Here Wo Again
Printed From: National League Rugby Discussion Forum
Category: League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk
Forum Name: Clubhouse chat
Forum Description: For rugby related posts that fit nowhere else.. When you're ready Sandra.
URL: http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=17772
Printed Date: 13 Nov 2024 at 00:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Here Wo Again
Posted By: Neasham
Subject: Here Wo Again
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2019 at 13:46
|
The RFU are nothing if not persistent. Another league review for implementation in 2020-21 so teams once again could be playing for promotion and relegation this season which may not actually happen.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2019 at 13:59
|
If we are going to have a rational structure it really needs to include levels 1 and 2 - even if the answer is to keep level 1 the same (or even to ringfence it). However, I cann think there is ny sensible system with level 2 in the mess it currently is. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 13 Sep 2019 at 17:44
Why not leave things as they are - N1 and N2 seem to have exciting seasons with a lot of good flowing rugby - doesn't need a review, leave things alone! Anyway, RFU are broke so why spend yet more money on a review nobody wants? ------------- RAID ON |
Camquin wrote:Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2019 at 00:50
|
Because Lancashire is not the only problem in the leagues. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2019 at 13:31
My point is that there may be a problem at lower levels but Level 3 & 4 are fine as they are so no need to mess with them. ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2019 at 13:45
But can you restructure below without it having an effect on above? ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: FHLH
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2019 at 17:14
I can't see why not as long as the promotion feed is maintained either by reduced relegation/promotion of by play offs. Level 3 & 4 seem to tick over nicely and form a player pathway to Championship and Premiership ------------- "My father told me big men fall just as quick as little ones, if you put a sword through their hearts." |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 14 Sep 2019 at 17:21
I quite agree - if travelling is an issue at lower levels sort that out but please, leave serious rugby at level 3/4 alone! ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 15:58
| The plans I have seen would result in a 15 team Level 3, and 3 15 team Level 4s, then 8 12 team Level 5s, and 16 12 team Level 6s....oh, and a compulsory national cup at L5, with a voluntary one at L6!!! |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 16:40
|
Utterly mad. And was this not the pattern that was suggested and got rejected. I beleive the additional cup was going to have pools drawn nationally and ended up creating extra travel at the very levels complaining about travel time while not reducing number of games. Who at level 3 or 4 is asking for fewer matches and therefore less money. Why not keep those as 16 teams. If you are going to 3 leagues at level 4 why not nine league at level 5 to make promotion relegation fit. 8 into 3 is just messy. And then 18 or 27 at level 6 - which is where there really is a need to reduce travel. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: DICKON
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 16:55
| I have just been told by someone involved in the process that nothing has been decided yet, and that everything is up for discussion, including which season any potential implementation takes place. |
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 18:23
|
The players, coaches and medics are asking for less matches at level 3 and 4. 30 league matches is far too many. The intensity/physicality at Nat 1 and 2 has significantly increased over the last few years especially with more and more ex pros joining the ranks plus loan and d/r players in many squads at this level. To go each Saturday from Sep 7 to Dec 28 without a break is a nonsense. I am sure the treasurers and committee men are happy to turn up every Saturday to watch -they never played anywhere near that amount of matches. If income is consequently reduced pay less money to the players, however 4 less league matches will mean 2 less buses for away travel, -what will actually be the difference between income and costs of 4 less games. Surely player welfare needs to come into the equation. |
Posted By: SKalpy
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 21:58
| I find it strange that a contributor who says on his profile his club play at level 6 can speak for players, coaches and medics who are involved at levels 3 and 4. You certainly don't speak for my club who currently play at level 4, nor I suspect many others. |
Posted By: Runitback
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 08:05
|
The RFU should, in my opinion: Promote the Championship as its top league, attract sponsors and get it good TV coverage with 14 teams. National 1 should also be 14 teams, as the current season is too long for players . The RFU should also put together a TV highlights show for Nat 1, as it produces some brilliant rugby. National 2 should be split into 4 regions, 12 teams per league . . with the top 2 from each region playing off, with the two unbeaten sides being promoted to Nat 1. This would reduce the total number of games, reduce travel and increase the level of competition. As for salary caps, there should be none. If clubs are vain enough to spend money they do not have that is their problem, but any insolvency act or CVA requires immediate relegation. ------------- Run with it |
Posted By: Insignificant Tick
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 09:08
|
Why is it all done on a top down basis ? Find out how many games players want to play per season or have the RFU state a limit as they do now for the elite players. Find out how many games clubs want. If players want 10 games a season and clubs want 20 then squad sizes need to be big enough to rotate so that players get their 10 games and everyone is happy. If players want 20 games and clubs only 10 then it is an issue but I can't see that being the case. Most clubs only pay to play so there is no extra expense. Players would have enough rest time and clubs finances would not be affected. |
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 11:10
|
The last time this was discussed strong views on behalf of players were expressed by Mark Nelson (Fylde) and Steve Hill (Richmond). Both felt 30 games at Levels 3 and 4 was too many and the lack of a rest week pre-Christmas was a concern. I wonder why we have to have weeks off that coincide with some, but not all, England home matches as very few players, even from a Club based near Twickenham, actually go to those matches. Yes, we lose some spectators but we pick up attendance by showing matches on big screens. I am coming round to an argument for 14 team Leagues at Levels 2, 3 and 4 with rest weeks in November, February and March. At the same time, the apparent desire to hold on to the Divisional structure seems anachronistic. The Divisions deal with Leagues from Level 5 downwards but with no representative teams at adult level any more that artificial structure seems out-of-date. 3 Leagues of 14 at Level 4 should be possible, although here has to be a concern over the number of players able to perform at that level. There have already been some wide winning margins at Levels 4 and 5. Below Level 5 Leagues of 12 teams seems appropriate with a version of the current Cup structure. [Ducks to avoid incoming fire!]
|
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 11:12
| As an aside to the latter point, but relevant, the NCA has asked all Clubs for their views on the current RFU Insolvency regulations and how they might be amended. Rolling Maulers who are members of NCA Clubs should make their views known to their NCA Representatives. Do it quickly, though, as responses have to be received within 14 days! |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 13:24
|
I do not see National legue clubs struggling to find players willing to take on the travel and playing time. Some are of course youngsters chasing a dream of professional rugby. But some are workhorses who just love rugby. But actually I think there is a lot more to fix in the lower levels - where clubs are struggling to put out teams regularly. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 20:40
I quite agree, sort out changes at level 5 downwards, leave level 4 as is, possibly change level 2 and 3 to both be 14 teams per league. As for not having a rest week pre Christmas, this has happened on a couple of occasions (when it suited the RFU) and seemed to be well received. If clubs want this they could have 1 less free week after Christmas - that half of the season always seems to be disjointed to me with the frequent breaks. ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Dad
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2019 at 16:06
|
But there are also lv5 clubs able to put a 2's into the Zoo leagues where the travel is on par with lv5 1st XV travel. Why do the RFU keep trying to find a one size to fit all - below lv4 it can be sorted on a regional the CB level to fit the location rather than trying to have a solution that fits SW London and Cumbria !! Some areas it makes sense for 2nd's and 3rd's even to be in the league structure in others it will lead to fewer clubs but surely local CB's are best placed to sort that out with their constituent clubs As long as there is a fair mechanism for promotion into /demotion from lv4 what does it matter how each area deals with the leagues within it's division
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 20 Sep 2019 at 16:28
|
Division boundaries drawn up in the 19th Centruy when people traveled by train might not fit with the pattern of clubs on the ground and the transport options open to them today. Similarly leagues based on County boundaries drawn up by the Anglo-Saxons might not be the best arrangement. For example, it might make sense to have a Manchester league rather than splitting it clubs between Lancashire and Cheshire. It might make sense to look at where the clubs are now and then build league structures based on that. And to do that, you need to do it centrally. or course I do nto expect the RFU to spend more than five minutes on this and fully expect them to come up with proposals that arein every way worse than what we have now -that would let them spend the rest of the day in the bar drinking the gin. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |