GB72 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:10 pm
There is a certain irony that the Prem want well run, sustainable clubs with a good, local fanbase and the first requirement for promotion requires that they either enter debt to buy or build a new ground or sell an essential asset to move to a rented ground and potentially move away from the locality of their fan base as there are not stadiums on every street corner.
Apart from in London.
3 and a bit miles from Vallis Way to Brentford as the crow flies. But not far the other side of course is Harlequins!
Sadly my knowledge of the geography of London it pretty much non existent.
I guess though that this triggers the question of whether the Prem needs another club so close to an existing one. How would you deal with competing academies etc let alone a potentially divided fan base. Then again, Quins seem to have more fans than they have room for but would any of those switch allegiances to a promoted Ealing.
But again we are back to putting some money and effort into making the Championship a better competition so that the gap in terms of facilities and standards is not so great.
ourla wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:44 pm
But again we are back to putting some money and effort into making the Championship a better competition so that the gap in terms of facilities and standards is not so great.
Which it will always be, but it just isn’t there , in tv coverage, sponsorship, or RFU funding, which tbh would be no where enough on its own
Looked on their website and your favourite google and nothing. But then I’m guessing you already knew that
You didn't find anything about their partnerships with local grassroots clubs? Partnerships with Aussie Shute Shield teams? Partnership with Brunel University? Their development of the women's game? Presentation of a phased development plan to support their Premiership application, rather than a short-termist ground share?
You didn't find any of that?
Which they know doesn't fit the criteria required for entry to the Premiership. They can whine all they like but they aren't willing to bite the bullet.
Who in their right mind would agree to build a 10,000 seater stadium when there's no way they're getting more than 5,000 fans for the next year or two?
It feels as if we don't want anyone new in the Premiership. That's fine, but it's then a bit rich to go on about trying to grow the game.
As I'm sure someone else has pointed out, you only need 5,000 capacity to join the Premier League. So a stadium can be big enough for the most-watched sports league in the world, but too small for the mighty Premiership rugby that almost no one even knows exists?
TigerFeetSteve wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:51 pm
So the 10,001 requires a safety certificate, as it is 1 over the minimum to
Why can't PRL just insist on a safety certificate still even if it's below the size that "legally" requires one
Pretty sure they could.
Sale only managed more than 7,500 attendance 3 times last season - us, Sarries and us again in the semi.
If an established, long standing, successful Premiership club doesn't need a 10,000 capacity stadium it is ridiculous to insist that a new club has to have one.
I do sort of see a logic, in that the lowest attendances last season were Sale, Newcastle, Worcester, Irish and Wasps. 3 of those have gone bankrupt, and 1 can't afford to spend near enough the cap to be competitive. However, a gradual approach as Ealing proposed would surely be sensible as no Championship club will ever need a 10,000 capacity stadium in their first few seasons.
Ealing and one more team coming up would help the existing ten premiership teams survive. I’d have them up next season. Nine home games in the league is not enough. I know Ealing would struggle but there’s nothing forcing them to over spend on wages in an attempt to try and succeed. A couple of seasons bedding in and they might find themselves in a better position to try and be more competitive but at least we know one thing for sure that they’d have helped all the other teams in the league giving them an extra home game.
We all seem happy to have sacrificial lambs in the 6N and world cup, with the logic that these teams won't improve if they aren't exposed to top tier opposition - is the same not true for Championship clubs?
If we're happy to wait 20+ years for Italy to be consistently competitive in the 6N, it doesn't seem unreasonable to give an ambitious club like Ealing a season or 2.
I wouldn't think Ealing would be a sacrificial lamb.
The team they turned out against us had players with relatively recent international experience and Premiership games.
Yes we beat them but up to that point they had beaten weakened Premiership teams.
Are they far off Newcastle?
Tiglon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 10:23 am
We all seem happy to have sacrificial lambs in the 6N and world cup, with the logic that these teams won't improve if they aren't exposed to top tier opposition - is the same not true for Championship clubs?
If we're happy to wait 20+ years for Italy to be consistently competitive in the 6N, it doesn't seem unreasonable to give an ambitious club like Ealing a season or 2.
It’s a very fair point. For me it is unlikely that the Italian rugby union will go bust through competing in the 6 nations, in fact probably the opposite. If Ealing and one other club are prepared to withstand big financial losses, and a possibility supporter drain, look what happened to London Welsh, for a couple of seasons then why not
mol2 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 10:42 am
I wouldn't think Ealing would be a sacrificial lamb.
The team they turned out against us had players with relatively recent international experience and Premiership games.
Yes we beat them but up to that point they had beaten weakened Premiership teams.
Are they far off Newcastle?
They stayed close to us because of scrum dominance nothing else. We had 3/4 first choice players out there Liebenberg, OHC, Kelly, Scott. Had we had scrummage parity we would have won by 30 plus points. There is also a huge difference between a one off cup game, and a season of 20 league games, plus Europe, plus domestic cup
The toll of playing Premiership games and European rugby will take it out on the new teams who will probably not have the depth and quality of players during periods of injury......a big gulf to bridge!
Tiglon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 10:23 am
We all seem happy to have sacrificial lambs in the 6N and world cup, with the logic that these teams won't improve if they aren't exposed to top tier opposition - is the same not true for Championship clubs?
If we're happy to wait 20+ years for Italy to be consistently competitive in the 6N, it doesn't seem unreasonable to give an ambitious club like Ealing a season or 2.
This seems kind of hypocritical to me. We will open up the possibility of promotion to let Ealing in as they make a lot of noise but we will ring fence it again immediately after to stop anyone else. Promotion and relegation simply doesn’t work in rugby atm. The clubs are not sustainable enough to survive the turmoil each year, the the championship just isn’t competitive. Having a quaint ground that holds 3000 but makes us all feel nostalgic for the amateur days is not going to help the league in anyway meaningful measure
Newcastle could be currently held up as an example, would they win a playoff against Ealing or any other Championship side who comes top? What is wrong is that false restrictions prevents competition for them to try. We don't want another London Welsh, but to deny a winner from taking their place is wrong on every angle you look at it. Wasps don't don't have a ground or a team, nor do London Irish. Worcester don't have a team, yet it seems most would accept them all back without winning a game, why?
"If you want entertainment, go to the theatre," says Edinburgh head coach Richard Cockerill. "Rugby players play the game to win.15/1/21.
