Coventry Rugby Response to RFU plans.

[Neils]

'Glaring omissions': Coventry Rugby respond to RFU's Covid Recovery Plan

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/rugby/coventry-rugby-responds-rfus-covid-20936626#ICID=Android_CoventryTelegraphNewsApp_AppShare

[Shugs]

Hard to disagree with what they say for me. Basically boils down to the drawbridge being pulled up unless you can convince someone to pump millions in for the love of it.

[Neils]

Hard to disagree with what they say for me. Basically boils down to the drawbridge being pulled up unless you can convince someone to pump millions in for the love of it.

Fully agree. It would help if all the clubs were as robust.

[DGP Wasp]

But what's the solution?  Currently there are 13 clubs who are there or thereabouts in terms of being vaguely competitive in the Premiership.  All are, to a greater or lesser extent, bank rolled by wealthy individuals.  The drop off after the 13 that will make up next season's Premiership is huge, so either the Championship needs to find more wealthy benefactors to allow them to be competitive in the Premiership, or  we have a situation where 13 Premiership clubs are perennially safe from relegation while the top Championship clubs take it in turns to be the whooping boys for the rest of the league, or the team coming up throws money at trying to stay up, still goes straight back down and bankrupts itself in the process à la London Welsh.

[Shugs]

I take your point DGP. I think my point which I probably didn't make very well is that the introduction of a play off system goes a long way to putting of benefactors who may invest in a Champ club. With automatic relegation and promotion there's a huge carrot for them in that there is a clear way to the Prem. Without that carrot they're basically being asked to pump money in just for the love of the club. It may seem at the moment that none are capable of stepping up but you don't have to look very far for an example of how things can develop as Exeter have shown that. I'm torn on the issue as I can see the potential benefits of ringfencing but I really do feel for the Championship clubs who I think, quite frankly, are being shafted.

[wasps]

I'm always completely against ringfencing (although I would have accepted it while Saracens were in the championship), however, is there really going to be a club promoted from the championship in the next 5 years via normal means.

I know that Exeter and Bristol have done it in recent times (although Exeter was over 10 years ago), but are they the blueprint for other teams, or the exception to the rule?

If no other clubs are going to be able to compete with the premiership teams without a super rich benefactor, then the lure of promotion is nothing more than a pipe dream anyway.



To be honest, I know very little about Championship rugby... and that's probably the really issue.
Outside of the most die hard fans, the Championship is not watched, which in turn means that it doesn't generate sponsorship and therefore the rewards to the clubs are minimal in comparison to the premiership.

What is probably required is to bring the bottom end of the Championship up, rather than trying to stretch the top end closer to the premiership.
It won't be a quick win, but if all the teams in the Championship were largely competitive and has nice pitches, stadiums and played good rugby, then it may become a more watchable product that would get a better TV deal and increased sponsorship.

When we look at football where the league system is heavily dependent on promotion/relegation, the Championship was rebranded some years ago in an attempt to generate more revenue so that clubs found it easier to compete.
Admittedly, it's a very different dynamic, with more financial assistance from the FA and far greater costs / rewards, but ultimately, it was about making the whole league stronger so that the games were more enjoyable and therefore offered a greater product

[Mellie]

I take your point DGP. I think my point which I probably didn't make very well is that the introduction of a play off system goes a long way to putting of benefactors who may invest in a Champ club. With automatic relegation and promotion there's a huge carrot for them in that there is a clear way to the Prem. Without that carrot they're basically being asked to pump money in just for the love of the club. It may seem at the moment that none are capable of stepping up but you don't have to look very far for an example of how things can develop as Exeter have shown that. I'm torn on the issue as I can see the potential benefits of ringfencing but I really do feel for the Championship clubs who I think, quite frankly, are being shafted.

I have looked at the stats from the last 21 years, since Premiership was a 12 team league with 1 up 1 down.

To me it shows that a playoff is the only credible alternative to ring fencing, since all the clubs that were in the league in 2000-2001 are in it next season, apart from Rotherham, with the addition of Exeter and Worcester.

Only 3 clubs apart from the current 13 have been in the Premiership.

Rotherham got promoted again in 2002-03 but were relegated for good the next season. They are now in National League 2N.

Leeds took Rotherham's place in 2001-02, would have swapped with them the following season but were saved as Rotherham's ground didn't pass RFU inspection, so lasted 5 seasons until relegated, then promoted and relegated again in successive seasons. They played 2 more seasons in the Premiership until relegated for good in 2011. They are now in National League 1.

London Welsh were promoted after threatening legal action in 2012, were never competitive and relegated after 1 season. They were promoted the next season then relegated the season after in 2015. They are now an amateur team in London Division.

Of the other relegated teams: Quins, Saints, Falcons (twice), London Irish (twice), Worcester (twice) and Sarries were all promoted the season following relegation.

The only exception is Bristol, who were relegated for 2 seasons in 2002-03, came back for 4, relegated for 7 years, then yo-yo with London Irish for 2 seasons and finally staying in the Premiership since 2018 after getting taken over by billionaire Steve Lansdown.

If there had been a playoff between last place and championship winner I doubt whether the London Welsh vanity promotions would have happened as they weren't good enough.

So overall, there may have been little to choose between the bottom place of 12 and the top championship team over the years but obviously only Worcester and Exeter have broken through, incidentally around the same time as the demise of Rotherham and Leeds.

This season has shown that all teams, apart from Worcester have been competitive and the Warriors have not been far off in terms of points difference.

From the margin Sarries best Ealing, who are by far the strongest championship team left, I can't see any other team being good enough for the Premiership. If they do have ambition then they really need to show they can beat the last place team to earn promotion and ensure they could be competitive to avoid another London Welsh fiasco.

[Shugs]

I know what you're saying. I just see it very simply. 1) If you're the best team in tier 2 you get a shot at tier 1. You may not be competitive but you've earned that shot. 2) If you finish bottom of tier 1 you've proved you weren't competitive so someone else can have a go.

[wasps]

Are the extra financial costs associated with being a premiership club just because of the rules that premier rugby insists upon with regards to stadiums etc?

Are championship players all fully professional, or are some/most/all still doing "normal" jobs as well?


If a promoted club didn't have to have a larger stadium to play in the premiership, and if they didn't have to increase their salary bill so that all their players could be full time professionals, are there any other substantial costs that a premiership club incurs versus a championship one?


We know that some championship clubs turn down the opportunity to play in the premiership because of the additional requirements, but if those requirements are what causes the extra financial burden then I think that's where the real problems are.
Without those rules, you'd see more coins wanted to be promoted.
They may still lose and get relegated, but they've then had their dream shot and aren't adversely financially burdened

[DGP Wasp]

I know what you're saying. I just see it very simply. 1) If you're the best team in tier 2 you get a shot at tier 1. You may not be competitive but you've earned that shot. 2) If you finish bottom of tier 1 you've proved you weren't competitive so someone else can have a go.

Totally agree. But with a 14 team Premiership on the way, it is hard to see how this can be anything less than a farce, with one team getting spanked every week and swapping places with another below par team at the end of the season, whether directly or via a play off, for the right to do the same the following season.  Currently there are only 13 Premiership standard teams in England.  Unless someone throws a lot of money at one or more of the current Championship crop, then I can't see that changing, and when this has played out for a few years it will be put forward as a conclusive argument in favour of ring fencing.

I'm 100% in favour of promotion and relegation, but with only 13 Premiership standard teams in a 14 team league, it could become nothing more than tokenism.

[13thWarrior]

I don't think play off between bottom of the prem and top of the champ is viable, given the enormous difference in incomes and therefore budget for playing squads between the two. A champ team could be a lot better than they are given the same income streams, so requiring them to beat a team while at a massive handicap is not fair.

Instead, I would favour a "license" system, where a promoted team stays up for 2-3 years, thereby allowing them to offer regular contracts to players rather than risk being lumbered with expensive contracts if they get relegated after 1 year. This allows more sensible financial planning to then limit the chances a club goes bust. After the 2-3 years the team with the worst record gets relegated and the best Champ team takes their place.

[BrackenandMacken]

What Premier Rugby need to explain is how you have professional rugby clubs in tier 2 when they have no ability to be promoted to tier 1.

Where does the money come from, what desire is there to improve facilities, coaching, community engagement etc.

The knock on effect of this is that the tier 2 quality will decrease, given that it currently produces an awful lot of premiership rugby players what does that mean for the Premiership clubs. Do they carry bigger squads, can't see that happening unless average wage goes down. Do they utilise the academy more, in which case what happens to players like Guy Thompson who mature later.

You can't alter one tier without making changes to others, I think unfortunately that is exactly what they will do.