The Official English Rugby Thread

[Dragster]

A win was important, but Italy looked knackered first half from the France game and won the second half when they woke up I think?. We were very lucky with some of the scrum penalties as well.

Mako? I think Rapava Ruskin is in when the EPS changes are next allowed I’m sure.

I don't think knackered in the physical sense?

It is more like our game vs NZ in the semi was our "final" and mentally, we didn't have much left in the tank for SA. Italy similarly, but after a coruscating half time talk, suspect they managed to get back in the zone mentally (as well as some smarter tactics) for the 2H.

Yep.

[spike]

A win was important, but Italy looked knackered first half from the France game and won the second half when they woke up I think?. We were very lucky with some of the scrum penalties as well.

Mako? I think Rapava Ruskin is in when the EPS changes are next allowed I’m sure.

I don't think knackered in the physical sense?

It is more like our game vs NZ in the semi was our "final" and mentally, we didn't have much left in the tank for SA. Italy similarly, but after a coruscating half time talk, suspect they managed to get back in the zone mentally (as well as some smarter tactics) for the 2H.

They seemed to be shocked by our defensive line speed, which is promising.

[Paddington Bear]

Yes I got a sense that Italy had prepped for a very different England than the one that they got

[pjm1]

A win was important, but Italy looked knackered first half from the France game and won the second half when they woke up I think?. We were very lucky with some of the scrum penalties as well.

Mako? I think Rapava Ruskin is in when the EPS changes are next allowed I’m sure.

I don't think knackered in the physical sense?

It is more like our game vs NZ in the semi was our "final" and mentally, we didn't have much left in the tank for SA. Italy similarly, but after a coruscating half time talk, suspect they managed to get back in the zone mentally (as well as some smarter tactics) for the 2H.

They seemed to be shocked by our defensive line speed, which is promising.

Makes a change for us to be surprising them with our tactics than the other way around... the last "surprise" in an Eng v Ita game was the whole tackle offside malarkey

[Ovals]

Good article from Andy Goode - pretty much in line with a lot of the comments on here.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/england- ... borthwick/

[Sinkers]

Traing squad for Wales. Mako still stinking up the LHP position, Stuart in as Sinkler injured. At least Youngs is nowhere near the squad

Forwards: Ollie Chessum, Dan Cole, Ben Curry, Alex Dombrandt, Ben Earl, Ellis Genge, Jamie George, Nick Isiekwe, Maro Itoje, Lewis Ludlam, Will Stuart, Mako Vunipola, Jack Walker, Jack Willis.

Backs: Henry Arundell, Owen Farrell, Ollie Hassell-Collins, Ollie Lawrence, Max Malins, Joe Marchant, Alex Mitchell, Henry Slade, Marcus Smith, Freddie Steward, Jack van Poortvliet, Anthony Watson.

No Youngs again.
So hopefully that’s a corner turned rather than just an “it’s only Italy” run out for the understudies

[Random1]

Anyone watch genge natter with tins and hask?



Tindall asks him about England kicking the ball away so much and genge gives an incredibly depressing answer. I’m paraphrasing but essentially he says it’s better to kick the ball away rather than risk losing the ball to a turn over.

For one of our more expressive players to say that, it just feels like we’re in for more grubbers

[sockwithaticket]

Anyone watch genge natter with tins and hask?



Tindall asks him about England kicking the ball away so much and genge gives an incredibly depressing answer. I’m paraphrasing but essentially he says it’s better to kick the ball away rather than risk losing the ball to a turn over.

For one of our more expressive players to say that, it just feels like we’re in for more grubbers

If they bin off Haskell, I'll start watching again. While Genge might be broadly correct, though that doesn't stop lots of other teams from actually playing some phases from within their own half, basically no one else in world rugby has interpreted that as 'must kick away possession just outside of or even inside the opposition 22.

[Margin__Walker]

There's a big difference between kicking in your own half to reduce the turnover risk (every team does this to some extent, including the best teams) and repeatedly kicking away attacking ball early in phase play in the final third.

[JM2K6]

Yeah, it's essentially a completely different question. Obviously we all know that teams are conservative in general and want to not play with the ball in their own half. That's fine - I'm okay with a "safety first" approach when it comes to possession in your own half. What I really want is a team that is willing to at least put themselves in a position to chance their arm if it looks like it's on. Not least because if a team genuinely believes you'll run it if you spot a weakness, then that changes how they approach the kick tennis.

Kicking as an attacking tactic is a totally different question. There's always going to be scope for the pressure kicks and I don't think we're the team to abandon that entirely. But they shouldn't be the first option, and they absolutely shouldn't come at the expense of keeping ball in hand in excellent attacking positions.

[ASMO]

But they shouldn't be the first option, and they absolutely shouldn't come at the expense of keeping ball in hand in excellent attacking positions.

This is what you end up with when you coach players to be robots rather than play with is in front of them. I really hate this concept of "systems and processes" whatever happened to intuition, creativity? Yes you may want some struture to the game, but if you build your entire game plan around having a system or process for every scenario imaginable, you just kill the game.

Fear of losing is overtaking the ambition of winning.

[JM2K6]

But they shouldn't be the first option, and they absolutely shouldn't come at the expense of keeping ball in hand in excellent attacking positions.

This is what you end up with when you coach players to be robots rather than play with is in front of them. I really hate this concept of "systems and processes" whatever happened to intuition, creativity? Yes you may want some struture to the game, but if you build your entire game plan around having a system or process for every scenario imaginable, you just kill the game.

Fear of losing is overtaking the ambition of winning.

You can actually create systems and processes to enable this, though. For example - if you coach a team to always make sure they're in a particular shape when receiving the ball (or at least have players in some key positions, ready for what comes next) and that shape is intended to always provide some width and the ability to support an attempted attack, then the structure and the process work together to allow the player with the ball & his teammates to make the decision on whether to run it, move it, or kick it. It supports the decision making rather than making the decision for them.

[Paddington Bear]

The England side in reality has a core from three clubs - Sarries, Leicester and Quins. The three play radically different styles but in none of them is there a robotic instinct to kick attacking ball away.

[ASMO]

But they shouldn't be the first option, and they absolutely shouldn't come at the expense of keeping ball in hand in excellent attacking positions.

This is what you end up with when you coach players to be robots rather than play with is in front of them. I really hate this concept of "systems and processes" whatever happened to intuition, creativity? Yes you may want some struture to the game, but if you build your entire game plan around having a system or process for every scenario imaginable, you just kill the game.

Fear of losing is overtaking the ambition of winning.

You can actually create systems and processes to enable this, though. For example - if you coach a team to always make sure they're in a particular shape when receiving the ball (or at least have players in some key positions, ready for what comes next) and that shape is intended to always provide some width and the ability to support an attempted attack, then the structure and the process work together to allow the player with the ball & his teammates to make the decision on whether to run it, move it, or kick it. It supports the decision making rather than making the decision for them.

I agree, hence my comment about having some structure

[el capitan]

As I said the other day, pretty convinced they're borrowing from the Rugby League playbook (whether that is Sinfield's influence, who knows).

Grubber kick in goal on repeat. Force the drop out from under the posts on repeat. Ensures the game is always played in the oppositions half. And wait for the opposition to give away penalties or make mistakes trying to play from deep, wait wait wait and eventually with all this pressure/territory there is such an obvious try scoring chance and you go for it.

Not exactly thrill a minute stuff though, and the problem at the weekend was not identifying the moments it was on to put the ball through the hands rather than default to the kick.

[JM2K6]

As I said the other day, pretty convinced they're borrowing from the Rugby League playbook (whether that is Sinfield's influence, who knows).

Grubber kick in goal on repeat. Force the drop out from under the posts on repeat. Ensures the game is always played in the oppositions half. And wait for the opposition to give away penalties or make mistakes trying to play from deep, wait wait wait and eventually with all this pressure/territory there is such an obvious try scoring chance and you go for it.

Not exactly thrill a minute stuff though, and the problem at the weekend was not identifying the moments it was on to put the ball through the hands rather than default to the kick.

Which is weird because rugby league teams kill for the opportunity to get more than 6 tackles in a row to attack a team.

[Paddington Bear]

As I said the other day, pretty convinced they're borrowing from the Rugby League playbook (whether that is Sinfield's influence, who knows).

Grubber kick in goal on repeat. Force the drop out from under the posts on repeat. Ensures the game is always played in the oppositions half. And wait for the opposition to give away penalties or make mistakes trying to play from deep, wait wait wait and eventually with all this pressure/territory there is such an obvious try scoring chance and you go for it.

Not exactly thrill a minute stuff though, and the problem at the weekend was not identifying the moments it was on to put the ball through the hands rather than default to the kick.

I get the principle (and you can argue it worked effectively, Italy's attack that was so potent the week before didn't even get going until the game was over as a contest). However, surely the key is to grubber after, x phases of solid defence not phase 2 when there's a 5 on 3? Getting the ball back from a goal line drop out is a decent outcome, scoring a likely try better.

[Hal Jordan]

I think the issues were summed up with the big Lawrence break in the second half. There was a clear policy to have him carry hard and attack the line. When he busted through and made serious yards, there wasn't that diamond of following players that turns a break into a try scoring opportunity. I think one player was following, but wasn't in a position to take a pass or offload.

If he was supposed to break the line, wouldn't it make sense to have the players ready to follow? If not, are they just using him as a point of focus to get over the gain line by a yard or two to set up the next ruck?

I know you can set up for both, but the way he tripped off up the field whilst no one supported made me think that they had only considered the latter tactic and were as surprised as the rest of us.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

But they shouldn't be the first option, and they absolutely shouldn't come at the expense of keeping ball in hand in excellent attacking positions.

This is what you end up with when you coach players to be robots rather than play with is in front of them. I really hate this concept of "systems and processes" whatever happened to intuition, creativity? Yes you may want some struture to the game, but if you build your entire game plan around having a system or process for every scenario imaginable, you just kill the game.

Fear of losing is overtaking the ambition of winning.

I remember in the dog days of the Martin Johnson England team after yet another poor loss his answer was 'If we hadn't made mistakes we would have won' England has struggled to get beyond that mentality for most of the time I have been watching.

I'm no massive fan of SCW but his repeated TCUP mantra was spot on. We just seem to frequently choose risk averse, dim players in key positions.

[JM2K6]

I think the issues were summed up with the big Lawrence break in the second half. There was a clear policy to have him carry hard and attack the line. When he busted through and made serious yards, there wasn't that diamond of following players that turns a break into a try scoring opportunity. I think one player was following, but wasn't in a position to take a pass or offload.

If he was supposed to break the line, wouldn't it make sense to have the players ready to follow? If not, are they just using him as a point of focus to get over the gain line by a yard or two to set up the next ruck?

I know you can set up for both, but the way he tripped off up the field whilst no one supported made me think that they had only considered the latter tactic and were as surprised as the rest of us.

Ideally you'd at least want your 9 running a cheat line...

[Paddington Bear]

But they shouldn't be the first option, and they absolutely shouldn't come at the expense of keeping ball in hand in excellent attacking positions.

This is what you end up with when you coach players to be robots rather than play with is in front of them. I really hate this concept of "systems and processes" whatever happened to intuition, creativity? Yes you may want some struture to the game, but if you build your entire game plan around having a system or process for every scenario imaginable, you just kill the game.

Fear of losing is overtaking the ambition of winning.

I remember in the dog days of the Martin Johnson England team after yet another poor loss his answer was 'If we hadn't made mistakes we would have won' England has struggled to get beyond that mentality for most of the time I have been watching.

I'm no massive fan of SCW but his repeated TCUP mantra was spot on. We just seem to frequently choose risk averse, dim players in key positions.

Serious question - who are the smart Premiership players that are being overlooked? IMHO being dumb is a constant in English rugby

[el capitan]

As I said the other day, pretty convinced they're borrowing from the Rugby League playbook (whether that is Sinfield's influence, who knows).

Grubber kick in goal on repeat. Force the drop out from under the posts on repeat. Ensures the game is always played in the oppositions half. And wait for the opposition to give away penalties or make mistakes trying to play from deep, wait wait wait and eventually with all this pressure/territory there is such an obvious try scoring chance and you go for it.

Not exactly thrill a minute stuff though, and the problem at the weekend was not identifying the moments it was on to put the ball through the hands rather than default to the kick.

I get the principle (and you can argue it worked effectively, Italy's attack that was so potent the week before didn't even get going until the game was over as a contest). However, surely the key is to grubber after, x phases of solid defence not phase 2 when there's a 5 on 3? Getting the ball back from a goal line drop out is a decent outcome, scoring a likely try better.

At my best guess probably one part a hangover from Eddie's military dictatorship, the other part Farrell's foibles when it comes to heads up rugby and/or following a plan to the nth degree.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

This is what you end up with when you coach players to be robots rather than play with is in front of them. I really hate this concept of "systems and processes" whatever happened to intuition, creativity? Yes you may want some struture to the game, but if you build your entire game plan around having a system or process for every scenario imaginable, you just kill the game.

Fear of losing is overtaking the ambition of winning.

I remember in the dog days of the Martin Johnson England team after yet another poor loss his answer was 'If we hadn't made mistakes we would have won' England has struggled to get beyond that mentality for most of the time I have been watching.

I'm no massive fan of SCW but his repeated TCUP mantra was spot on. We just seem to frequently choose risk averse, dim players in key positions.

Serious question - who are the smart Premiership players that are being overlooked? IMHO being dumb is a constant in English rugby

At some point, being terminally stupid should limit your international appearances more than it has - at least in the key positions. You occasionally hear comments about 'when you are in a tough situation, you need your leaders to step up' The problem with England has been that "the leaders" are often the cause of the problem. The Farrell/Youngs axis has not shown any ability to react to the current circumstances which has contributed to plenty of stupid losses and blown leads.

I'd have Ford/Smith ahead of Farrell on this basis alone - and anybody ahead of Youngs (looks like that demon may finally have been conquered)

[Hal Jordan]

I think the issues were summed up with the big Lawrence break in the second half. There was a clear policy to have him carry hard and attack the line. When he busted through and made serious yards, there wasn't that diamond of following players that turns a break into a try scoring opportunity. I think one player was following, but wasn't in a position to take a pass or offload.

If he was supposed to break the line, wouldn't it make sense to have the players ready to follow? If not, are they just using him as a point of focus to get over the gain line by a yard or two to set up the next ruck?

I know you can set up for both, but the way he tripped off up the field whilst no one supported made me think that they had only considered the latter tactic and were as surprised as the rest of us.

Ideally you'd at least want your 9 running a cheat line...

I always think if them as a younger brother doing that skipping walk to keep up with the big boys.

[Paddington Bear]

I remember in the dog days of the Martin Johnson England team after yet another poor loss his answer was 'If we hadn't made mistakes we would have won' England has struggled to get beyond that mentality for most of the time I have been watching.

I'm no massive fan of SCW but his repeated TCUP mantra was spot on. We just seem to frequently choose risk averse, dim players in key positions.

Serious question - who are the smart Premiership players that are being overlooked? IMHO being dumb is a constant in English rugby

At some point, being terminally stupid should limit your international appearances more than it has - at least in the key positions. You occasionally hear comments about 'when you are in a tough situation, you need your leaders to step up' The problem with England has been that "the leaders" are often the cause of the problem. The Farrell/Youngs axis has not shown any ability to react to the current circumstances which has contributed to plenty of stupid losses and blown leads.

I'd have Ford/Smith ahead of Farrell on this basis alone - and anybody ahead of Youngs (looks like that demon may finally have been conquered)

The issue with Faz as a leader is the captaincy. It doesn't suit everyone and it doesn't suit him. Such a shame Lawes was injured for the start of the 6N.
On the wider point, yes selection can be a factor, but we can change selection and still do really dumb things. JVP is a young lad and I like and rate him, but let's not pretend that he hasn't done some really silly things in an England shirt. Etc etc. It is endemic to English rugby and has been throughout the pro era, suggesting something rotten in the system.

As for Youngs, we can only pray. Borthwick has been creditably ruthless, but I'd be shocked if Youngs didn't go as at worst the #3 to the world cup.

[Prembore]

In the old days it was easy to identify the intelligent players, they were the ones who flew through their Land Economy courses at Oxford.

Agree with the above though, we don't seem to produce many thinking players...as far as I can tell from their occasional utterances, anyway.

[Niegs]

In the old days it was easy to identify the intelligent players, they were the ones who flew through their Land Economy courses at Oxford.

Agree with the above though, we don't seem to produce many thinking players...as far as I can tell from their occasional utterances, anyway.

From the days when Johnno, Lol, Hill, Back, Dawson, Wilko, Catt, Greenwood formed a spine of leaders and decision makers who could take the game by the scruff IN the game, it really feels like today's player are all indoctrinated into their systems, daring not to go off script. I imagine Ford is probably the most capable, but even then I can't think of him directing traffic with authority... more being very insightful / skilled at delivering the right pass so long as people were running the lines off him.

[sockwithaticket]

In the old days it was easy to identify the intelligent players, they were the ones who flew through their Land Economy courses at Oxford.

Agree with the above though, we don't seem to produce many thinking players...as far as I can tell from their occasional utterances, anyway.

They're generally media managed to within an inch of their lives, so it's really not much on which to base a judgement.

[charltom]

In the old days it was easy to identify the intelligent players, they were the ones who flew through their Land Economy courses at Oxford.

They'd have to be utterly brilliant to do that, given it was a course at Cambridge not Oxford!

[Stranger]

15 Mike Brown
14 Chris Ashton
13 Matt Scott
12 Jimmy Gopperth
11 Harry Potter
10 Handré Pollard
9 Ben Youngs

Lucky Wigglesworth has retired , looking at the age of tigers backline for Sunday - obviously going to try and outpace Saracens

[Hal Jordan]

15 Mike Brown
14 Chris Ashton
13 Matt Scott
12 Jimmy Gopperth
11 Harry Potter
10 Handré Pollard
9 Ben Youngs

Lucky Wigglesworth has retired , looking at the age of tigers backline for Sunday - obviously going to try and outpace Saracens

Harry Potter and The Time He Turned Out For The Veterans XV.

[SaintK]

I wonder how close to administration Tigers were needing this level of financial investment?

Leicester Tigers have admitted they are “suffering some very challenging conditions” and are intent on raising £13m of fresh investment in the Premiership champions from two directors.
The Welford Road club’s proposal would mean Tom Scott, a nonexecutive director, and the executive chairman, Peter Tom, increasing their stakes and shareholders will vote on whether to accept the board’s plans next month.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... by-union

[Paddington Bear]

Never been so pleased to be attending a game in which Ben Youngs is starting...

RE: SaintK's point - average Premiership attendances circle around the 13,000 mark. Well up on early pro rugby and almost without fail at significantly better facilities, most of them rugby only. The standard and entertainment quality is well up, likewise the TV product. However, average attendances of circa 10,000 create three viable comparators in English sport:
1) League One
2) The Hundred/T20 Blast
3) Super League

All of whom have significantly smaller wage bills and (I don't follow League but suspect it is true for them as well) smaller squads. There's not tonnes than can be done about squad size but we do need to be realistic that the money being chucked around English rugby isn't sustainable. Maybe at a later date once the effects of covid and the loans are dealt with it will be different, but I simply don't understand why rugby as a business cannot grasp that the lifestyles of the current crop of players cannot be sustained on League One crowds.

The solution is inelegant as the Welsh are finding. English rugby can soften the blow by virtue of the fact that a few England caps makes someone a wealthy man, but I suspect that some sort of central contracting to ensure the top 40ish English players stay in England will be necessary.

Leicester needing what is to all intents and purposes an emergency share issue has to be a canary in the coal mine (I imagine though their situation is slightly complicated by the investment they have put into WR and a short term cash flow issue given the bunching of home games they have to come), no doubt though Sweeney et al are still asleep at the wheel.

[sockwithaticket]

Wonder how many clubs are ruing the 27% stake they handed over to CVC. As cash strapped as they all seem to be, that's a decent chunk of revenue to be missing.

[SaintK]

A little more detail on Tigers financial position

Although it is understood that the threat of administration is still some way off, the shareholders' circular suggested, were this proposal not to be approved, that the club's "directors believe that they may have no choice but to appoint administrators" which could see Leicester "expelled from all competitions, including the Premiership".

Spoilered for length

Spoiler

Show

Leicester Tigers have announced that two current board members will invest £13 million into the club in order to avoid the need for "urgent alternative funding" and the possibility of administration.

The shared subscription, which still requires approval from the club's other shareholders at a meeting on Mar 3, would come from Tom Scott – who currently owns a controlling stake in the Tigers – and Peter Tom, Leicester's long-standing chairman. The former would fund up to £10 million with the latter expected to fund £3 million.

While the size of the investment, in a season which has already seen two Premiership teams – Worcester and Wasps – go to the wall, would be welcomed by fans of Leicester and English rugby, its necessity only stands to further highlight the precariousness of clubs' finances.

The Tigers, the biggest and best supported club in England, have seen their revenues battered by a post-Covid landscape and a reorganised fixture list. Leicester were due to face Wasps and Worcester on consecutive weekends in October, but neither of those fixtures took place, depriving the East Midlands club of around £700,000.

In a circular sent to shareholders regarding Scott and Tom's shared subscription, chief executive Andrea Pinchen added that Leicester "may well breach its [£4m] overdraft limit with HSBC during the first quarter of 2023". Repayments for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's Covid-19 winter survival loan programme also begin in September, at an annual cost of approximately £863,000 plus interest on a loan of £6.9m.

There is an expectation within Welford Road that significant funds will be recouped before the end of this season – as things stand, only two of Leicester's eight remaining matches are away from home – but the current situation has left the Tigers "facing a deteriorating financial position which is expected to lead to a cash squeeze" in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.

Although it is understood that the threat of administration is still some way off, the shareholders' circular suggested, were this proposal not to be approved, that the club's "directors believe that they may have no choice but to appoint administrators" which could see Leicester "expelled from all competitions, including the Premiership".

"The board believes that the subscription is essential to secure the company’s financial position and to enable the survival and future success of Leicester Tigers," read the circular. "If the resolutions are not passed then the proceeds of the subscription will not be received by the company and the board would have to find urgent alternative funding. There is no guarantee that such alternative funding will be available or on terms deemed to be acceptable either to the directors or to the company’s creditors.

"Given the company’s current and anticipated working capital requirements, the directors believe that should the resolutions not be passed they may have no choice but to appoint administrators. This will not only negatively impact shareholders but the directors believe that Leicester Tigers could, as a consequence, be expelled from all competitions, including the Premiership, and so the subscription is vitally important to the future of the club."

The circular confirmed – as revealed by Telegraph Sport – that Leicester had received a financial settlement for the release of head coach Steve Borthwick and defence coach Kevin Sinfield when the Rugby Football Union approached the Tigers in December, but that those funds are being ring-fenced to hire the duo's replacements. Regardless, the circular states, the RFU's approach has caused the East Midlands club "significant disruption" which could have "financial implications should on-field performances suffer".

"In December 2022, the club agreed to release Steve Borthwick and Kevin Sinfield from their contracts to join England rugby and appointed Richard Wigglesworth as interim head coach," it added. "Whilst a financial settlement for their release was agreed with the RFU, it is expected that most of that settlement will be used for hiring replacements, which if employed from outside the existing coaching team, will potentially require contracts to be bought out.

"The departure of both coaches has caused significant disruption to the club and whilst the board has every confidence in the interim coaching team, there may be financial implications should on-field performance suffer."

If the share subscription proposal is accepted by shareholders on Mar 3, then the DCMS would also have to give its approval. Leicester would receive £8.3 million initially – £5 million from Scott and £3 million from Tom –with a further £4.7 million of Scott's money being made available to be called upon, if required, from June 2023 onwards.

The result would see Scott’s shareholding increase from 45.32 to 59.25 per cent initially, and up to 71.42 per cent if the further amount is called upon. Tom’s position would increase from 8.6 to 29.30 per cent initially, then could fall back down to 20.55 per cent. In any event, the duo's controlling stake of the club would increase from around 50 per cent to over 90 per cent should the proposal be received favourably by shareholders.

"We're very grateful that Peter and Tom are looking to extend their investment in Tigers," said Pinchen.

"The club is suffering some very challenging conditions from factors mostly outside of our control. Their decision to invest at this time will give the club the financial assurance to execute the club's strategy of continued success and financial sustainability."

Leicester were put up for sale in June 2019, with a price tag in excess of £50m.

[Random1]

Couple of press conferences where the scrum has taken front and centre.

Piece in the guardian where mako describes the shock at being outed as the worst scrum in the world (only a slight exaggeration!)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... o-vunipola

To be fair to the coaching team, if they’re having to deal with such performance deficits, then it’s gonna be a while before they start working on any flashy things like attacking.

[pjm1]

In the old days it was easy to identify the intelligent players, they were the ones who flew through their Land Economy courses at Oxford.

They'd have to be utterly brilliant to do that, given it was a course at Cambridge not Oxford!

Ha ha. Was going to say the same thing. I think the polytechnic in the west had PPE as their (inferior) version.

[Prembore]

In the old days it was easy to identify the intelligent players, they were the ones who flew through their Land Economy courses at Oxford.

They'd have to be utterly brilliant to do that, given it was a course at Cambridge not Oxford!

Doh

I flunked

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Wonder how many clubs are ruing the 27% stake they handed over to CVC. As cash strapped as they all seem to be, that's a decent chunk of revenue to be missing.

The truly worrying part is just how many involved in sport seem to believe the still plentiful reports by various people in the industry and/or potential investors that sport across the board is only just tapping the surface of possible revenue generation. And thus a deal with the likes of CVC might again, and again, be seen as providing long term benefits (though some I'm sure are just desperate for the cash and are happy to find any shelter in a storm)

[Paddington Bear]

Should be an interesting game at Franklin’s Gardens, Tuilagi, Curry (T), Ford and Quirke all playing as well so plenty of England implications