England in purple?

[Jose]

If they played more Internationals away from Twickenham they would have hire the other stadia, and therefore make less money to be able to put back into grassroots rugby. Twickenham is effectively free of charge for the RFU to use on matchday. A stadium in the north would not be anywhere near free of charge.
The RFU would also likely need to compensate the debenture holders (or risk losing the debenture revenue when the seats next come up for renewal if they holders couldn't guarantee their seats for all home internationals. Again this would impact the money available for grass roots.
Attendances for home Internationals away from Twickenham would also be likely to be lower than they are at present.

Why should the RFU "invest in club rugby facilities"? The professional clubs are all separate, independent companies. It is not the job of the governing body to financially support individual businesses it oversees. It doesn't happen in other industries so why should it happen in rugby union?

Who invests in the RFU's players if it's not the clubs? and why are the spectators actually there? In other industries you can't just 'borrow' the employees and main assets of the business (the players) for 4 months a year without paying compensation to the people who pay those individuals on a day to day basis.

And how does Twickenham count as free of charge when it's just been established that £76m is required to make it better/more corporate friendly?

Also, following your logic professional regional/club rugby would only exist in France, England and S Africa, as there isn't a viable market for the professional game anywhere else. NZ, Oz, Celtic nations, all only exist due to money generated by international game being re-distributed to support a wider professional structure.

[Bill W (2)]

Shhh Jose! Heresy!!

But close to the truth!!

[Dave Angel]

Nonsense.

They should (and indeed do) invest in the grassroots of the game. The clubs that NEED the investment.

They shouldn't (and don't) invest any more than they already do in the professional Premiership businesses as they are commercial enterprises in their own rights. The RFU's current investment includes part-funding of the Regional Academies, including the one run by Leicester Tigers. They should not be funding redevelopment of Premiership stadiums etc when the amateur clubs need that money far more.

Jose, the RFU do actually compensate the clubs for the players they "borrow". The PRL simply choose to distribute that money in a way that penalises the clubs who provide more players to England. That is PRL's decision, not the RFU's. (The RFU money does go directly to the clubs who give the players but the PRL then gives additional money to the clubs who provide fewer players to level out the playing field. PRL are at fault with that one.)


Twickenham is f.o.c as the RFU don't have to hire the ground. The £76m redevelopment cost is a drop in the ocean (over all of the games that will be played there over the coming decades) compared to the cost of hiring other stadiums around the country over the same time period. Tigers chose to redevelop WR rather than ground share (ie hire) Walkers Stadium long term as that was the more sensible option. The use of WR is essentially f.o.c to Tigers, just as Twickenham is essentially f.o.c to the RFU.

Also, I never said that professional club rugby should only exist in Eng/Fra/SA, however the point is valid that professional rugby only exists in the other countries because of central funding...and in return for that central funding the main players are centrally contracted to their Unions. Do you really want Tigers' England players to be centrally contracted and for the RFU to have even more control over when/where they play than they already do under the present agreement? I don't know about you but I prefer the English structure to the Celtic ones and don't want to see central funding in the English game! Your views may well differ though.

[Bill W (2)]

I think, Jose, you have touched a nerve.

[Dave Angel]

No, but he has touched on a subject he seems to be ill informed about.

The RFU are FAR from perfect, but they do have an interest in the game as a whole in England, from very grassroots of the sport up through the professional game and to Test level whereas the Premiership clubs essentially have self-interest and nothing more...unless it too benefits their self-interest.

[Jose]

No, but he has touched on a subject he seems to be ill informed about.

The RFU are FAR from perfect, but they do have an interest in the game as a whole in England, from very grassroots of the sport up through the professional game and to Test level whereas the Premiership clubs essentially have self-interest and nothing more...unless it too benefits their self-interest.

Describing other arguments as nonsense and people who disagree with you as ill-informed is not generally regarded as illustrative of a great argument. If your points are that accurate, insightful and brilliant, then perhaps you should let them speak for themselves?

The RFU acts from self-interest just as much as the clubs do, and can no more be said to act in the interests of 'rugby' as a whole than the clubs.

I'd genuinely be interested to understand how you think they've concluded that spending £76m on Twickenham (which is new, full and perfectly serviceable) is in the wider interests of rugby in England? How far could £76m go in grassroots rugby? Are you really so trusting of the RFU that you have no questions to ask re that decision?

There are no central contracts in place because it was in the RFU's self-interest (not the same as 'the best interests of rugby') not to take the risk of supporting the professional game when it emerged. Consequently the clubs took on the risk, and without the clubs doing that you'd have had no 2003 RWC victory, which is almost certainly the event making the biggest single contribution to developing rugby union in England over the last 25 years. Read any of the autobiographies of the players from that time and you'll work out that other than appointing, funding and supporting Woodward the RFU contributed very little to the process. Woodward himself makes clear what a shambles the whole organisation was when he was appointed.

Also, if you think the entire compensation played to all of the premiership clubs for the use of their players for 4 months a year equates to their true value, then I'd love to understand the basis of that calculation.

And you speak about the Premiership clubs as if they do nothing in their communities and more widely to promote and support the game, which I imagine might come as somewhat of a shock to most Tigers officials, players and fans.

It really comes down to whether you think the RFU's actions are consistently better judged and demonstrably in the wider interests of rugby when compared to the actions of the Premiership clubs, including Tigers. I don't.

Feel free to disagree, but please try to bear in mind that your arguments may sound rather more convincing if you can refrain from being insulting.

[Dave Angel]

Firstly, Twickenham is NOT new. One of the 4 stands is new.
The others are around 20 years old. (Roughly the same age as the Goldsmiths stand at WR, which is in line for replacement as part of the Tigers redevelopment.)

I never said that the direct compensation for the players was equivalent to their full value. I simply said that they do provide compensation. However, you did say that the RFU borrows players "without paying compensation to the people who pay those individuals on a day to day basis", which is untrue. Compensation IS paid. Whether it is adequate is a different issue. (Incidentally, IRB regulations do not require ANY compensation to be paid to clubs for the use of their players. At least the RFU are paying something.)

Again I didn't say that clubs like Tigers do nothing for their local communities. I covered that point when I said "...unless it too benefits their self-interest." The club's involvement in the community is largely an attempt to (a) create/support feeder clubs who generate the Tigers players of the future or (b) to generate additional supporters for the club with the intention of increasing ticket sales/merch purchases etc.


I do agree though that it really comes down to whether you think the RFU's actions are consistently better judged and demonstrably in the wider interests of rugby when compared to the actions of the Premiership clubs, including Tigers.

As someone with a keen interest & occasional involvement in grassroots rugby, I do believe that the RFU are more in the wider interests of rugby than those of the Premiership clubs. The RFU could do far, far more than they do at present, but at least they do something for the grassroots clubs that doesn't come back to self-interest & revenue-generation.



Incidentally, the "nonsense" comment was aimed at Bill, not you. I realise I didn't make that clear in the previous post.

[Jose]

I understand the point about the RFU having wider objectives and being supposed to act in the interests of the game as a whole, but I guess that's where I really struggle when looking at their actions.

Bits of Twickenham are between 5-20 years old, but it's functional and being built largely of concrete it certainly isn't going to fall apart any time soon. £76m is a lot of money to spend and I don't understand how turning an 80,000 seater ground into an 80,000 seater ground with (e.g.) posher seats and some of those lights they had in the Olympic stadium is a better use of £76m than anything else could be. The re-development is announced alongside £26m of grassroots funding and reversing the two figures would seem more understandable.

I then think about my recent experiences going to Twickenham, and it's become such a dismal experience, dominated by corporates, people obscuring your view as they go to the bar, marketing ploys, and obscene pricing, that I genuinely struggle to see evidence of anything other than pure profit maximization going on. Which is all very well, but as various businesses have found, eventually customers (important to note that you've probably ceased to be a fan in becoming a customer) get bored of it. I know I have, and entirely gave up applying for international tickets (and not because I can't afford them) about 3 or 4 years ago.

Hence this year I didn't apply for AI tickets, but made the effort to go to the LV L Irish game on Sunday (including £50 of train ticket from London to get there) because whilst Tigers and WR clearly aren't perfect I can sit in a ground populated with families, that I'd want to take children to, with a respect for the traditions and history of the game. I'd genuinely love to see the demographic split for attendees at Twickenham internationals and how it's changed over time, but I'd be incredibly surprised if it showed positive progress on getting any groups other than middle aged and older men from south east england with white anglo-saxon backgrounds into the ground.

And that's the bit I really struggle with in terms of the RWC venues, with the RFU missing the point entirely by basing decisions on sums and nothing else, and forgetting that much of the 'USP' of rugby (which has to be capitalised on in order to achieve the success and growth they want) is about being at rugby grounds with rugby fans. Twickenham feels less like a rugby venue each time I go there and concrete football stadia tend to feel like concrete football stadia with no history of the game of rugby, because that's what they are.

All of which is why I have limited (if any) faith in the RFU to take the opportunity provided by RWC2015 and use it. They didn't fully utilise 2003 (unless you count adding various pointless money generating fixtures to the rugby calendar) and the signs thus far re 2015 aren't ideal. Hence my views.

[physiodan]

Marooned
tr.v. ma·rooned, ma·roon·ing, ma·roons
1. To put ashore on a deserted island or coast and intentionally abandon.
2. To abandon or isolate with little hope of ready rescue


Yes it was maroon alright.

I thing Chris Ashton was wearing Moron for not passing to Manu 5 yards short of the line and going for gold himself.

[Bill W (2)]

All of which is why I have limited (if any) faith in the RFU to take the opportunity provided by RWC2015 and use it. They didn't fully utilise 2003 (unless you count adding various pointless money generating fixtures to the rugby calendar) and the signs thus far re 2015 aren't ideal. Hence my views.

Heresy!!

But close to the truth!

[Dave Angel]

£26m of grassroots funding compared to £73m of stadium redevelopment is a far greater amount of funding than Tigers are expected to spend on grassroots compared to the forecast £60m cost of redeveloping WR. (£60m figure courtesy of Leicester Mercury).

Twickenham may be "functional" but so are lots of club rugby stadiums that you previously suggested the RFU should spend money redeveloping instead. And £73m wouldn't go very far when spread around the various Prem grounds either.


Incidentally, the demographic at WR is heavily weighted towards the older, white Anglo Saxon male. I recall hearing the results of a recent Premiership fan survey that established we actually have the highest average age of any Prem club across our membership! And this despite the club being based in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the UK.


The decision to use football stadiums for the RWC may indeed have been based on sums but the decision not to use WR was based on the short length AND width of the WR pitch, the insufficient changing facilities, drug testing facilities & media facilities.

Personally I don't think that WR would be suitable for RWC matches in 2015 but think that the RFU missed a trick in not playing a game or two at Franklins Gardens as their pitch dimensions are good enough & their present off-pitch squad facilities are far superior to WR's.

[Bill W (2)]

http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/15324.php

[Dave Angel]

Doesn't change the fact that the facilities at WR do not meet the minimum criteria for the RWC on a number of key factors.

[Tigerpete]

£26m of grassroots funding compared to £73m of stadium redevelopment is a far greater amount of funding than Tigers are expected to spend on grassroots compared to the forecast £60m cost of redeveloping WR. (£60m figure courtesy of Leicester Mercury).

Twickenham may be "functional" but so are lots of club rugby stadiums that you previously suggested the RFU should spend money redeveloping instead. And £73m wouldn't go very far when spread around the various Prem grounds either.


Incidentally, the demographic at WR is heavily weighted towards the older, white Anglo Saxon male. I recall hearing the results of a recent Premiership fan survey that established we actually have the highest average age of any Prem club across our membership! And this despite the club being based in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the UK.


The decision to use football stadiums for the RWC may indeed have been based on sums but the decision not to use WR was based on the short length AND width of the WR pitch, the insufficient changing facilities, drug testing facilities & media facilities.

Personally I don't think that WR would be suitable for RWC matches in 2015 but think that the RFU missed a trick in not playing a game or two at Franklins Gardens as their pitch dimensions are good enough & their present off-pitch squad facilities are far superior to WR's.

What does 'insufficient changing facilities' mean ?, what are these drug testing facilities that are supposedly available in other stadia ? Etc, etc. If the pitch is the wrong size and it would be impossible to change it in 3 years then fair enough. Personally I just think it's a cop out.....

[Bill W (2)]

Doesn't change the fact that the facilities at WR do not meet the minimum criteria for the RWC on a number of key factors.

Which, of course, the RFU discussed with the Tigers Board in the months leading up to the decision. As they did with the Saints Board whose ground,
you claim, satisfies the criteria.

I would love to believe that. But I don't.

In both cases RFU merely delived a "fait accimpli" ducking behind an "independant audit". Just like they tried to do with London Welsh - although as events have shown they were made of sterner stuff!!

Ny all meams dismiss thie as nonsense and weaken you arguments still further.