When the new Professional Game agreement is signed with the Premiership most suggest it will be on reduced financial terms and the Premiership clubs will have to cut their cloth accordingly but have the "benefit" of a ten way rather than 13 way split to soften the blow. 

Do the Championship clubs think they will see more funding as part of this agreement? 

The Premiership Cup fixtures may soften the blow of a smaller league but will the finances be any better than now? 

Will the "new" Premiership 2 be an 'franchised' league with clubs meeting certain criteria, say a minimum crowd capacity and decent veggie food options 😉 and with a good geographic spread which will see the likes of Ampthill and Caldy back into the cold of probably a regionalised league structure below and replaced by The Brand RFC)™ and Darlington MP for example. 

Is the aim of  a Premiership 2 to bridge the gap between the the top two leagues and bring through English Qualified players? 

If no new money is forthcoming does 10 make sense? 

And if one Green Prem Club should accidentally fall ????

And coldest.

But it would the existing club nothing new just playing up levels because they have a good capacity stadium.

1 North East

2 North West 

3 Yorkshire 

4 East Midlands 

5 West Midlands

6 South Midlands/Thames Valley

7 Anglia

8 London 

9 South (with Jersey) 

10 South West

For those clubs with a crowd, the home game generate the money. Lose 2 games (if not replaced) you lose match day sponsors, ticket sales, food and drink sales etc.

In terms of franchise, you probably need to look at population sizes in regions. Franchises will certainly kill the game. They should poll the fans and see how little interest there is with it.

That would imply they actually give a damn !!!

I'm not suggesting Franchises as in brand new clubs but existing clubs with the minimum agreed criteria in place and their existing fan base. 

Why would any well run solvent part-time champ club want to commit financial suicide by becoming part of this 20 team pro franchise set-up.

Surely this isn't even a consideration for the future? Looking at attendances at matches I would think England could at a push sustain 6 pro teams.

I often look at my local area.

Newspapers - 1 contains one sports page, free publication hit or miss deliveries, sports editor covers 16 he told me. Population covered by title 250,000.

Local Radio -1, local commercial has a regional show covering 8 counties and News being 60/120 seconds does not touch local sport. BBC Local 3 Counties population 2 million, 5 professional soccer teams

Yet, in theory many outsiders would imagine Bedford as a location for a franchise.

Before any money is poured down drains.

What will the RFU do to get the attention and support of local media, so it won’t just be the faithful knowing where and when games are.

Recently discovered advance match ground tickets at Bedford going up from £19.00 to £23.50.

I work shifts and cannot guarantee getting to every home match, so it’s match by match see if I am working.

If this ten team franchise emerges, I wonder what ticket prices will be 24/25 season? For people like me, we will find the money. But when I can watch other entertainment like IMAX or 4DX movies for £18/£20 how easy it to get someone to stand outside in January, with many second tier clubs having few seats, wind and rain. When a cinema, nice seats, dry and warm costs similar price? 

Yet, I just feel some at HQ think a rebrand, and tweak of numbers will see customers flooding into the lucky/misfortuned 10 teams.

"lesser code"!!

Typically foolish comment from the south east and a good example of what has always been a problem with our game.

Quite. An embarrassing stance.

Absolutely right Raider but the problem few running the game realise is that there aren't very many of us committed folk.

And there will be far fewer committed to a franchise "club".

Why 10 teams, because it has always been the PRL's aim to have 10 team, and we have always been at war with East Asia.

Why ten in the Championship, because that then gives four pools of five for the Cup. I believe it is no more than that.

With no favoured teams needing to be relegated, I suspect there will be no more talk of the second tier being funded. The ten are not keen to give anything away.

Whilst thinking of franchise’s, initially thought of current Mens Championship, but had a thought, could a franchisee be expected to have a Womens team?

So Bedford and Ampthill might have to ‘bid’ against Old Albanians.

Cambridge against Bury St Edmunds?

Now now John, you know they tried that and it failed

The premiership cup will be retained and will be played during the autumn international period with further rounds played during the 6 nations.

This will allow league matches to be played when all of the club's international players are available thereby making it a better product across the 18 league games.

I don't expect to see anything like level funding for a tier 2 club as the premiership sides know that 3 home games in the cup will be almost guaranteed sell outs and a ' good ' earner for a level 2 club.

I suspect that promotion/ relegation will remain in the form of a play off between the bottom placed premiership side and the tier 2 winners.

The conundrum for the RFU is how are they going to improve the failing academy system where young players are getting less game time and the conversion rate from under 20 level to full international is falling.

Will academy players go out on season long loans to tier 2 club's or will they be even more radical and place the academies with level 2 club's on a full time basis.

This would help the level 2 club's enormously and help fill any funding shortfall.

Whatever is decided I feel that rugby on and off the field is in crisis and the RFU/ PRL must get this right for the long term future of the game we all love.

The rugby paper had an article noting the failure of the academies to produce a pool of talent.

But it offered no solutions.

And where in East London would this team play? Olympic Stadium? West Ham say no. Leyton Orient? Maybe, 10k enough? Dagenham & Redbridge? Too small and pitch not good enough quality. 

Southampton would have to be St Mary's, Birmingham have plenty of options. North East either Darlington, Leeds or Newcastle/Sunderland.

If these areas had interest… they would have a team that has risen through the leagues! 

I think Level 2 is more sustainable than Level 1.

Franchises work where you have multi-purpose stadiums or where geography dictates, it won’t work in England. The country to copy is France.

The academies are producing good talent, all the leagues are testament to that, now the fact the RFU hired a bloke who wouldn't use them is not the fault of the academies.

Leicester Tigers have produced many over recent years, some barely 20 years old will be in the English, Welsh and I think Scottish world cup teams this year. The rugby paper is showing it's ignorance.

Sometimes I wonder if I've dreamed the last 150 years. Birmingham didn't need a team to rise through the leagues because it had one at or near the top - and that was in the Championship until 2016. It also has Championship-level facilities. My completely-not-paranoid worry here is that a 'Birmingham needs a franchise' call is really a trojan horse for Wasps being parachuted in over Moseley's head.

By the way, whilst I'm a Moseley fan, I'd have no quarrel with a Birmingham side rising through the leagues and going past us to the top, it's dumping someone in above us that would grate - to say the least. Southampton or East London is one thing - Birmingham is a completely different case where there is a club that has pretty much always been in level 1 or 2 since leagues began (minus a brief sojourn at level 3 in the mid 2000s and the current situation), but now suddenly 'Birmingham needs a level 2 franchise'

Just so we're clear, I wouldn't particularly want Mose to bid for said franchise (I'd rather get back there via on-pitch performance) - but I think we'd have to to try and maintain the moral highground that Birmingham doesn't need a failed premiership group of nomads dumping on us.

But I suspect it is all a fig leaf for Wasps...

I share your feelings too, well put.

Thanks Tiger.

I thought this was the case too from a Northampton saints angle.

No slight intended on Blackheath - in my head they're more the east side of south London than East London. When they say East London I was more expecting they really mean Inner Essex....

Well no they can't, because there are a few different ways of making franchises produce what the franchiser wants...

You can simply let clubs bid to have the franchise for their area.

You could have a regional approach, where two clubs come together to make a joint bid - which might mean playing at one of their grounds, or it might mean playing at a third venue. This latter is where it gets interesting. 

Say you really want to help Wasps... you set a criteria which says that the 'franchise' sides (and only them) as new entities need to ensure they have really top rate facilities, minimum e.g. 5000 seats etc. Which means that Wasps put in a bid to play at the Alex for the Birmingham franchise, and Moseley if they wanted to bid would probably also have to bid to play there as they don't have 5000 seats. So to comply, Moseley have to walk away from their home...

I remember going to Headingly many years ago - Leeds had to beat The Pirates that day to secure promotion to the Premiership (remember that?). There were about 1,000 people in the ground, probably a hundred were Pirate supporters. The next day Leeds Rhinos played (can't remember their opponents) and there were 15,000 in. That's what they are up against in Leeds.

I'm clearly getting to old to understand all these comments about franchises. 

As a 70 something, the modern game and the way it is administrated are totally alien to the concept of Club rugby. I see plenty of evidence of community clubs such as Hackney or Millwall (fill in N,E,W names here) developing as I might expect. The whole thing goes bits up at about Level 5 when league position becomes the be all and end all of a club's existence.

Add into the mix an underperforming national side, foreign players being shoe horned into the national squad, player salary expectations going through the roof, marquee players diluting the EQP player pool, outside interests such as CVC undermining the financial stability of the game, a Premiership cabal, a strong player trades union, politicians meddling into the affairs of rugby and a weak governing body leading to the disastrous mess we have now and the U20 losing to a Tier 2 side. 

On reading that Trailfinders are allegedly paying £80,000 for a new player, it makes me wonder what the hell Cambridge are doing in The Championship. 

National 1 is the pinnacle of club rugby as I understand it. 

Rant over, I'm definitely an Old Fart. 

Wow, that’s out priced me as a retired pensioner. In comparison I can buy a season ticket for the Emirates Lions 23/24 season includes URC/Curry Cup/Champions cup home games starting at £41.50 for the budget package rising to £126 for Gold. All season tickets include entry to the Springboks in July, plus discounts on flights, hotels and a Lions tee-shirt or replica jersey (depending on the package selection). Also entry to all Lions Cricket domestic competitions.

The RFU have outpriced the less wealthy fans at Internationals games and it’s creeping into club prices with lack of central funding. Sadly I won't be watching the Championship at those prices, I'd rather sit in a sunny stadium with a cold Windhoek and save the airfare money.

Don’t ask us.

We are only the people with a vested interest in our game.

Ask the RFU…I suspect they know nothing 

Definitely not! The franchise idea is only an idea to create Level 2 Clubs in under-represented areas. It is an idea which is being discussed but on which no decision has been made and it would not, as I understand it, apply to existing Clubs or even be open to existing Clubs. It is to increase engagement with rugby, if possible, in areas which have little engagement at present.

So how on earth has the Birmingham rumour come about? It's got more grass-roots clubs than you can shake a stick at, and both a National 1side trying to get back up to the Championship and a National 2 side which has stalled a bit now, but has otherwise been on a steady march up the levels. Any arbitrary attempt to dismember the city to break off the north should be resisted in the strongest possible way. 

You only suspect?

Far too sensible, but I would add that my old school sold it's pitches to housing developers years ago to fill the councils coffers.

Too many schools were forced to do that.

Without getting into the politics, we all agree it was a stupid decision.

Which means we need to shuttle the pupils to a playing field - which eats into time and adds to costs.

Or do what can be done within the facilities the school has.

But it does not mean that offering all pupils a taste of rugby should not be an ambition.

Obviously, touch or tag at infant schools - moving to full contact in line with the age grade laws.

Otherwise we will continue to draw from an ever decreasing pond.

Without being Conor O'Shea and able to tell you what his options are I think they look at it more like MLS (Major League Soccer) in the USA, or more like the original Football league in Victorian era.

There would be a professional league of X clubs.  Membership of that league would be guaranteed, there would be no automatic relegation from it.

Membership of that league would be expanded by selling places in it to interested parties. Existing historic clubs could bid.  Totally new enterprises could bid.  In English RFU they'd inevitably pick the worst bids because the leaders went to the right schools, but let's park that for a second.

Non-interested historic clubs would continue to play in existing leagues, albeit likely downgraded if the ambitious clubs had all been added to be members of the professional league.

This is how the original football league in this country operated originally.  There were 12 clubs who wanted a guaranteed number and type of fixtures at decent grounds, so organised themselves into a ring fenced league.  Clubs joined & left it as finances allowed.  It merged with another such league (called the Football Alliance) to create two divisions with promotion & relegation between them, but nothing at the bottom.  As the popularity of football spread it added extra divisions, first a north & south league, then combined into the third & fourth divisions.  In the 70s the best "non-league" clubs created the conference, that is now basically a 5th division of "league football" in all but name.

There were also leagues arranged by the Yorkshire and Lancashire clubs playing rugby, because they were paying broken time and needed certainty over at least the majority of their fixtures. Though they did want to keep a cup and lucrative matches against London clubs.

Of course, they then got into a dispute with the RFU, so set up their own body. 

But it is interesting how many of the same issues are still being discussed, including clubs overspending on player wages and other clubs not being able to compete.

I think all the RFU want to do with the future second tier is ensure that there is a geographical spread of clubs with decent facilities that would require minimum upkeep if a club was promoted to the top tier, so none of those continued end of season arguments about meeting MSCs... I would expect them to be revised down as part of any new deal. 

So no forced clubs, no new clubs just 'invites' to existing clubs with good grounds in certain regions to fill perceived voids. Maybe something about Player development and Womens rugby too. 

Yes, just like how various leagues with the same about 16 clubs kept getting proposed between the 1920s and the 1980s.

It is one of my strongest beliefs that both types of rugby would have been unimaginably improved had we stuck together and allowed broken-time. They had insurance schemes for bona-fide injuries for ages after 1895 (I've read the annual reports on the British Newspaper archive for the Leicester scheme well into the 1920s), so its not even as if they really viewed replacing lost wages as this black & white issue.

You might think that, I could not possibly comment.

We would have had to institute a national cup, to run alongside the county ones, ideally for the Calcutta Cup as the donors intended - and a decent set of leagues.

We would still have had to fight the "rugby is too dangerous" brigade, that got a lo of schools to adopt soccer.

But if someone had come up with rugby pools, there might have been mass interest in the results.

Vannes, who we (Jersey) have played 3 times in recent years, were top with 8,907 at Stade de la Rabine; half of the 16 teams managed 5k or higher. Numbers 9-14 had from 4.8k down to 3.6k, with two outliers at the bottom with just under 2k: Massy (who were relegated) and Aurillac.

The table was retweeted by @rugbyclubvannes a couple of weeks ago if anyone's interested in details.

A lot of which has to do with the lack of success of French Soccer.

Which means that more of the sports budget goes to rugby.

So you have newspapers writing about rugby, including about lower level rugby.

And a TV deal for the second tier.

So it is much easier to get people to come to matches.

 

You are comparing apples with piglets.

French D2 Crowd stats

So what you're saying Cq is that this 'highlights one of several gulfs between that league and its English equivalent'? Wise words. I'm comparing the 2nd tier of the French domestic system with its English equivalent, so very much apples with apples. They may be very different varieties, grown in contrasting conditions and with different fruticultural methods and a significant disparity in the level of investment provided by growers. But still apples (rugby) at the end of the day. 

But the environmental differences are such that the comparisons aren't meaningless - they're pointless. Like standing in Harare Magistrates court and arguing the Zimbabwe Republic Police needs to be more like the Norfolk Constabulary - they're both police forces, they've both got a CID, but really....

It's about as useful as saying 'if Britain was more like France, in very many ways, we could have a rugby set-up that looked more like French rugby'

The last time Coventry finished third in the second tier (1997) it meant a play-off to get to the top tier. That season for a couple of big games they attracted crowds of over 7,000 and although attendance figures were not published regularly at the time, I guess the season average was over 4,000. Bedford (who also finished fourth that season) were getting similar sized crowds. The crucial thing is that there was something to play for.

I suspect that if the same rules applied now, with most teams in the Championship eligible for promotion and those finishing in the top four either being going up or reaching play-offs, interest would have been greater, crowds higher and possibly even TV companies interested (as they were more recently when the league was decided by play-offs).

Lurking in the two divisions below Tier 1 are a number of teams who have competed at the top level in the past and/or have a proven ability to attract four-figure crowds and/or would seem to have a decent catchment area. If they could see an achievable pathway to the top tier that didn't involve having to build an entirely new stadium and/or relocating, risking financial suicide in the process they might be more likely to make a serious bid to go up, thereby generating more interest and excitement in the club game below the premiership.

While it's clear that the powers that be have absolutely no interest in facilitating this (so it appears pie in the sky) it might still be a good idea if they did so and the French system provides at least some evidence that it might work.

And the fact that La Rochelle and Vannes, outside the traditional area of rugby strength, are attracting decent crowds shows that it is possible to build an audience for rugby where one previously didn't seem to exist. Unless folk living in England have a particular rugby aversion that French people don't share.

I think this is what the RFU is trying to do.  However, the cultural differences are notable here.  French rugby facilities tend to be bigger and owned communially allowing for clubs to progress between leagues without much difficulty - and here I am not talking about minimum number of seats etc but about TV facilities, floodlighting etc which allows the game to be televised more easily - and don't forget it is the TV money which is driving the game over the English Channel. 

Ampthill and Caldy could never offer this which is why their is suggestions of 'franchise' players for clubs which can.  In the long term the RFU would like to see clubs with money spend that money developing thier facilities for the long term, rather than 'squander' it chasing a dream which for most turns out to be a nightmare. 

English football as a ground grading system that means clubs moving up the leagues have to make changes as they progress so the round ball game would never see the likes of Ampthill or Caldy play in the Championship on 'park pitches' (and no disrepect meant here to either) but rugby has no equivalent so we have what we have. 

I am not an expert on French rugby or football but do La Rochelle and Vannes have football clubs at the same or a similar level as the rugby clubs or is it a case that the Rugby clubs are the best sports in the town?  

If the RFU et al had a similar pathway as football that would make a sense, but the minimum ground capacity standards seem to be a way of excluding teams not helping them develop. If the focus was on floodlights and TV facilities, which might be done even in grounds with smaller capacities, that too would be OK. 

I note that two Italian teams, two Scottish teams, one Welsh and one Irish team host English premiership clubs for European matches at grounds with capacities that would be too low for the English premiership - and without any obvious problems.

As it is we have the nonsense that in the season just gone it would have been possible to be the 12th best team in England with a home ground that had no seating at all for spectators, let alone floodlights or TV facilities, but to become the 11th best team would require a ground with 10,000+ capacity.

Can't speak for Leicestershire, but down a county in Northants it's because there's literally no crossover - if you live in Northampton you (sweeping generalisation) watch Northampton Town. If you're watching Saints you're coming into the town for the day from the villages.

I think we all agree that the current MSC around capacity is a restrictive blocker to keep clubs out of the Cartel. 

But minimum criteria that help improve facilities for supporters and have potential to boost income and provide facilities for the press are a good thing in the main. 

I'll add for Avoidance of doubt I don't think there should be a minimum capacity, clubs should be able to decide on that themselves and cut their cloth accordingly. But I do think covered seating or standing is a must the higher up the pyramid you play.

Yes some clubs won't be able to meet some criteria at their existing grounds because they can't rather than won't (Caldy, Rotherham, Richmond/London Scots, Bath, spring instantly to mind) and there is no easy solution for these clubs but if they can, then I think it is fair they do. This is where grants etc from the RFU etc would come in. 

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/london-irish-premiership-expulsion-takeover-administration-b1085902.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/london-irish-premiership-expulsion-takeover-administration-b1085902.html

But Leicester & Exeter have sorted their finances. Who's next?  The RFU financial stability team will know who's close to tipping. LI demise may be useful in current financial discussions - gimme, gimme, gimme.

What happens to the P shares, CVC debt and overall share of central funding?

CVC own 20% of the equity, so the clubs do not owe them anything.

They simply rake money off the top.

P shares of an insolvent club get bought by the league - as happened at Wasps and Worcester.

Each of the survivors will own 10% of PIL, which owns 80% of PRL.

So what is the asset backing of PRL? 

I believe that through the long form agreement, PRL has the commercial rights to the Premiership and distributes the income from the English clubs' participation in the European competitions. 

So it negotiates the TTV and sponsorship deals. I think the payments for the release of England players is also paid through PRL.

PRL Investors Ltd is the company that holds the clubs' interest in PRL, with the rest being owned by a subsidiary of CVC.

Love it 

The Blues are basically Cardiff and the Scarlets are Llanelli and no one watches the Ospreys or the Dragons because they are not successful.

The crowds are dwindling at all sides because who wants to see your team get humped by the second string of an Irish or SA province every other week?

The same will be true in England; franchises will start with a fanfare and a a good crowd of gawpers will turn up for a few months and then the crowds will dwindle because, basically, we want to Watch Ampthill or Bedford not The East Midland's Water Buffalos.

I have zero interest in watching a franchise team in England |( or anywhere ) I will just carry on watching Ampthill wherever they end up and I expect that 99% of us feel exactly the same.

It looks like the Premiership can probably sustain 8 fully functioning teams on the money now available, at that level they would probably be competitive with the French and Irish sides in Europe again.

Below that there isn't the money to do anything in English rugby and the Championship should be left to muddle along as it always has done and given a more money to support its growth of young talent.

Whoever floated the idea of franchises needs their head to be given wobble and then be sat down and have the fan base for rugby in England explained to them.

I can only assume this idiotic idea was floated to make whatever idiotic idea they come up with next sound less idiotic.

Franchises are generally required to make all their financials open to the franchisor.

I am not sure Saracens would want that level of control.

I agree with lots of this.

England seems to have franchises in all but name

It's a closed league.

The clubs have defined development pathways.

It could work in England in the way NFL works.

The premiership is almost there already

Just don't change the clubs or their names just make them the franchises for season 1.

I suspect there's a tongue in ones cheek here....................

Ironically that's why I've come round in the past few months to proper scorched-earth, rip it up and start again franchising, specifically banning any current club - at any level - from being involved in professional rugby. 

Basically we're still paying the price for the RFU being spineless in 1995 and a handful of people carpetbagging their clubs to an entrenched position, bayed on by their entitled fans. In fairness there's also a long casualty list of clubs that went down trying to do that too - there's almost no one with clean hands here...

But concrete in the advantages of Leicester, Quins, Saints et al on the basis of having been in the right place at the right time in one brief window of rugby history?

That would be time to walk away - rugby union, and anyone happy to still be involved in the top flight on those terms (as supporter, financer, whatever) would have reached morally bankrupt rock bottom.

 

Either a Yank or a CVC moneyman who's never watched a game of rugby in his life aside of the internationals is my guess.

No, its come from a review of regional rugby reporting to the RFU. I will say again, the franchise idea is to develop rugby in under-represented areas of high population, seeking to grow rugby support in new areas. Nobody is suggesting merging Ampthill and Bedford. What might happen is a new Club in Southampton and one in East London, both targeted at new rugby areas.

Why would a franchise do any better than the clubs that already play in those areas?

What would they do to attract a crowd?

Where do they get here players from?

And above all, are Saracens and Tigers giving up their place for these new sides?

If not, why on earth do they expect other clubs to?

Before LW moved to Oxford, we commissioned a report which identified Kent as a potential area ripe for development/ exploitation, but I think it was decided that Gillingham (the only potential groundshare in the county) was too far for the existing fanbase.  Which is how we ended up in Oxford.  Why anyone though that was a good idea with Wasps and Irish already camped in the Chilterns/ Thames Valley is anyone's guess, but I guess the point is that history has shown us that you can't just parachute a club in and expect crowds to come flocking, no matter how big the brand (and yes, London Welsh IS a bigger brand than Wasps!)

But it’s the suggestion that these clubs will become the second tier, with money from the magical money tree. 

Whilst for years Championship clubs were told they were the second tier, go professional and receive funding. Oh but then the RFU reduced funding to a level that was stupid.

If franchise to new places is the plan, I pity the fools that fall for another RFU crackpot idea.

All the awkward questions no one can ever answer (to everyone's satisfaction) when people try and put franchises into the same set-up as 'proper' clubs... to which I can add a few more.

With no tradition of decent rugby as a spectator sport in the franchise areas (again assuming that we're not talking about Birmingham here....)

 - are they protected from relegation? 

 - if so, is everyone else? 

 - if not, and you've got two franchises in a 10 team league and they finish 9th and 10th, are we relegating 8th instead? 

 - how are we measuring growth and development at those clubs on and off the pitch, never mind actual sporting success? 

 - what bonds are being put up either by the franchisee or the RFU in the event of risky ventures in untapped markets not coming off, and leaving all the other clubs in the lurch part way through a season? 

 - would franchise clubs be exempted from spending restrictions that may be applied to the other 'proper' clubs in their league (there's an argument that they should be able to spend more to get established?

 - would franchise sides receive additional funding over and above that given to the other sides in their league (again, to help them, they probably should - but people aren't going to like it)?

 - is there an argument (the NRL have proved this works with Melbourne) for massive central funding to the two franchise sides such that some success is bought for them at the expense of everyone else?  

It's not like there isn't an organisation in England, the RFL, that has been wrestling - usually unsuccessfully - with these questions since the dawn of Super League. Plug and play, into existing leagues, is very difficult to pull off. 

The NRL did it with Melbourne, and by hosing cash at them and making them title contenders, it attracted outside money and now they stand on their own two feet.

The RFL did it with Catalans Dragons, but that was a slightly different approach where they basically granted a licence to a French side to be the standard bearer for French RL, and based in its heartland. Sort of like Cornish Pirates, but with more air travel.

Otherwise, it's not guaranteed to work, but it is guaranteed to put a lot of noses out of joint.

You cannot buy history it has to be worked at, classic example, my old club Leicester Lions as they are now known, formed in 1998, best part of 25 years to build the club from scratch, it won't happen over night. Wigston and Westleigh fans and players from the amalgamated clubs are still there, supporting and some running the club, you cannot buy that, I'm guessing that's how London Welsh did it too, by working at it not buying a golden ticket.

Agree with all of this - but you can buy success, and people will watch that. That's what the Australians very hard headedly did in Melbourne with the Storm. Shedloads of central funding, to the tune from memory of 9 figures, to make a plonked in pro-club into title contenders. People started going.

I'm not for a minute saying the RFU should do that here. In fact, I'm saying they shouldn't, but dump a rugby team into Southampton (rather than rural, rugby mad, Scottish Borders) and spend serious money and it would probably work.

It's the spending serious money bit that there's no appetite for, or probably money.

But likewise what the RFL with Toronto. Their little pet project that got too big for its boots and started challenging the established clubs. Then they find the first chance to get rid of them. Then replaced them with Cornwall and just quietly let them struggle for they learnt their lesson.