Although it was removed after a few hours because it hadn't been approved for release. Its possibly coming out today or over the weekend.

They seemed to have put the National back into the National Leagues with the "re-design" of Nat 2 which at first look doesn't do much for the environment.

Nat 2 South(ish) is more blurred than most, at the moment it will have

Bournemouth, Worthing, Redruth, Old Reds, Clifton, Dings, Barnstaple and Weston-super-mare

Then joined by Birmingham Moseley, Luctonians, Bourneville, Newport (Salop) and Stourbridge

with the Final piece.............. Chester

Apparently all based around mileage

Unfortunately you cannot change the shape of the country. It is always going to be a long way to Redruth or to Aspatria -or indeed to Canterbury.

You are also not going to always get the right number of teams in any region.

So you either level transfer - as Chester are in the example. You could have moved Henley West and probably Hinkley South East - but they seem to prefer fwer moves where possible and without messing with google maps I am not sure it actually reduces milage.

Oor you relegate one more Northern side and promote one more South Western side.

But what would you do if Darlington, Sale and Leeds were relegated the following season - or Elthamians, Blackheath and Rosslyn Park.

It is so much moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. It does not solve anything and there is most change at the levels where least was wrong.

Currently we expect one team up from the Championship at the end of the the current short season, that leaves them with 11 for 21/22/ I do not believe they will want to continue with 11 teams going forward. So there may be one, three or five teams promoted with no relegation to bring them to 12, 14 or 16 . In which case, there may be fewer relegation slots from National 1.

However, if you are national 2 you probably need to win your league - or maybe not.

I've seen an unofficial copy of the competitions structure. It includes links to the proposed leagues. Unfortunately (!) the links do not work. Does anyone have a link or copy of these covering the South East of England that they can share?

The Lancashire site has links that cover the whole country

Levels 3-6

http://lancashirerugby.co.uk/images/RFUDocument1-12.1FCSL3-6regionalmodels30.03.21.pdf" rel="nofollow - https://lancashirerugby.co.uk/images/RFUDocument1-12.1FCSL3-6regionalmodels30.03.21.pdf

Levels 7-11 - you will need to zoom in the text is small.

http://lancashirerugby.co.uk/images/RFUDocument2-12.2FCSLevel7belowCBbasedmodels30.03.21.pdf" rel="nofollow - https://lancashirerugby.co.uk/images/RFUDocument2-12.2FCSLevel7belowCBbasedmodels30.03.21.pdf

I do feel that they have only done half the job.

I feel they should have been able to at least fill in the yellow highlighted entries

As far as I can see the new structure is the old structure (with a minor tweak in the North West).

Except that all the yellow lines will be filled in with 2nd Xv teams to make up for all the teams promoted to level 6.

There is no attempt to show the current 2nd XV structure or how that would be affected by losing those sides.

And no attempt - again except in the North West - to look to see if it is possible to reduce travel by changing the structure once you merge the second team leagues into the pyramid.

I understand the CB Council Reps got info and were asked to pass it on/speak to their clubs. Be interesting to know which CBs have done this because this sounds a tad "covert" in the sense that if CBs are told by their Clubs to vote against these changes then the CB Reps are will have to. 

If the Clubs remain silent its likely your County Rep will vote the whip and the RFU want this doing whether you like it or not.

So if you are at Chairman/Secretary status of a Level 3 down Club, have you seen the documents?

I tend to agree, if you think it is a mistake, speak to your club chairmen.

You may as well also write personally to your CB rep.

But it might be futile.

The Junior XV idea won’t suit Level 3/4 Clubs as their teams are usually better than Level 7. 

The Lancashire document seems to me a kite-flying exercise. The NCA has yet to decide how the Level 4 Leagues will be structured and this subject was discussed at length on this Forum last year. 

I have to say I was initially against cutting the League sizes until I talked at length with our players and heard their opinions. That swung me behind a shorter season.

Smaller Leagues, less games better for player welfare according to FCS Review Group

Have a Cup based on Group stages then knockout rounds at the end of the season giving you 3 plus games. FCS Review Group it's what clubs want.........player welfare no longer a point for validation.

I would be surprised if other CBs and/or council reps aren't also canvassing opinion. But remember that there are votes on Council that have no relationship with clubs in the English league system - the Oxford and Cambridge Unis, students, the Army, Navy, RAF etc etc.

Last time round Council voted in favour of change but most geographic CB reps opposed it - the result was quietly dropped.

A chance to play at Twickers is very much an incentive. As someone from a  club who has been to a Twickenham final, I can tell you the experience is something so worthwhile.

Robb, it doesn't say the final will be a Twickenham, it says (I think) a prestigious ground. Once again the RFU are being parsimonious with the stadium opening, which I'm pretty sure, we as club members still own.

These Council decisions are the end of a game which has been playing out for about 5 years now. CBS have canvassed their Clubs on several occasions, players and Clubs have been surveyed and the NCA has had several meetings on this restructure. I’m astonished that anyone involved in rugby from Level 3 down thinks this is anything new. Have you not been discussing this at your Club for the last 3years?

Halliford all the "surveys" they did re: Future Comps aren't worth squat. Low sample size, skewed questions and moreover ignoring the "negative" points which disagreed with the FCS/RFU Comps plans. 

The Webinars on the other hand showed strong support against lower 15s entry in two of the four regions. The North was something like 75% against and similar for the Cups (which at the time was going to be straight knockouts.

CF makes a good point about the Final venue, the FCS document makes this statement on cups.

7. Cup Rugby As indicated above there is a strong demand from players for a varied diet of competition through both league and cup rugby. Feedback has also indicated that an issue with the existing delivery of cup rugby is that it clashes with the intensity and frequency of leagues, often leading to high numbers of walkovers or cancellations in early rounds. This feedback was pivotal in establishing the recommendations for new cup competitions at Level 5 and below. The key features of the proposed new cup competitions are: • Delivered after league season – all cups will take place after the league season has been completed. This removes the burden and clash between league and cup games being integrated into the fixture schedule. Furthermore, a team’s finishing league position will qualify them into the relevant tier of competition at the level they are playing at. For example, teams finishing 1st to 3rd will compete against teams finishing in the same positions from leagues across the country or region, ensuring meaningful matches. • Mid-season entry – entry into the cup (at all levels) will be optional and the deadline for teams submitting their entry will be mid-season (Jan/Feb). This will help support teams and players who may need breaks later in the season or have no interest or desire for the cup. Conversely for some teams this model maintains interest and excitement to the end of season for those who want or need more matches. • Pool competitions at Level 5 and top tier of Level 6 – teams will be grouped into pools, thus guaranteeing additional fixtures (minimum of 3 and maximum of 6) including with additional fixtures at home. The winners of each pool will then progress into the knockout rounds. • Waterfall competitions at bottom tier of Level 6 and Level 7 and below – teams will be drawn against one another in straight knockout matches. Teams losing in the 1st round will drop down into a Plate competition while 1st round winner’s progress. This will guarantee at least two additional games for entrants. There may be opportunities to regionalise in the early rounds to remove the burden of significant travel for some teams in the early stages. • Community Game finals day - the intention would be to try to ensure all cup competitions culminate in a National Community Game Finals Day held at prestigious grounds to provide a memorable experience for teams and players. 

So, no Twickenham final and as Robb says the memories that go with that. Now if that was included in the surveys how many of those players surveyed would have been positive about Cups?

Past Nat. Cups = Treading the hallowed grounds of TW2, FCS Cups = Birmingham Moseley? Sixways? somewhere central...... think you'll find a high percentage of players in the survey down in the South East (and the rest of the country) now fancy the cup a lot less if they aren't going to Twickers!

Clubs have had years to get their arguments across, what have those who don’t like these arrangements been doing?

Of course in NOWIRUL Premier you can't get promotion and as you say probably only have 5 or 7 competitive fixtures but fixtures you do have as it pays for other clubs not to cry-off as it has an adverse effect on their 3rd and 4th XVs lower down in NOWIRUL. You also have a nice knockout Cup in NOWIRUL.

Pretty sure at NCC Level 7 in 22/23 you'll have less League games against easier opposition with no cup to play in and League that you still can't get promoted out of. So if you are looking for less rugby, no  cup rugby for your 2nd XV and the likelihood that sides will concede more often then make sure you push the Cheshire Rep to vote for the proposed changes.

Surely that is why they should be promoted and relegated seperately from their 1st team.

You might not want second teams in the top levels - if only because with the current funding situation, a premiership second XV is as strong as a championship club. So you want a separate Premiership A league

Aside from a side like Richmond II,  I do not think there would be any second teams capable of playing above level 6 for a whole season. But I think they and the other  teams in the shield premier would be mismatches at level 7.

So you are going to need leagues like the Shield premiership and the Noriwul Premiership for the second teams of the level 2 and 3 sides.

But, you would then have a problem if some of the clubs in one county vehemently objected and broke away to form their own league.

If a 2nd XV wins the League, they are in, then they earned the right to be promoted and play at the next Level. 

I don’t agree with 2nd XV being promoted to just fill spaces in the Leagues, promotion has to be earned, by winning the League or finishing 2nd. 

2nd XV/Academy teams of Premiership Clubs are a different matter, there are 12 Academies/2nd XV, they have a League and they can play against each other, otherwise, they will just be the 12 Teams in Championship in a few seasons! 

MWJ yep another concern. 

Another issue is how Level 7, presumably amateur, teams would feel playing a 2nd XV from a Level 3/4 Club which could have semi-professional retained players in their side. 

My own conclusion with the NCA work was not to allow 2nd XVs into the main League structure but to enhance and support the existing 2nd XV Leagues/Merit Tables. For example there could be an end-of-season play-off between the League leaders in each of the 4 Divisions. These matches would have to be played on the same dates as 1st XV League matches to avoid too many players being "dropped" but could provide some extra incentive.

The RFU did offer some years ago to provide administrative support to those Leagues and I'm not sure that got taken up. 

I guess the question should be what is the real difference between level 6 and 7, based upon the many years we have played at this level it is normally apparent the 1 team is far stronger than any other team and normally runs away with the League, it is normally also the case that they are as strong away from home as well as at home which again offers many miss matches. If we took our club we could build 75% of a league from level 6 and 7 within a 1 hour drive of our club house, the furthest trip we would have to do would be maybe 2 hrs to complete the league, back in the day our fixture guy used to ensure this was the case, it all looks ok on paper but when you field 2 to 3 teams there is a significant ripple effect when you find yourself leaving on a saturday at 8am in the morning on a £700 coach - much more work to do on this i am sure

You may need to learn Francais if you want to play local.

They have not changed the league structure at the lower levels just promoted some teams and added in a sprinking of second teams without putting names on them. I cannot even guarantee they are the correct number of slots.

So Wimborne still get to go to Cornwall - but never play any Hampshire sides. (caveat it appears Ellingham and Ringwood II already play in the Dorset league so do play Wimborne III while E&R's first team play in Hampshire league both end up at level 9 in the new pyramid).

I am sure that with a little bit of coding and a few minutes of time on AWS they could have come up with new leagues that mimimised travel - either total distance or single journey. But that would have meant setting up a whole new set of league committees.

great comments from all  

What is this Travel funding you speak of?

You do know clubs have to make a payment of players declaration, if they don't and they do (pay) the punishment can be relegation to the lowest of the low. 

Do I detect any irony in your statement?

Are Caldy (Nat 1) looking over their shoulders at er....... Anselmians (Level 7)? because I can't see anyone near you that fits your description.

Second XV’s at clubs that pay being in the same division as first XV’s that don’t..................mmmmm I can’t see any issues there workerbee can you?

The one attraction clubs without big chequebooks have is they can say you can play first team and play at a decent standard of league rugby.  When that attraction is taken away as the big boys 2s are in the same league and climbing then you’ll see a lot of clubs struggle

What i particularly liked about the Aussie format is that due to staggered kick off times, you'll always have enough players to fulfil the next fixture as players will play 50/60 mins for the 3's for instance and they then become the bench for the 2's and so on. Everyone gets to play and the club is being used for a large part of the day with a well supported 1st XV finale as the main event.

This is a problem we've faced as we climb back up the leagues - the Merit Tables that the Druids complete in aren't competitive enough if we want a seamless transition between 2nd and 1st XV, which we need if we're going to operate a squad that's capable of getting us promoted.

Because the Australian system works for 10 or 12 big clubs in each of the two main cities. All the good players move to those favoured clubs All the other clubs play in minor leagues and know they will lose their good players to the big clubs. It is exactly what the Lancashire clubs do not want.

It also relies on relitively short travel distances, good weather - so people are happy to sit around all day drinking beer and having a barbie. However, they still play short games to fit them all in. It is not designed for a freezing wet muddy January in Bolton with the sun not showing its face due to the clouds and setting about four o'clock.

It is also based on closed leagues. No prmotion or relegation. The top clubs in each state are all in the one big city and have short travel times between them. They only introduced a National league after cheap flights made it possible - and that was a city wide side - drawn from players at the clubs - so the equivalent of our county sides but paid.

CPK, I think you're looking at it from the perspective of a high level club wanting their lower fifteens to get more competative fixtures. There are many more clubs as you go lower down the pyramid who won't have those stronger second teams and are looking at it from the perspective of facing a good hiding from semi professional squads.

One problem to resolve would be the improvement of lower XV leagues across the Country. We are blessed in the North West with NOWIRUL, I'm not sure all other areas are.

CQ, I thought it was always sunny in Bolton ?

madness maybe i know, sure it would never work but just a thought  

BINGO!

Unfortunately, some 2nd XVs are far too strong for other 2nd XV counterparts - and my club have been on the wrong end of some 100 point defeats to National League 2nd XVs. It isn't an easy solution. 

At least, with fixture secretaries, they should try and arrange matches.

I've never understood the necessity for league fixtures for 2nd and 3rd XVs. It actually leads to more mismatches than an arranged fixture. Surely a competitive fixture and a good local cup competition is all that is needed. 

We're trying to bring back 'club days' where you arrange 1st-3rd/4th XV fixtures across the whole club on the same day. 

Having matching fixtures doesn’t work for Clubs at Level 2 where not everyone has more than one team. Even some at Level 3 might struggle.

Playing games consecutively happens already, if we have 2 home teams the other match kicks off earlier, especially in winter as we have only one floodlit pitch.

Some Clubs traditionally build up very strong squads below 1st XV, Richmond are an exception where their 2nd and 3rd XVs play in the top level of the London Reserve League, but there are other examples.

I suspect that since League entry for lower XVs is optional that many Clubs will not join and will stay in the Reserve Leagues they already have and then look to enhance the fixture list with midweek and floodlit matches. That is our current view.

slight tweak to your proposals...just to finesse them.

thats it im getting unnecessary back to work that would never work

I like the idea that 7 second teams will enter the structure in both Devon and Cornwall. I believe there are ten 2nd teams in Cornwall and about 34 in Devon.  It shows just how little thought has gone into the new structure.

It is a case of something must be done, this is something, we will therefore do this.

1 League at Level 3, 3 at Level 4 - as already agreed by NCA Clubs.

6 Leagues at Level 5 and 12 at Level 6, all 12 teams or less and determined by Division Organising Committees.

Level 7 down will be organised by CBS, i.e. Counties and may include Lower XVs subject to criteria to be agreed.

To me that sounds like CBs taking control of what they wanted. What in that is against the wishes of clubs?

Points 1 and 2 as you say where indeed rubber stamped and had little on no opposition.

As to lower XV entry, I'm unaware of any mass of Clubs in any CB in support of it.

I am aware of many CBs where clubs voted against it. However it seems CB Reps where convinced to vote for it by  a RFU Committee not by their constituent clubs. If we are truly a "Union" then the vote goes with the majority not the minority and certainly not by a handful of people who think they know better.

Where is it said that Level 7 and below is organised by CBs? It is currently only L9 and this is still a contentious issue!

The issue is Halliford that the DOC's will have the decision on the entry of individual lower teams in their areas, however, the criteria these teams have to adher to is written by the Competitions Department at Twickenham and does not allow the DOC's to refuse them.

Its a done deal and it will look like the DOCs and CBs are allowing lower teams in even though in the case of Lancashire 92% voted against it.

When it all goes mountain pepper up the Teflon Competitions Department will point the finger at the CBs and say "wasn't us Guv"

At least our Council Members stood by their clubs decision and voted against. I understand that Middlesex at their recent clubs meeting had a vote and it was 80% against but all 5 Members connected with Middlesex voted to approve it. Hope the clubs remember that next time re-elction comes around.

In which case the 92% of teams in Lancs that were against it, can in fact not enter their 2XV teams into the leagues and keep them in the NOWIRUL/Lancs Leagues?

Even the teams that could potentially put teams in - Sedgley/Preston/Fylde etc. Is playing Lv7 teams really going to benefit them or might they continue with current arrangements which let them play teams of a similar standard - i know from past experiences that the 2XVs of these teams are probably situated at a level 5 standard..

Its my understanding that at least 4 of the top 5 placed sides in the NOWIRUL Premier 2019/20 have expressed their wish to enter the RFU Leagues should the situation arise, which it now has.

So 40% of those Clubs in the top Division of the NOWIRUL structure will leave and a hole will need to be filled. Then of course its not just 2nd XVs who can enter its "lower XVs" so Clubs might want to put their 3rd Xv in as well. More holes. It will lead to a uneven structure not just in the North West but the whole country.

Of course you are correct in saying that those who voted against don't have to enter their lower XVs, but if more and more clubs do then aren't you left in the most Hobson of choices?

This is the new problem that they have created and it kicks in at Level 4 downwards. Increasing the number of Leagues at Level 4 (and 5, and 6, and 7 etc etc) means that clubs get sucked up the pyramid that don't particularly aspire to play at those levels - some do, accepted but the majority don't! 

RFU have said More Leagues = Less travel  but it hasn't been thought through (nothing new there!) and all they have done is re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic

A wider flatter pyramid can mean less travel for all, but you do really need t change the slope from two leagues feeding one to three leagues. But that seemingly would be too radical a change as it would tear up the Divisions and probably the current CBs.

As for 2nd XV entering into the league at level on proposal puts at least three Cumbrian clubs into that league and possibly an Isle of Mann club, not many 2nd XV teams are required to fly!!

Chester's inclusion in the South West Nat 2 is based on geography first, league position 2nd. If Chester don't want to go to Redruth in 22/23 then they need to get promoted to Nat 1 or relegated to the North Premier at the end of next season.

Admitedly the allocation was based on last seasons finishing position and the teams may be different next season.

It was also as I understand based on the current regulations for level transfer, which prefer fewest teams moving. This forces a Northern team to go to the South West,rather than a South Eastern Team team moving to be replaced by a northern team. Even if the latter might produce shorter journeys.That rule could be ammended.

Of course if you "can" then the whole thing should be thrown out as its clear an agreed structure was not agreed in the 1st place.

From memory, when I raised this idea for the 48 member clubs a few years ago in an NCA meeting, I was told that the Constitution of the NCA is to abide by the RFU rules and regulations. If that helps explain the situation between the two. I presume that the various administrative bodies from Level 5 down follow the same directive. 

There's no doubt a few current NCA rep's on this site who could answer your question. 

That Bloke "Assuming restructure goes through"

It went through on Friday

Although that's more a case of another southern side joining an increasingly southern league - If Plymouth, Roth, Donny and Leeds were all still up there it would be a bit different. Though in fairness if they were and this was consequently 2016 then you'd also be adding Blaydon and Tynedale (off the top of my head) back into N1 so it's swings and roundabouts...

But you have to look at average travel overall.  Worthing are always going to be an outlier because of their location - they can't travel south - but if the total travel for clubs on a match weekend is reduced then that objective has been achieved.

We're going to be playing in London One South next season with London Irish, London Cornish, Camberley, Guildford, Cobham, KCS Old Boys, Battersea Ironsides - I reckon our average journey time is going to be halved, whereas if we'd gone up to London One North (which would have been the natural progression) it would have increased by at least 50%.  But we're lucky in the respect that 10 of the other 13 clubs are in the M3/ A3 corridor, whereas two or three years ago the majority of the teams in this league were in Kent.

Do they even apply to most L3 clubs..?