Championship clubs to break away?

[Mark62]

I’m sure that most people are aware that the costs involved of moving from the championship to the premiership aren’t just increased salaries.
Pretty sure there is minimum requirement for ground capacity, that in itself brings extra costs, stewarding increased catering requirements, the pitch may require upgrading.
Increased staffing costs, we all read about Tigers having to unfortunately make 31 people redundant, these will have been back room staff necessary to keep a club running under normal circumstances.
Does the programme need upgrading, do they need increased trading facilities, are the floodlights good enough, increased laundry requirements.

I was involved in running a club when it was promoted from the old Nat 3 to Nat 2, and the increase in costs for the club, ok relatively small compared to a championship club going up, were a big issue, I can only imagine the relative figures involved.

I’m sure in an ideal world non of us want ring fencing, but for a lot of these championship clubs, the choice will be cut our cloth accordingly, or cease to exist as an entity. An example, a local Leicestershire club was playing and competing in National 2 north, that’s only 2 levels below the championship, within the last 5 years. They lost a main sponsor, and next season they will be playing in Midlands East, South, league 4.

For those asking about premiership clubs, I suppose the same applies, they have already dealt with the issues of salaries, but if, and when, one of them goes under, they will either continue with a reduced number of teams, or invite a member of the championship group to join the premiership group, if the meet certain criteria

[johnthegriff]

Since the creation of Premiership rugby just twenty eight teams have been involved, seven of those never made it through to the the stage where rugby became professional. Of the remaining twenty one teams only four have played every season, Bath, Gloucester, Leicester, Wasps. Sale have never been relegated after reaching the top level and Saracens have never been relegated during the professional era. Other teams have been relegated and promoted some more than once.
I believe that it is important that the opportunity is there for teams to move up (and down). I can see that it would be beneficial for lower divisions possibly including the Championship should be split geographically to reduce travel cost, journeys between say Newcastle and Cornwall or Jersey must be a heavy burden for poorly funded teams
It is in my opinion important that grounds in the Premiership should be fit for purpose but if Championship teams are to obtain investment sufficient to raise ground standards they must be able to offer investors the possibility that the team they are supporting could reach that top level.
I think a team gaining promotion will find fans following their success and local rugby supporters being given the chance to see international players visiting to play on a pitch near them will make the effort to go to the games each week.

[Mark62]

I think in relation to the grounds issue it is almost the chicken and the egg situation, which comes first a push for promotion, or an improvement in facilities.
I think in some ways it would be easier for an Ealing or Cornish Pirates to attract investors, without the prospect of a premiership team yo yoing down and back up again, as in all, probability Will happen with Saracens.
Maybe ring fencing should be limited to a 3/5 year period, so that any clubs looking to move up to the next level, could present a
business plan to say to investors/sponsors this is what with your backing we will be doing in 3/5 years time.

As things stand if that were to happen now, by Ealing for example, investors would look at Saracens and go well you won’t be going up this season.

It was interesting listening to Andreas LTTV interview, about how much work was involved to get Topps Tiles on board, and how important it was to get the right fit for the club.

[h's dad]

I will be disappointed if ring fencing happens but can any knowledgeable soul enlighten me on how virtually immediate ring fencing gets around the eight year Professional Game Agreement, signed in 2016, that guarantees promotion and relegation? I can see another field day for the lawyers.

[Mark62]

I will be disappointed if ring fencing happens but can any knowledgeable soul enlighten me on how virtually immediate ring fencing gets around the eight year Professional Game Agreement, signed in 2016, that guarantees promotion and relegation? I can see another field day for the lawyers.

I am no legal expert by any means but I would imagine that the 13 signatories to the original agreement are the same 13 wanting to make the amendment.

I think it’s time to look beyond the legal niceties, and peoples disappointment in ring fencing, yet some of the same people still watch super rugby, in order to secure the future of the game.

[Scott1]

I agree with Mark,if the 13 do agree theres nothing that can be done. The Championship clubs havnt got the muscle to take the 13 shareholders on and with their talks about breaking away they have obviously already conceded anyway.

[h's dad]

I agree with Mark,if the 13 do agree theres nothing that can be done. The Championship clubs havnt got the muscle to take the 13 shareholders on and with their talks about breaking away they have obviously already conceded anyway.

Two things.
One: just for clarification the signatories to the Professional Game Agreement are not the 13 members of the PRL. It is an agreement between the PRL and the RFU. So it is not just down to the 13, it is also down to the RFU and it's constituent members who have an interest and I can't see that telling a presiding judge it's time to look beyond the legal niceties is going to carry much weight. Also, I'm not sure that talks about breaking away are indicative of any concession.

Two: I'm not a fan of being told that one course is the only option. Ring fencing may be an appropriate choice for a relatively small cash strapped organisation; I really doubt that it is the best way to secure the future of the game for the richest Union in the world.

[Mark62]

I agree with Mark,if the 13 do agree theres nothing that can be done. The Championship clubs havnt got the muscle to take the 13 shareholders on and with their talks about breaking away they have obviously already conceded anyway.

Two things.
One: just for clarification the signatories to the Professional Game Agreement are not the 13 members of the PRL. It is an agreement between the PRL and the RFU. So it is not just down to the 13, it is also down to the RFU and it's constituent members who have an interest and I can't see that telling a presiding judge it's time to look beyond the legal niceties is going to carry much weight. Also, I'm not sure that talks about breaking away are indicative of any concession.

Two: I'm not a fan of being told that one course is the only option. Ring fencing may be an appropriate choice for a relatively small cash strapped organisation; I really doubt that it is the best way to secure the future of the game for the richest Union in the world.

The richest union in the world that has just laid over 100 people off and have reduced funding to grass roots clubs to a pittance. I understand that ring fencing is far from being everyone’s cup of tea, but to borrow Hs Dads phrase, I’m not a fan of being told one course of action is not acceptable, without alternatives being offered, because the alternative of doing nothing isn’t an option.

My apologies I was not aware of who the signatories to the PGA were. At the same time the championship are also, proposing a version of ring fencing, so I’m not sure who is going to object if it’s in the best interests of the game to help it survive. Extraordinary times require Extraordinary measures.
All IMO of course.

[h's dad]

I agree with Mark,if the 13 do agree theres nothing that can be done. The Championship clubs havnt got the muscle to take the 13 shareholders on and with their talks about breaking away they have obviously already conceded anyway.

Two things.
One: just for clarification the signatories to the Professional Game Agreement are not the 13 members of the PRL. It is an agreement between the PRL and the RFU. So it is not just down to the 13, it is also down to the RFU and it's constituent members who have an interest and I can't see that telling a presiding judge it's time to look beyond the legal niceties is going to carry much weight. Also, I'm not sure that talks about breaking away are indicative of any concession.

Two: I'm not a fan of being told that one course is the only option. Ring fencing may be an appropriate choice for a relatively small cash strapped organisation; I really doubt that it is the best way to secure the future of the game for the richest Union in the world.

The richest union in the world that has just laid over 100 people off and have reduced funding to grass roots clubs to a pittance. I understand that ring fencing is far from being everyone’s cup of tea, but to borrow Hs Dads phrase, I’m not a fan of being told one course of action is not acceptable, without alternatives being offered, because the alternative of doing nothing isn’t an option.

My apologies I was not aware of who the signatories to the PGA were. At the same time the championship are also, proposing a version of ring fencing, so I’m not sure who is going to object if it’s in the best interests of the game to help it survive. Extraordinary times require Extraordinary measures.
All IMO of course.

I really don't think covid-19 is the driver behind the push for ring fencing. Laid off? Do you mean on furlough? Only sensible when support is offered and you have people with nothing to do (doesn't mean I agree with the detail of the scheme). I understand that significant future redundancies are being touted as a real possibility and it makes me less inclined to think that the right people are at the top of the RFU making decisions. I don't think they've already happened. It is shocking that grass roots fund has been reduced to a pittance when last year the RFU declared a 24% increase in revenue and a 39% increase in profit. Let's not mix up development, financial stability and equity.

THE RFU EXISTS TO GROW RUGBY UNION IN ENGLAND AND PROMOTE
THE CORE VALUES OF TEAMWORK, RESPECT, ENJOYMENT, DISCIPLINE
AND SPORTSMANSHIP BY INVESTING IN ALL FORMS OF THE GAME. (sorry for caps, cut and pasted from the RFU annual report)

[Mark62]

I agree with you about Covid 19 but let’s face it the club game was hardly in a healthy place before that.

Re the redundancies

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 8SI5SZTbvW

[Scott1]

I apologise also but I can only see the RFU siding with the ring fencing option.

[Scott1]

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2019/01/13/ri ... ition-law/

[h's dad]

I agree with you about Covid 19 but let’s face it the club game was hardly in a healthy place before that.

Re the redundancies

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 8SI5SZTbvW

I agree, like a lot of places, much less is down to covid than those at the top of the tree pretend.
Have many of the strategic actions to date of the RFU been part of the problem rather than contributing to a solution?

Is this justified:
Payments to the Board 2019: £1.884m
Payments to the Board 2018: £1.281m

[h's dad]

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2019/01/13/ri ... ition-law/

Thank you Scott. Yes I can very much see the RFU Board being behind it (which I still maintain does not make it a good idea) but as your link suggests, there is far more to it than that. As I said to start with, money for lawyers.

[Scott1]

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2019/01/13/ri ... ition-law/

Thank you Scott. Yes I can very much see the RFU Board being behind it (which I still maintain does not make it a good idea) but as your link suggests, there is far more to it than that. As I said to start with, money for lawyers.

Yes ,the lawyers will be rubbing their hands together as we speak.