The Future of the Prem

[Mark62]

I will get shot down for this but I honestly believe that to protect the game at the professional level , both financially and player welfare wise, we need to set up 5 regional teams, South East, South West, Midlands, North East and North West, who would then enter into British league with the Scottish, Irish and Welsh regions, playing only once against each team per season. That would be 14 games per season, 7 home 7 away, plus revamped European competitions.
Leicester, Northampton Bath etc could continue as semi pro teams maintaining their own identity and acting as development teams for the regions.
Below that the league structure needs reducing in numbers both in number of leagues and number of clubs, with clubs at championship and national leagues being amateur, with them being allowed a maximum of 3 paid players each.

Radical I know, and I feel that the main objection from people will be the lose of club identity, but other countries have managed to overcome this over time


Your thoughts chime almost word for word with an article I read yesterday in aa newspaper!

I promise I neither wrote or read the article

[Scott1]

Pichot v Beaumont, April 26th. Remember that date,that's when Rugby could change forever!

[ay2oh]

I will get shot down for this but I honestly believe that to protect the game at the professional level , both financially and player welfare wise, we need to set up 5 regional teams, South East, South West, Midlands, North East and North West, who would then enter into British league with the Scottish, Irish and Welsh regions, playing only once against each team per season. That would be 14 games per season, 7 home 7 away, plus revamped European competitions.
Leicester, Northampton Bath etc could continue as semi pro teams maintaining their own identity and acting as development teams for the regions.
Below that the league structure needs reducing in numbers both in number of leagues and number of clubs, with clubs at championship and national leagues being amateur, with them being allowed a maximum of 3 paid players each.

Radical I know, and I feel that the main objection from people will be the lose of club identity, but other countries have managed to overcome this over time


Your thoughts chime almost word for word with an article I read yesterday in aa newspaper!

I promise I neither wrote or read the article

If rugby went regional suspect that at least 50% of season ticket holders including myself would revert to supporting local teams instead

[trendylfj]

I will get shot down for this but I honestly believe that to protect the game at the professional level , both financially and player welfare wise, we need to set up 5 regional teams, South East, South West, Midlands, North East and North West, who would then enter into British league with the Scottish, Irish and Welsh regions, playing only once against each team per season. That would be 14 games per season, 7 home 7 away, plus revamped European competitions.
Leicester, Northampton Bath etc could continue as semi pro teams maintaining their own identity and acting as development teams for the regions.
Below that the league structure needs reducing in numbers both in number of leagues and number of clubs, with clubs at championship and national leagues being amateur, with them being allowed a maximum of 3 paid players each.

Radical I know, and I feel that the main objection from people will be the lose of club identity, but other countries have managed to overcome this over time

Sorry Mark for the late reply but one issue with the regional teams idea where would they play and which stadiums would go to the wall. Remember several stadiums have had millions of £s spent on them and the owners of those clubs/stadiums need regular matches to generate money to maintain them or are you suggesting selling WR or Sixways for housing/development. Neither could support a lower feeder club. I would suggest that the same would apply to the Rec, Sandy Park, Ashton Gate and Kingsholm. Perhaps Allianz could be sold and play the games at an expanded Stoop. The 2 Northern areas hardly generate enough support to maintain their current clubs so for many reasons I don't think it will ever take off. A bigger threat from my point of view is the bigger threat from Pichot taking over from Bill B. We would finish up with a world league with nations having all the stars for most of the season and a lower standard of club rugby.

[Mark62]

I will get shot down for this but I honestly believe that to protect the game at the professional level , both financially and player welfare wise, we need to set up 5 regional teams, South East, South West, Midlands, North East and North West, who would then enter into British league with the Scottish, Irish and Welsh regions, playing only once against each team per season. That would be 14 games per season, 7 home 7 away, plus revamped European competitions.
Leicester, Northampton Bath etc could continue as semi pro teams maintaining their own identity and acting as development teams for the regions.
Below that the league structure needs reducing in numbers both in number of leagues and number of clubs, with clubs at championship and national leagues being amateur, with them being allowed a maximum of 3 paid players each.

Radical I know, and I feel that the main objection from people will be the lose of club identity, but other countries have managed to overcome this over time

Sorry Mark for the late reply but one issue with the regional teams idea where would they play and which stadiums would go to the wall. Remember several stadiums have had millions of £s spent on them and the owners of those clubs/stadiums need regular matches to generate money to maintain them or are you suggesting selling WR or Sixways for housing/development. Neither could support a lower feeder club. I would suggest that the same would apply to the Rec, Sandy Park, Ashton Gate and Kingsholm. Perhaps Allianz could be sold and play the games at an expanded Stoop. The 2 Northern areas hardly generate enough support to maintain their current clubs so for many reasons I don't think it will ever take off. A bigger threat from my point of view is the bigger threat from Pichot taking over from Bill B. We would finish up with a world league with nations having all the stars for most of the season and a lower standard of club rugby.

Trendy totally get your point and the ground issue is of course a big one. One possible answer could be moving the games around grounds within the regional sides boundaries, they would also be the grounds for the next step down club wise, I.e Tigers would still run a semi pro side.
Geographically I don’t think it could run by saying ok these 2 prem sides play in the Midlands these 2 in the south east etc.
The franchise teams in New Zealand are based in their big cities so I would suggest the same could be possible. London, Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle, Midlands more difficult as no real rugby in Birmingham.

Like I say it’s a radical idea and I would expect the vast majority of rugby fans to be against it.
What I would say is the system is bust from the top to the bottom and it needs fixing

[Scott1]

I will get shot down for this but I honestly believe that to protect the game at the professional level , both financially and player welfare wise, we need to set up 5 regional teams, South East, South West, Midlands, North East and North West, who would then enter into British league with the Scottish, Irish and Welsh regions, playing only once against each team per season. That would be 14 games per season, 7 home 7 away, plus revamped European competitions.
Leicester, Northampton Bath etc could continue as semi pro teams maintaining their own identity and acting as development teams for the regions.
Below that the league structure needs reducing in numbers both in number of leagues and number of clubs, with clubs at championship and national leagues being amateur, with them being allowed a maximum of 3 paid players each.

Radical I know, and I feel that the main objection from people will be the lose of club identity, but other countries have managed to overcome this over time

Sorry Mark for the late reply but one issue with the regional teams idea where would they play and which stadiums would go to the wall. Remember several stadiums have had millions of £s spent on them and the owners of those clubs/stadiums need regular matches to generate money to maintain them or are you suggesting selling WR or Sixways for housing/development. Neither could support a lower feeder club. I would suggest that the same would apply to the Rec, Sandy Park, Ashton Gate and Kingsholm. Perhaps Allianz could be sold and play the games at an expanded Stoop. The 2 Northern areas hardly generate enough support to maintain their current clubs so for many reasons I don't think it will ever take off. A bigger threat from my point of view is the bigger threat from Pichot taking over from Bill B. We would finish up with a world league with nations having all the stars for most of the season and a lower standard of club rugby.

Think it will be close,experts say the North American votes could swing it. My views are though that Laportes ideas are closer to Pichots yet hes running with BB,very strange!

[trendylfj]

I will get shot down for this but I honestly believe that to protect the game at the professional level , both financially and player welfare wise, we need to set up 5 regional teams, South East, South West, Midlands, North East and North West, who would then enter into British league with the Scottish, Irish and Welsh regions, playing only once against each team per season. That would be 14 games per season, 7 home 7 away, plus revamped European competitions.
Leicester, Northampton Bath etc could continue as semi pro teams maintaining their own identity and acting as development teams for the regions.
Below that the league structure needs reducing in numbers both in number of leagues and number of clubs, with clubs at championship and national leagues being amateur, with them being allowed a maximum of 3 paid players each.

Radical I know, and I feel that the main objection from people will be the lose of club identity, but other countries have managed to overcome this over time

Sorry Mark for the late reply but one issue with the regional teams idea where would they play and which stadiums would go to the wall. Remember several stadiums have had millions of £s spent on them and the owners of those clubs/stadiums need regular matches to generate money to maintain them or are you suggesting selling WR or Sixways for housing/development. Neither could support a lower feeder club. I would suggest that the same would apply to the Rec, Sandy Park, Ashton Gate and Kingsholm. Perhaps Allianz could be sold and play the games at an expanded Stoop. The 2 Northern areas hardly generate enough support to maintain their current clubs so for many reasons I don't think it will ever take off. A bigger threat from my point of view is the bigger threat from Pichot taking over from Bill B. We would finish up with a world league with nations having all the stars for most of the season and a lower standard of club rugby.

Trendy totally get your point and the ground issue is of course a big one. One possible answer could be moving the games around grounds within the regional sides boundaries, they would also be the grounds for the next step down club wise, I.e Tigers would still run a semi pro side.
Geographically I don’t think it could run by saying ok these 2 prem sides play in the Midlands these 2 in the south east etc.
The franchise teams in New Zealand are based in their big cities so I would suggest the same could be possible. London, Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle, Midlands more difficult as no real rugby in Birmingham.

Like I say it’s a radical idea and I would expect the vast majority of rugby fans to be against it.
What I would say is the system is bust from the top to the bottom and it needs fixing

I see what you are saying but could WR exist on 3 or 4 games a season with supporters travelling to Saints for 3 or 4? The Irish play all of their regional games at one ground as do the Welsh and Scots. Some of the old Welsh grounds are small and there is not a lot of support for the regional games. Rodney Parade gets under 4000 for most games, The Gnoll under 7000, Principality around mid 5000 except for inter Welsh games, Parc y Scarlets the same. Yes some are ground share with football. No not for me

[Dangerous4]

I would have 14 teams in the Premiership, and still have one up and one down.

Play each team once only, but change the points system to 5 points for a draw, home and away, six points for a home win, and eight points for an away win. Get rid of the Premiership Cup, and revamp the Internationals to "rest" weekends, and reduce the salary cap across the board, including France.

I know, it's a daft idea, so shoot me down.

[LE18]

Hope this never happens, just compare as an example what the situation is with Cricket, Test Match grounds do very well, but look at poor old Grace Road, barely makes a living, our County Team is a joke! Tigers would simply fade away if regional rugby comes in and WR could not survive on 3 or 4 games a year, or as a semi professional side, with the overheads that our stadium has, even if reduced stewarding etc was required, etc etc. We simply cannot lose the heritage of the Tigers and must fight to retain it! I hope our BOD are doing just that although with the recent decision to sell, then rescinding, were they about to throw in the towel?

[Mark62]

Hope this never happens, just compare as an example what the situation is with Cricket, Test Match grounds do very well, but look at poor old Grace Road, barely makes a living, our County Team is a joke! Tigers would simply fade away if regional rugby comes in and WR could not survive on 3 or 4 games a year, or as a semi professional side, with the overheads that our stadium has, even if reduced stewarding etc was required, etc etc. We simply cannot lose the heritage of the Tigers and must fight to retain it! I hope our BOD are doing just that although with the recent decision to sell, then rescinding, were they about to throw in the towel?

I totally get your point about the heritage, but I think this is a separate issue.
There is no point having a club with 100 years plus of heritage if the rest of the game has gone down a creek without a paddle.
Cricket has modified brought in new formats and to my untrained eye seems to be constantly looking to evolve. Rugby is still the same product it was 25 years ago.

[JP14]

The World League of Nations or whatever they were going call it was a good plan that got shelved because of the short-sightedness of Italy, Scotland amongst others. The Lions was protected, only a couple of extra games were included, it ensured a global calendar and regular gametime and airtime for Tier 2 nations. In my view the club rugby would have been fine and we wouldn’t have lost the players anymore than what we currently do.

[LE18]

Hope this never happens, just compare as an example what the situation is with Cricket, Test Match grounds do very well, but look at poor old Grace Road, barely makes a living, our County Team is a joke! Tigers would simply fade away if regional rugby comes in and WR could not survive on 3 or 4 games a year, or as a semi professional side, with the overheads that our stadium has, even if reduced stewarding etc was required, etc etc. We simply cannot lose the heritage of the Tigers and must fight to retain it! I hope our BOD are doing just that although with the recent decision to sell, then rescinding, were they about to throw in the towel?

I totally get your point about the heritage, but I think this is a separate issue.
There is no point having a club with 100 years plus of heritage if the rest of the game has gone down a creek without a paddle.
Cricket has modified brought in new formats and to my untrained eye seems to be constantly looking to evolve. Rugby is still the same product it was 25 years ago.

The 100 will be an even bigger blow to our County team, I reckon LCCC must be on its knees!

[Scott1]

If we put our own selfishness aside and think about the game as a whole would it be so bad if Pichot became chairman instead of Beaumont? The game needs to move on,would a global season move the game forward? People can laugh but Pichot is interested in bringing in a computer game,it certainly targets a new younger audience. I look around WR when I'm there and im one of the youngsters and I'm now 40! Is it the same at other grounds?

[BFG]

If we put our own selfishness aside and think about the game as a whole would it be so bad if Pichot became chairman instead of Beaumont? The game needs to move on,would a global season move the game forward? People can laugh but Pichot is interested in bringing in a computer game,it certainly targets a new younger audience. I look around WR when I'm there and im one of the youngsters and I'm now 40! Is it the same at other grounds?

Rugby has decent participation numbers in England.
The under 40's are often playing on a Saturday or taking their kids to play on a Sunday.
Leicester's larger support base originated from the smaller clubs around about, they stay in rugby as supporters after participating.
Beaumont knows these roots, it's where he came from.
Richmond and Shoguns should read as a warning on Pichot's CV in my opinion.
Whatever rugby's plans are they need to protect the community game.
The beauty of the English game is in it's community roots and should not be discarded.

[Scott1]

I agree BFG but what about the transition from junior/colt to senior? That's losing a lot of players. Is there anything better we could do to keep more of those in rugby?