stipulations such as a minimum wage, while the salary cap is fixed as a percentage of the league's revenue. "That percentage ranges from the NRL to the American sports but it comes back to a fair deal," Day said. "What number are we going to set, how are we going to protect our low earners and Academy kids, and at the same time ensure our leading players' welfare is protected and they earn money that represents a fair value?" 'Overpaid players is a misconception' Day is a firm advocate of a minimum wage, which would assist academy players at the start of their careers, and rails against the suggestion wage inflation has been a major contributor to English rugby's financial crisis. He also stresses that the vast majority of out-of-work players from Worcester and Wasps will need to return to work in some shape or form as a matter of urgency. "One of the biggest misconceptions of professional rugby is that everyone is on a six-figure salary," Day said. "I can strongly refute that. There are countless Premiership players on sub-50k and countless academy players on sub-20k. "It's not like [Wasps and Worcester] players can just sit there and survive on all the money they've built up over the years; that is not the case. "A lot of messaging recently has been that players are part of the blame and that players earn too much, and that is the solution: the players should earn less. "The product the players are putting on the pitch currently is outstanding. We have an incredibly competitive Premiership, high-scoring and close games. The players deserve some credit here. I would really caution against the players being part of the problem. "One thing I am particular keen on is a minimum wage - I think that would be a really positive step to protect some of those lower earners. "If we are talking about academy players, it has to be something that is liveable. If we are going to make young players professional athletes then they need a wage they can live off." 'Game must listen to senior players' Following the demise of Worcester and Wasps, both the Rugby Football Union and Premiership Rugby have promised a root-and-branch review of the way the sport is governed. A slimmed-down Premiership, a revamped second-tier, and tighter financial regulation are all potential outcomes from the crisis, while the level of the salary cap, currently at £5m, is under constant review. "Going forwards now, this is why the players need to be at the table," Day added. "If we are going play in a capped league, I think the players need to part of the discussions as to where we are going to set the cap and why. What is the metric we are going to use, and how it is going to grow over time? "I think we need to show a bit of trust in the players that they can come to the table. "Unless people listen to their ideas we will never know. We should absolutely be asking some of those senior guys what is their perspective."

They pay academy players, what sort of message does that send. they should be playing for the love of the game.  After all they are not good enough to play in the premiership.

Save money. Reduce the amount of players languishing in academies so they can play at their clubs. Concentrate on gaining an education as well as potentially playing top level rugby and bring a bit iod excitement with a draft system.

People need to understand rugby is now a business, even in the lower leagues, it is no longer a "game", when money came in the sport changed, more radically at some levels for sure, but it has changed. The ball looks the same and so does the pitch, but is not the game I played over 30 years ago. If a club wishes to pay, they can, if a player wishes to seek a paid career, they can, within the rules. It seems to me there is quite a lot of irrational words being spoken, is it jealousy I wonder?

 I remember not so long ago it was dual registered players that caused so much anguish, no real rationality for it, just the green-eyed monster in some cases.

I never realised when I was playing football for my cub scouts pack at seven that I was part of a business. Amazing what you learn here isn't it? 

The Scouts are a charity, they need income to maintain their activities, so really a business in another guise. 

Yes and I need income to maintain my activities so I must be a business too.

Every club representing any sport is quite obviously not a business.

The 2024-2025 season will see a rebirth of Premiership Rugby, as the league looks to recover from a turbulent period off the field. It comes after the demise of Wasps and Worcester, with both clubs going out of business this campaign. One of the architects of The Hundred in cricket has come on board as the league looks to re-establish its identity. "It is essentially a relaunch of the league," Premiership Rugby boss Simon Massie-Taylor told BBC Sport. "We need to start moving towards a new system. It needs to look and feel a bit different." ... Premiership Rugby's four areas of emphasis With next season a "transitionary year" as the English game resolves its structural issues - as well as it being the last year of the existing Professional Game Agreement (PGA) - Premiership Rugby has outlined four main areas of emphasis going forward: The establishment of an independent financial monitoring panel, which will oversee all club finances, in a bid to avoid the fate that befell Worcester and Wasps. A new sporting commission, which would be independently chaired and make decisions on behalf of the league. Finalising the new PGA, with the biggest area of focus the structure of the English professional game going forward, and a clear vision of what the second-tier Championship looks like and how promotion and relegation will work. Commitment to the growth plan, with an aim to continue to build the league's fanbase, using experience from cricket competition The Hundred to engage a new audience. The opaque nature of club finances - and the failure to act on a number of warning signs when it came to Wasps and Worcester - has forced the league into an urgent reappraisal, with Premiership Rugby needing much greater access when it comes to club accounts - as is the case in France's professional leagues. "The key words are financial discipline," explained Massie-Taylor. "We need to have much more regular reporting, and you need a system where you have regulations in place that create better discipline. "But it is forward-looking as well. Clubs have been supportive of this and see the need for it, and we are in the process of recruiting an independent chair who will do a full review and come up with detailed recommendations. "In the meantime we have better financial information to help manage some of the short-term issues that may come up in the current economic environment." Meanwhile, the sporting commission would "simplify how decisions are made" in a bid to avoid the conflict that has hamstrung decision-making. The commission would include three independent figures, including a recently retired player, as well as an independent chairperson. ... Restoring promotion and relegation As it stands there is no relegation to the Championship next season, although a team can be promoted to the top-flight if they pass the required standards. The long-term structure therefore remains up in the air, with the Premiership currently consisting of 11 teams after Wasps' and Worcester's relegation. Either way, strengthening the second tier to ensure a robust promotion and relegation system in the future is now a priority. "There is an extreme willingness to have a more aligned second tier, because we think that will help it grow," said Massie-Taylor. "How that works is a topic of conversation at the moment, and linked to that is what happens next season as far as promotion and relegation, because we obviously need to let our Championship colleagues know the rules of engagement. "You want a Championship which clubs feel more comfortable relegated into. And you also want something where Wasps and Worcester are germinated back to being a successful club again - because we want Wasps and Worcester back in the Premiership."

"We want Wasps & Worcester back in the Premiership"

(but we also want promotion from the Championship). Could ground standards be a way to keep clubs out of the Premiership?

1 Business plan for season submitted by June for following season

2 Monthly signed statement confirming VAT, Income Tax and Corporation Tax have been paid by the relevant due dates

3 Monthly signed statement that all staff have been paid by end of preceding month

4 Monthly Aged Trade Creditor and Debtor statements e.g. 30 days, 60, 90 , 90+,

5 Monthly statement for all non trading income - owner loans etc

6 Quarterly management accounts in standard format to allow comparison between clubs

7  Summary of player contracts to confirm they are within maximum and details of marquee players and contract lengths

8 1 point current season deduction for failure to supply information by end of month

9 To be submitted to RFU not Premiership

Simples.

I can only assume because it takes work.

Having listened to SMT and Sweeney in the select committee, actually doing anything that takes work does not seem to be high on their priority list.

The RFU regulations already require every club to submit an acceptable business plan and accounts.

To be honest the way their clubs have been behaving I'm more concerned with keeping their clubs in the Premiership and not polluting the rest of us! 

On going monitoring is part of the FFR regime

Spot on and to me is epitomised by a club having 'supporters' rather than just 'fans'

I see that the RFU are keen to increase the games fan base which is great but needs to go hand in glove with clubs (us lot) developing player retention and recruitment opportunities. 

We know its a fabulous sport and I believe is a great moral compass for society - that's why the Saracens/Wasps/Worcester debacles are so bad for the sport and perhaps a reflection of society today. 

I couldn't agree more WEvans. It has been a very long time since the RFU and the Premiership had any  credibility or connection with Rugby as most of us knew it and still enjoy it at levels 2 to 9 

What also grips my peanut, is paid (so called helpers) from the RFU telling us how best to run our clubs! What a bloody cheek....they need to have a serious look in the mirror; mark my word, every grass roots club will have individual volunteers with more experience of looking after the game of Rugby than  employees at Twickenham will ever have! 

My company runs a course "Brewery Management in the 21st Century". Any recommendations for participants?

Love it 

A 10-team Premiership with a reduced salary cap is being discussed by clubs, says Leicester Tigers chief executive Andrea Pinchen. The financial demise of Wasps and Worcester has prompted their rivals to look at the league's overall health. A further reduction of clubs from the 11 that remain and sticking to the £5m salary cap, which is to rise to £6.4m, are being debated by club chiefs. "There is no big secret about it," said Pinchen. "All the CEO's of the Premiership clubs are on a WhatsApp group. Everyone just says what they think. "Everyone is like 'yeah, we agree that 10 is the way to go, as long as it's not me'. "How that will work when we are sitting at 11 teams, I don't know? "There is no hidden agenda. They want what is right for the sport." Rob Baxter, Exeter's Premiership and European Champions Cup-winning director of rugby, has previously said a 10-team Premiership could be the best way to ensure England's top tier thrives in the future. Pinchen said increased investment in the second-tier Championship "would have to be looked at" if the make-up of the Premiership was to be changed. 'Cap increase not right for league' The size of the salary cap in a league in which clubs have reportedly amassed combined debts of £300m over the past six years has split opinions among owners and officials. Clubs had unanimously agreed to cut the salary cap by £1.4m, to £5m, in the summer of 2020 in response to the finance fallout of the coronavirus pandemic. The cap is set to return to £6.4m in 2024. However, the limit to spending that clubs are working towards at the moment is having an impact, with Exeter's England winger Jack Nowell the latest star to be linked with a lucrative move away because the Devon side are struggling to offer him an acceptable deal. Pinchen says Premiership title holders Leicester - who were last season punished for historical spending breaches - are "fundamentally" against the rise, but says they will spend up to the limit to remain competitive. She adds that it is something that needs to be "re-looked at". "Can I understand a very wealthy club wanting to get that stardust sprinkled in, as they see it, and increase the cap? Yes, I can," added Pinchen. "Personally I don't think that is right for the game as we sit here now today. "In any industry, if you looked across the board and everyone was losing a lot of money and had lots of debt to pay back, and you were then increasing the ability to spend - and that everyone will feel a certain pressure to spend if you want to remain competitive and recruit people who want to win and make you successful - then people would look at you as if there was something slightly wrong." While Pinchen says that all clubs do not agree on the cap, she adds they are all "more aligned now" after enduring a difficult period through Covid together.

They keep the reduced salary cap at £5.4

Promotion and Relegation

Fund Championship, also 10 teams, by £1.5m Pa

Oh an bring back England Counties for National league rugby

And Nat 1 funding at £75k