Changes afoot for English Premier Rugby???

[Burgs]

A case of where there's smoke there's fire or just good old British journalism?
If true, could this be the straw that broke the camels back for English Rugby and the RFU?
Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians....ok, I'm out of sayings for now

You get the feeling that something will definately have to change in England with regard to player availabilty from the Clubs to the RFU however which way it changes is anyones guess.
I understand that the Clubs command huge wealth from Sponsors etc and would be nearly impossible to rail road into a compromise.
Love to read your thoughts on this FT and Emforcer?

c/o Scrum.com

RFU rubbish reports of revolution

14 Jan 2007

The Rugby Football Union have moved to dismiss newspaper reports that they are set unveil a blueprint for its own super league that threatens the existence of some of the top clubs in England.

The Sunday Times reported today that Francis Baron, the RFU’s chief executive, is set to outline the union’s plan to run its own competition, creating 10 "super clubs" evenly spread throughout the country on a geographical basis.

All of the new teams would be equally funded by the RFU and there would be no promotion or relegation.

The newspaper added that the competition is scheduled to kick off in 2009 and that, "at least two, but, in all probability, as many as eight of today’s Premiership clubs will be cast adrift."

Sources have suggested the bases for the teams will be Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Coventry, Worcester, Bedford, Saracens, Richmond, Bristol and Plymouth - jeopardising the future of clubs such as Bath, Gloucester, Harlequins, Leicester, London Irish, Northampton, Sale and Wasps.

Mark McCafferty, chief executive of Premier Rugby, told the newspaper, "If (the RFU) really want to go down this route they will cause a massive split. There is not a Guinness Premiership club which would participate in anything so far removed from what anyone has ever contemplated, and how ridiculous that so many great clubs are not even involved.”

The newspaper also quoted Baron as saying, "The RFU is determined that we take the time to have an informed debate and to find the answer that is right for English rugby. We are looking forward to the support and input of the wider game as we seek to achieve this objective.”

However the RFU were quick to respond to the reports, issuing the following statement.

"Contrary to reports appearing in the Sunday Times the RFU has no proposals to make and will be making no proposals at this stage on the Way Forward project.

"Martyn Thomas, Chairman of the RFU Management Board said: “I wrote to the Chairmen of all Guinness Premiership clubs last week setting out the proposed extensive game wide consultation process that the RFU is going to put in place.

"This process will start on the 9 February 2007 and last for four months. A consultation document is currently being produced. No proposals will be made until the consultation process has been completed".


RFU to unveil consultation plans

14 Jan 2007

The Rugby Football Union will tomorrow outline how they plan to consult the Guinness Premiership clubs as part of a wide-reaching review of the elite game.

The RFU implemented the review last May in order to "lead the debate" on structural changes it believes are required to keep England ``leaders of world rugby at both club and country level''.

A firm of strategic consultants was employed to advise on the project, which is titled `The Way Forward'.

Key stakeholders Premier Rugby, the clubs' umbrella body, and the Professional Rugby Players' Association have both been consulted.

The RFU is now ready to implement phase two of the process.

Martyn Thomas, chairman of the RFU Management Board, explained: ``I wrote to the chairmen of all Guinness Premiership clubs last week setting out the proposed extensive game-wide consultation process that the RFU is going to put in place.

``This process will start on February 9, 2007 and last for four months. A consultation document is currently being produced.''

A report in one Sunday newspaper stated dramatic proposals for restructuring the domestic game in England had already been formulated.

The report centred around the creation of a franchise system under the direct control of the RFU that would replace the current club structure.

The introduction of franchises is one of many ideas to have been mooted in recent months, including central RFU contracts for England players and the abolition of promotion and relegation from the Premiership.

But Thomas insisted: ``No proposals will be made until the consultation process has been completed.''

[Burgs]

Super 10 report 'fantasy'

From correspondents in London, c/o Fox.
January 16, 2007

ENGLAND'S Rugby Football Union (RFU) has shot down a Sunday Times report that it is to set up a super league.

The report claimed that the competition would see such famous names as Leicester, Gloucester and Bath effectively consigned to the history books.

RFU chief executive Francis Baron reacted to the report with "a mixture of anger, frustration and disappointment because 99 pe rcent of it had no basis in fact.

"The suggestion that the RFU would award franchises to Richmond and Bedford when NEC Harlequins and Northampton were successful clubs just down the road was 'daft'," he said.

"We have great clubs - like Leicester, Northampton and Bath - and that the RFU wanted to build on the success of those clubs. To suggest otherwise was just mischief making. The clubs are a central part of what could be a great future for the professional game."

Chairman Martyn Thomas also dismissed claims that the story might have been placed or leaked by the RFU to push other parties towards a middle ground solution.

The reported proposals, Thomas said, were "so far off-beam to have caused a great deal of distress to clubs and the union".

"The reports were so far-fetched to be in the realms of fantasy," he said.

The RFU officials insisted they are still consulting as part of "The Way Forward" review launched last May.

The Sunday Times reported that the RFU was planning to break the deadlock between the RFU and the country's 12 Premiership clubs in spectacular fashion by creating a "Super 10".

World champion England's slump since capturing the game's biggest prize in 2003 led itto appoint Brian Ashton as coach last month after Andy Robinson's reign in charge saw 13 out of 22 Tests lost.

In England, unlike world No.1 New Zealand or European rising power Ireland, top players are contracted to their clubs and not the national union.

This has led to a seemingly unending series of club v country rows since the game went professional a decade ago, and the conflict was cited by Robinson in his parting statement as a reason for England's poor recent form.

England, which has lost eight of its last nine Tests, plays its first match under Ashton in the Six Nations opener with Scotland at Twickenham on February 3.

Agence France-Presse

[Flat-top]

All 12 GP clubs have officially rejected this non-offer, I call it a non-offer as according to the RFU there never has been such a plan.

Now Burgs I think your very first sentence summed up the whole fiasco. The RFU have made a dogs breakfast of things post world cup 2003, they had unprecedented support for all things rugby related in England and failed to take advantage. You rightly link this story to the problems England have gaining access to players who are contracted to the GP clubs (actually the real problem is that few English qualified players occupy staring positions in these clubs but that is another issue) and the idea long held is that the league needs to franchise and players contracts held centrally. This type of proposal gets mixed reaction and support (remember not everyone involved in the GP is English and therefore couldn't care less about the English national set-up) but is nonetheless the likely direction of travel. The view over here is that Sundays "leaked" story was firstly lazy journalism and secondly a case of suggesting a scenario that would be so bad there would be complete condemnation of it and then along will come the RFU with their real franchise offer that of course wouldn't appear quite as bad as the alternative.

My take on this is that the success of rugby in England is due to the club structure and the GP, it is this league that attracts big names, larger attendances and more money. It is not a coincidence that Rupert Murdoch and his Sky corporation pump so much revenue into the league...the same can't be said about the National set-up. English supporters are upset at team selection, management structure, ticket availability/prices, and corporate influence and the RFU seem to be wanting to strip the GP of the things that make it popular in a hope the success transfers to England.

Being an Irish supporter yet a season ticket holder at Bath I think I have more than once on here made my position clear. There is no benefit to me in Bath employing English internationals while the current agreement with the RFU is that Bath must release those players for England duty if asked yet still play important league games during the international test period. That means I am happy for my club to bring in "foreigners" and take the starting place away from an Englishman. The issue is that in England there are many like me (i.e not English) and we are the paying customers of the GP.

[Burgs]

Great post FT, thanks!
For that you get plenty more questions
What sort of laymans percentage would you think would be like yourself, ie GP Paying Members but not English?
Would there be Members say Irish living in Ireland who would still support a GP Club or only tends to be those like yourself?
Do you know what the import limits are for each team, if any?
Are the GP Clubs actually "owned" like in the US or their own Corporate Entity for want of a better term? Surely the controlling interests of each Club would be English though? (Appreciating they are after titles and dollars regardless of Nationality)
Even with the benefits you mention, I still think I'm glad that Australian and Super 14 Rugby is set up the way it is. I want our best players playing for my nation, though I understand where you are coming from.

[Flat-top]

I don't want to portray myself as any sort of expert on this subject and I am sure there will be someone trawling the board that may well have a better answer to some of your queries, these views are of course only my own.

Hard to guess on the percentage of non-English supporters in the GP, my own experience is that I regularly stand or sit next to Welsh, Irish or Scots who have "migrated to England" (we came to take their jobs and their women) so I would put a rough guess that about 25-35% are non-English. this of course could be because I tend to have more in common with my fellow celts and therefore congregate with an unrepresentative number but in reality the geography of the UK makes it common place for people to move to another region.

When I go back to Belfast for the Ulster games or to visit family I don't get the impression many Northern Irish citizens have any affinity to an English rugby team. There would appear to be an exception towards the London Irish team (although after recent fixtures and their head coaches post match comments that relationship may be a little tainted) but certainly nothing near the numbers of Ulstermen who support English soccer teams. In the ROI I can only imagine there is even less support for the English GP.

The GP have a salary cap which many teams find imaginative ways around but this doesn't prevent them attracting many "foreign imports". In the main the big name signings tend to be guys toward the end of their careers who look to the GP as a pension fund or those who aren't being considered for their national teams so can afford to move abroad. The limit on foreign players is confusing and another rule that GP teams are skilled at "getting around". Being part of the European Union means that England have to abide by the EU laws in regard to freedom of movement and employment, that means in practice that anyone with an EU passport is not classified as foreign. On top of that many imports claim exemption by using family ties (eg an English wife) or by claiming residency after a certain number of seasons which results in a relatively few number of the many non-English registered players counting towards the foreign quota. I believe the quota still exists and only 1 non-EU player may take the field at any time but as I say the classification of EU makes this a nonsense (this law was first challenged with the famous Bosman case and more recently the Kolpak case).

Most GP clubs have financial backers, they may have a greater or lesser influence eg. one shareholder or many shareholders but they all rely on this external funding (the wage bill and the cost of operation far outstrips the gate receipts and the television payments). I couldn't tell you the percentage of non-English influence from these paymasters but you only have to look at a team such as London Irish who are effectively owned by John Madjetski (sorry don't know his nationality but it's certainly not English) and you could question why he would want to see his investment weaked each weekend the English national team call-up his assets and leave him a weakened team to play for premiership survival.

It is this final point I have most sympathy with, I understand your wish to retain the S14 structure and I would hold up the IRFU as a good example of how the infrastructure should be but in the meantime I want Bath to send out the best team each week, I pay to see the best and I don't get any comfort in knowing that the reason I am watching a weakened Bath side on the international weekends is to allow the English national side the opporunity to put out team.

Sorry if this rambles a bit, I am at work and that being said I better pretend to do a bit of what I'm paid for.

[Burgs]

Haha, excellent mate, not a ramble at all, very informative thanks.