If all goes to plan with the RFU, expect decisions by Jan 24 at the earliest so no will know what they are playing for!!

Well that would be a three month earlier warning than some clubs had last season 

I think it'll be a great tussle at the top, especially as this will be the first season in a few years featuring a newly relegated Championship side in Richmond. Clearly much will depend on how much of their squad they can retain, and potentially add to. 

They will be seen as the boys to beat, but I believe (and hope) Rams can go one better and gain the promotion that they should have had sown up in April but ultimately stumbled when it mattered and paid the price, sadly with themselves to blame.

Sale will no doubt also see this coming season as 3rd time lucky having been pipped by Caldy and Cambridge previously. I expect them to bring in more DR Sharks/academy players to try and get the job done this time round, and a thronging Heywood Road is something of a home fortress for them so teams should beware of that effect!

With regards Richmond, Rams and Sale, unfortunately I do quietly fear that the question of promotion from Nat 1 may become academic as I can see the top 2 tiers becoming ring-fenced together in the not too distant future. The Prem/Champ cup could be the start of that process and the powers that be do in their heart of hearts realise that the Prem alone is not sustainable in its current guise with Wasps & Worcester gone and perhaps Irish and Falcons on the brink. Despite what many think, they know its at crisis point, whether they admit or not is another matter.

I'll be intrigued to see what Rosslyn Park do this time round. The ££ signings of last season didn't deliver enough and often enough, with many not even featuring regularly apart from Matt Gordon and Charlie Walker. Something not right there for a club of their pedigree, perhaps a change of coaching staff needed, or the issue they tend to have playing away from the plastic.

I'd then say Plymouth and Cinderford will be chasing the above and snapping at their heals the whole way. Again, Brickfields and Dockham Road are two of the hardest places to go and get 4 points, let alone 5 (just ask Rams about key games where they rue the results!). Great seeing Plymouth having such a renaissance.

After that is anyone's guess. Bishop's Stortford, DMP, Moseley most likely. I'm looking forward to seeing how Blackheath bounce back, they won't want to leave Nat 1 again anytime soon. I imagine Sedgley Park will be recruiting hard over the summer, hoping to get some DR players in to strengthen their squad, who I understand have been together for some time which is usually a strong position to be in. I don't know much about Leicester Lions, but I hope the newly promoted sides go for it from the off and don't go straight back down like Esher and Hull. Esher may have survived had they come out firing, but lost most of their games up to Christmas, leaving too much to do after that. Although a resilient and proud bunch, Hull were evidently out of their depth throughout the season as a whole, and what a slog it must have been.

I have read some comments about Level 4 being diluted in quality after going to 3 leagues, so whether that widens the gap in quality when teams make the step up will be interesting.

At a guess, and it is obviously just that, I'd say Chinnor, Taunton and the new boys might be the ones scrapping it out for survival come April next year, but who knows! Good luck to all.

Ah Moseley - no idea what's going on at Moseley. Assuming we can hold on to most of them (and to be honest that's usually a big if) we've got the squad, the talent and the ability to be top 5. With a bit of astute signings possibly even better. But we've also got a slack handful of first choicers who are so injured they didn't even play last season (hello Messrs Dawes, Hutchinson, etc) and no consistency on the pitch whatsoever.

There's nothing in rugby as mercurial as Moseley were last season. It's really, really odd. 

Nick Easter revitalized Chinnor. With him there from the start, I think they may do better.

Hilly has been, among many other things, the driving force behind our recruitment, the main factor in keeping us competitive (in 21-22 we were four points off being 6th, not bad for two-nights-training-a-week 'semi-amateurs'), so I am a bit nervous as to how things will shape up.

Rob Powell is a very good coach, though and the players like working for him, so there is no reason why Richmond shouldn't be there or thereabouts at in the upper reaches of Nat 1.

Having said that, I am pretty sure that at the end of 23-24 the RFU will relegate 2 from the Championship, not promote anybody from Nat 1 and move to the 10/10 structure for the top two tiers, possibly in perpetuity.

In which case, the rest of us will just be playing for pride.

 

Foresight 

Decision 

Please do not use words like that at HQ. Thanks.

I would suggest that the Aspirational Championship clubs , Ealing , Jersey, Doncaster, Coventry, Bedford will want a Prem 2 with 10 teams and ground criteria to equip them for Prem 1 (Possibly 5000) to switch to a 14 team league and add a ground criteria will probably exclude many of the current lower sides and prevent a number of the aspirational Nat 1 sides getting promotion. This would effectively lock the top 20 sides into a closed shop leaving level 3 and below as the community clubs, I would also suggest that firm Salary caps could be introduced at level 3 and below with firm penalties, points deductions not simply taking away International tickets and Loan or grants, if a club has enough money to ignore the salary cap then the current penalties are meaningless. There are many clubs at level 5 and below who pay their players to get up the ladder even though the RFU say they cannot. Any club that gets promotion should be subject to an audit. 

I also think a 10 + 10 solution with a 6 game cup plus an 18 game league is too short.

Which suggests we will need two sides to fill out the cup, not just this season, but going forward.

Very true. We were told this would happen for season 2024/25.

However, it was confirmed at the recent NLR AGM that this is now not so definite and, is only one of the options on the table.

National 1 is and has been the jewel in the crown of semi pro clubs, up and down the land for many years

To dilute it into two leagues is, in my books a total joke. It will weaken the comp

Every club aims to get to this level, some are good enough and do it some are not, but its the aim.

The travel to grounds you would never normally go to is all part of it.

From DMP to Plymouth, no matter what club you are at you enjoy these trips as a player, supporter or blazer.

Im sorry but somebody has got this very very wrong.

Just like Nat 2 into 3 divisions.. that is also not correct.

Why mess about with something thats not broken, because you have to be seen to be doing something.

Nat 1 and 2 leagues at Nat 2 with a play off.

Im sure if they took time out to ask the clubs, instead of trying too act in the best interest of the game, they would be the answer.

This game is being run by people who do not have a clue, thats from the top down.

If you look at the top 5 positions at the RFU, they are held by people who have never been in the game at club level. A blind man can see that!

Leave Nat 1 alone and revert back to two  leagues at Nat 2..

Then make it 3 leagues of 14 teams.... 

I am now looking at some comments where people want to do this again by " ring fencing" the status quo of leagues as they were two season ago, this is not helping the club game grow, it is another form of protectionism, the very reason the game is in trouble. Trouble is, to make the game grow it needs to include folk, not exclude them, talk of clubs facilities not being good enough, yet the same people criticising the Premiership from doing exactly the same thing. The whole game seems to be populated with snobbish behaviour where clubs are terrified if their cushy number is upset. Nat 2 West is often raised as an example of "watering down" or "weakening the standard", yet it gave clubs a great opportunity to see where they were, a chance to visit grounds that they had not visited before. 

Just like there was no point in doing what they did to National 2.. The removal of the play off is a shame..

 

I think the point is that the RFU don't want payments to be made to players outside of the top two leagues. 

Surely that's impossible to enforce with players down to Level 5 relying on occasional income. As to Level 3, no chance.

Quite easy for them to slap a restriction on payment on in the regs. But it won't work because then we'll be back to boot money and likely some clubs would sue over it too

Monthly audited accounts for a start. 

The RFU attitude is if you can afford to pay players, then you don't require RFU money for Travel expenses or ground redevelopment etc. 

It depends on whether the RFU will allow a budget per level or just decide that level is zero at all levels below the top tiers. 

So they cannot use that as a stick to beat clubs with 

A few seasons ago it was £70/£100k at national 1

It’s now penny’s 

They will not be able to stop payments 

Below level 5 you are allowed to pay player coaches 

Well guess what will happen … 

Sorry but its done nothing for travel and its diluted the leagues and the standard.

You have sides in National 2 now that are just not good enough

The one thing that was not broken was the ladder from Nat 1 downwards.

But they had to mess about with it. Adding 3 leagues at level 4 and adding 2nd xv's lower.

So so wrong 

Times have changed, the RFU will not pay for travel or overnight accommodation anymore, Lymm were promoted fair and square but could not take on the huge travel and associated cost of Nat2 West and have seemingly been able to stay in the North. Leicester Lions were level transferred South, lost all their local derby games which swelled the coffers and travelled the length and breadth of southern England, without the funding to assist wit travel, the Lions might well have struggled. Last year in West league we had a taste of having to fund those costs, this may well have given the club an idea of sustainability in Nat !.

I do not like this talk of watering down, you are insulting clubs and their teams, you are proposing ring fencing through the back door, a thing we all dislike about the Premiership. To use travel as a base for league structure may seem the wrong way to do it, but with rising costs, the need to be more environmentally aware and travel less, maybe it is the logical way. A Nat1 North and a Nat1 South will need time to bed in, but I am sure that if there was a playoff for who went up into Prem 2 it would provide exactly the level of competition we all desire.

Nobody is talking of ring fencing anything 

I am saying stay as we are one National 1 and back to 2 National 2

Top go up 2nd in play off.. bottom 3 from Nat 1 go

The RFU have not put a penny in National 1 for the last 6-7 years..

And yes, National 2 has been watered down..

There is an RFU Travel Fund to which Clubs can apply for long-distance journey costs. At National 2 trips to Guernsey are part-funded and can be added to through that Fund. 

If the RFU were to fund National 1 and 2 I would expect it to be through infrastructure investment - improved Clubhouse facilities, better stands and artificial pitches. Those improvements would make it easier to attract and retain players, recognising that there is already a group of players (still the minority) who seek to play for money and not for friendship.

Yet they were/are happy to turn a blind eye towards those who organised the financial cheating at the top level of the game for years and years. 

The hypocrisy is yet again breathtaking.

Id say the majority play for fees at Nat 1 and 2, being it match fees, win bonus, signing on fee or retainer or in some cases employment

It can be the majority of the players in National - and even regional leagues - but a minority of all players.

Going back to 2/4/8 is a retrograde step. In order to reduce overall travel, you need fewer teams in the pyramid, not more.

National league clubs are the minority, so the solution should work for the majority, though it is going to be a compromise. And of course, there are two problems:

- not all the clubs want the same thing

- those clubs that feel the new solution is worse for them will shout loudly, while those who think it is 
  slightly better will quietly get on with life.

The RFU don't control the Premiership, that is the PRL self policing, so no hypocrisy. 

One NL1 club told me it made no sense to travel long distance to play a club in front of a few hundred fans when a similar standard club was a short trip down the road and would draw four times the attendance. To them there was nothing practical in being called a National team, it pushed up costs without any any additional revenue.

I can't imagine they are the only ones who feel like that. 

If there are similar standard clubs nearby.

Which might be the case for the clubs around the M66, but there are a lot fewer down in Cornwall - though Redruth now have a local derby against Cambourne. Tynedale to Darlington is not a quick jaunt.

If the travel is uneconomic for a club, there is an easy way out, simply curb your recruitment, and you will be in a lower league soon enough

But how many people watched the Sheffield derby? Or the last Hull derby?

Yes, the majority play for fees but they don't seek to move for more money. None of our National 1 squad have left because we are playing National 2 next season and so paying lower fees. It's only a minority who play mainly for the money - that was my point.

There will always be outliers due to the shape of England. Unfortunately, you won't devise a structure which pleases everyone so you have to work on a structure which pleases the majority. 

I don't know the answers to your question but I will say the Travel costs were lower for each and probably higher attendances than TyneDale v Luctonians. 

But isn't the comparison in this case where your local derbies attendances higher or lower on average than the non local derbies? 

The RFU want a 10 team premiership, 10 team Championship and National 1....10 team south and 10 teams north. Another RFU Clusterf**k on the horizon!

This isn't what I am hearing. 

I'm hearing so many things I've put my fingers in my ears (figuratively).

Still... what are you hearing?

Alot but not leagues of 10 at level 3 or below.  I think where most of the noise is is whether there will be some kind of cup competion (s) for level 3 downwards and the format of that - straight knock outs v pools. 

1. Prem 2 will have the number of Clubs that the RFU believe can be sustainable at that level through income generation.

2. NLR Clubs agreed, with one exception, that splitting Level 3 into two Leagues made financial sense given the lack of travel funding; subject to:

a. At least 13 meaningful home matches per season (excluding any kind of Cup);

b. Play-offs to achieve promotion to Prem 2.

3. The RFU have accepted that Levels 2 and 3 need meaningful matches to generate income and want those Clubs to be sustainable on that basis.

It is certainly true that most Clubs cannot survive on match-day income alone but most NLR Clubs with their own facilities are able to generate income which supports the match-day costs.

Simply not true. The RFU deal with discipline at all levels in the game including the Premiership.

If cheating for years and years isn't a disciplinary matter then I don't know what is. 

So I repeat, utter hypocrisy.

You are confusing two separate issues. Yes the RFU control the laws of the game and resulting disciplinary matters arising from those laws but the financial cheating you refer to was a breach of the PRLs own rules around a salary cap. They administered the salary gap and self policed it. It had nothing to do with the RFU. Therefore no hypocrisy. 

To simply regard the years of cheating as only a salary cap matter ignores the impact it had on all the other Premiership clubs and more importantly on the integrity and the reputation of the game in this country which should be at the forefront of the RFU's concerns. 

To consider years of cheating as being nothing to do with the RFU is a perfect example of the thinking and the inaction displayed by the RFU which has led us to the state we are in today.

So I will look at the whole picture and stick with my view of utter hypocrisy.

What other cheating?

Have you now accepted the Financial cheating wasn't a RFU matter? It's clear you want to blame the RFU for something but I'm at a loss to what you are now referring to?

This is getting ridiculous. Forget about your supposed ability to read my mind and to tell me what I want to do and just read what I posted.

If you read my post it is quite clear that I very much regard the financial cheating as a RFU matter for the reasons I stated. Once again - the financial cheating impacted the integrity and reputation of English rugby and therefore in my opinion it was as much a RFU matter as it was a PRL matter. 

A few years ago the RFU took severe action against Mike Scott the then manager of Premiership side London Welsh for forging documents to enable a player to play in the Premiership. He was charged with conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game. In my opinion those responsible for the years of cheating at Saracens were also guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game and the RFU should have acted against them in the same way. And that's why I think the RFU now making pronouncements on not wanting payments to be made to players outside the top two leagues is total hypocrisy.

This is my opinion and you clearly disagree which is fine but please don't try to belittle me by saying that I am confused and try to tell me what my reasons are for posting. 

This will be my last post on this matter as I really can't be bothered with people who can't accept others can have a different opinion to them.

 I was referring to the vitriol against Saracens, not many people like them and they may well be the root cause of the malaise that is now professional rugby, but they have nothing to do with this coming season in National 1. Indeed the re-structuring is not planned for 23/24 season either, so has nothing to do with Nat 1. We might like to know what we are playing for going forward, but I understand we may actually know that before this coming season kicks off..............maybe.

The one that said Sale would challenge for title, RP ditto with new signings and S Park & Blackheath as newcomers wouldn't do as well as they have. But we all know that in National One, anyone can beat anyone. Rams clearly don't need a prompt. 

That's not a script that's a list of uninformed thoughts.

Sorry, I was trying to add some humour into an unexpected start to the season. I thought the comments might develop into a discussion of the season thus far. Clearly not.

Adjusting to the pace and standard won't happen overnight it would seem, but I doubt the league positions will be decided this side of the New Year.

No problem. It's often difficult to read intended humour in posts. The unintended humour is often far more obvious!