The Official English Rugby Thread

[Torquemada 1420]

The cap and the academy catchments are intended to keep things at a relatively even tilt, but of course that only goes so far - and you'll still get teams with wealthy backers gravitating for the cap to be raised.

We don't want a situation like football, with haves and have nots, noting that many haves are not really there by merit or design (Man City and Chelsea, for example). It's boring, for one thing, and it's also ultimately far more precarious. For every Chelsea there's a half-dozen clubs ruined by overly ambitious owners who either asset strip, lose interest, lose their money or just fuck it up.

Still, as many have said, I think the club rugby is good - and no real idea why you state it's a level of capability down. There are a few club sides - Leinster in particular - tearing it up at the minute but that's not always the case. The death of English club rugby seems very greatly exaggerated.

I wish we could go for fan ownership under a not-for-profit arrangement, to keep money in the game just to money raised by the game - but that was never really going to fly, even at the birth of professionalism, and it's definitely a no-go now.

Ideally I agree but sport is a business world now and so the ability to restrict success directly from the cheque book (or unrepaid loan) seems severely limited. Money is merit these days. If success was based on per £ spent, Luton Town would be the top of the Prem by a mile. Instead, they might squeak promotion and then would lose every game next season because the cost of their entire squad is less than pretty much the price of every single Prem transfer player.

Because it is a "capability" down. It feels a shade less physical and a shade slower. And I think that's reflected by what's happened in Europe in recent seasons in terms of results. I also think death is/was closer than anyone's been prepared to admit (financially) even after Wasps/Wuss. If anything, it feels like a bit of any more bad news being so damaging, the other clubs still in a hole are being ignored from too close scrutiny.

Last line: yeah. No chance that was ever going to fly. Even in England where it's a "toffs" game and so per capita, the fans will have the largest pockets in the world by some margin.

[JM2K6]

No disagreement it's in trouble now. A combination of a salaries arms race driven by a couple of big backers plus CVC's influence meant sustainable losses / the drive towards breaking even became an impossibility if sides wanted to compete; Covid was then a hammer blow that mortally wounded clubs and badly damaged many others.

Compete with whom?

There needs to be a realisation/acceptance, across rugby that there will be haves and have nots. Pompey can't compete with Southampton. Southampton can't compete with Man City. Man City can't compete (ish) with Real Madrid. Football gets it to some degree in some places. Even an internal arms race (domestic league level) is simply a fact of life (cheating Sarries or City or not). Brive will always yo-yo between Pro 2 and Elite 1 and, in fact, are more likely to go the other way or, at least, remain rooted in Pro 2.

The Prem as a viewing spectacle has been great this year and far more enjoyable (mostly) than T14. And the fact that it always felt like watching a level down in terms of absolute capability doesn't alter that**. I'd rather watch NPC over Soup any time.
** Yes, that may reflect at intl level but Celtic routinely struggles against the likes of Dukla Prague and Scotland can't beat Peru reserves because that's the way it is.

What is not possible is to have a league where every side has a tilt at top dog unless you invoke rebalances like the draft. What might actually be impossible is competing at intl club level and/or intl team level (one does not necessarily lead to the other).

With the current resources available (because crowds aren't materially increasing), what does England want? A healthy, viable domestic league or a tilt at European kings? Because IMHO the former is possible at present if the latter is foregone but pursuit of the latter is going to result in a failure of both.

Compete with each other.

Sport doesn't need to be a financial arms race. Rugby is not football. Apart from the insanity of holding up one of the most ridiculous sports on the planet as being an example of how inequality is a fact of life in sport, a sport that no-one should be looking to for inspiration, the issue is that rugby in this country cannot survive with haves and have-nots because it is not popular enough a sport to survive. Clubs aren't going to get Sunderland-level attendances and football-level TV deals. No-one is going to buy London Irish shirts in Japan. Football and rugby operate in entirely different worlds and the relationship with the fans is completely different. It's taken a huge amount of work to double attendances and viewing figures and it's still a small percentage of what mediocre football clubs achieve, with no fear for those clubs that the fans will walk away or new fans might not appear. It was a huge amount of work to make top level English club rugby an actually good & attractive professional spectator sport with enough fans and income to aim for a better financial future. It was badly damaged in the space of a few years. The gains in terms of supporters are equally at risk.

But more importantly, all you're saying here is to let the sides with backers who have an order of magnitude more money to spend actually spend that money. That doesn't improve the health of the sport one bit. None of these sides are financially "viable" in your eyes. They just have sugar daddies with much deeper pockets. You say that a haves-and-have-nots situation should be accepted. But everyone is a have-not. Letting a handful of sides set money on fire in vast quantities is going to damage the other sides, who are already at risk. Fuck that. Where's the benefit to anyone who isn't one of the tiny number of people who are either fans of the clubs in question or employed by them?

[inactionman]

The cap and the academy catchments are intended to keep things at a relatively even tilt, but of course that only goes so far - and you'll still get teams with wealthy backers gravitating for the cap to be raised.

We don't want a situation like football, with haves and have nots, noting that many haves are not really there by merit or design (Man City and Chelsea, for example). It's boring, for one thing, and it's also ultimately far more precarious. For every Chelsea there's a half-dozen clubs ruined by overly ambitious owners who either asset strip, lose interest, lose their money or just fuck it up.

Still, as many have said, I think the club rugby is good - and no real idea why you state it's a level of capability down. There are a few club sides - Leinster in particular - tearing it up at the minute but that's not always the case. The death of English club rugby seems very greatly exaggerated.

I wish we could go for fan ownership under a not-for-profit arrangement, to keep money in the game just to money raised by the game - but that was never really going to fly, even at the birth of professionalism, and it's definitely a no-go now.

Ideally I agree but sport is a business world now and so the ability to restrict success directly from the cheque book (or unrepaid loan) seems severely limited. Money is merit these days. If success was based on per £ spent, Luton Town would be the top of the Prem by a mile. Instead, they might squeak promotion and then would lose every game next season because the cost of their entire squad is less than pretty much the price of every single Prem transfer player.

Because it is a "capability" down. It feels a shade less physical and a shade slower. And I think that's reflected by what's happened in Europe in recent seasons in terms of results. I also think death is/was closer than anyone's been prepared to admit (financially) even after Wasps/Wuss. If anything, it feels like a bit of any more bad news being so damaging, the other clubs still in a hole are being ignored from too close scrutiny.

Last line: yeah. No chance that was ever going to fly. Even in England where it's a "toffs" game and so per capita, the fans will have the largest pockets in the world by some margin.

Football has never had a salary cap, has never had any regulations around national team selection and - in England - the Premier League is a separate entity to the governing body, the FA. It's no real surprise that any control over finances has been completely lost - although not helped by a meaningless and utterly unfit for purpose fitness for purpose test.

Rugby really wants to avoid this fate, and its fate is currently - to a greater or lesser extent - in its own hands. (Sadly, for England, anyway, that means it's in the RFU's arthritic, shaky hands)

Still can't see this wild capability gap - some Irish and French clubs are in very good nick, but I've been subjected to a fair few dross matches in those leagues. Not quite sure I go with your 'feelings' on this. Sorry. If anything, it feels like the national side and the top teams in England are at the bottom of a cycle and I think people are reading far, far too much into it.

[JM2K6]

The Telegraph has a take on this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... to-fix-it/

Lots of talk about how losing players to England is a huge problem. I agree and it's always been an insane part of things. But no-one wants to talk about the actual fix there: a sane international schedule and a sane league schedule. It absolutely should be possible for England players to play every game for their club and be available for every England game and training camp. Furthermore, it should also be something that is not detrimental to the club or the player's health.

That cannot be an impossible predicament to solve.

[inactionman]

The Telegraph has a take on this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... to-fix-it/

Lots of talk about how losing players to England is a huge problem. I agree and it's always been an insane part of things. But no-one wants to talk about the actual fix there: a sane international schedule and a sane league schedule. It absolutely should be possible for England players to play every game for their club and be available for every England game and training camp. Furthermore, it should also be something that is not detrimental to the club or the player's health.

That cannot be an impossible predicament to solve.

I'd think it's a perfectly straightforward issue to solve - if we can align the incentives for each of the involved parties. One sticking point is that the international window is, well, international, which makes any changes painful.

Toga made a recent point about Sarries being hammered by England call-ups, and I have every sympathy with that complaint which is reflected in the article you've linked to. That's within the gift of the RFU and the clubs to sort. It needs sorting.

[JM2K6]

The Telegraph has a take on this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union ... to-fix-it/

Lots of talk about how losing players to England is a huge problem. I agree and it's always been an insane part of things. But no-one wants to talk about the actual fix there: a sane international schedule and a sane league schedule. It absolutely should be possible for England players to play every game for their club and be available for every England game and training camp. Furthermore, it should also be something that is not detrimental to the club or the player's health.

That cannot be an impossible predicament to solve.

I'd think it's a perfectly straightforward issue to solve - if we can align the incentives for each of the involved parties. One sticking point is that the international window is, well, international, which makes any changes painful.

Toga made a recent point about Sarries being hammered by England call-ups, and I have every sympathy with that complaint which is reflected in the article you've linked to. That's within the gift of the RFU and the clubs to sort. It needs sorting.

Plus it warps the league anyway. Having your players be available or not for a big game at the whim of the England coaches / RFU is not a good way to run things.

[Torquemada 1420]

Compete with each other.

Sport doesn't need to be a financial arms race. Rugby is not football. Apart from the insanity of holding up one of the most ridiculous sports on the planet as being an example of how inequality is a fact of life in sport, a sport that no-one should be looking to for inspiration, the issue is that rugby in this country cannot survive with haves and have-nots because it is not popular enough a sport to survive. Clubs aren't going to get Sunderland-level attendances and football-level TV deals. No-one is going to buy London Irish shirts in Japan. Football and rugby operate in entirely different worlds and the relationship with the fans is completely different. It's taken a huge amount of work to double attendances and viewing figures and it's still a small percentage of what mediocre football clubs achieve, with no fear for those clubs that the fans will walk away or new fans might not appear. It was a huge amount of work to make top level English club rugby an actually good & attractive professional spectator sport with enough fans and income to aim for a better financial future. It was badly damaged in the space of a few years. The gains in terms of supporters are equally at risk.

But more importantly, all you're saying here is to let the sides with backers who have an order of magnitude more money to spend actually spend that money. That doesn't improve the health of the sport one bit. None of these sides are financially "viable" in your eyes. They just have sugar daddies with much deeper pockets. You say that a haves-and-have-nots situation should be accepted. But everyone is a have-not. Letting a handful of sides set money on fire in vast quantities is going to damage the other sides, who are already at risk. Fuck that. Where's the benefit to anyone who isn't one of the tiny number of people who are either fans of the clubs in question or employed by them?

What sport needs to be and what sport is is pretty much diametrically opposite. The greater the money involved, the worse it is. Football, Olympics, all motorsport, cycling, cricket............... Football might be the most ridiculous in absolute $ terms but the rest are mini-me copies. Name me a major team sport that hasn't been wrecked by professionalism.

And you really are misreading what I wrote or putting words into my mouth! I absolutely do not condone the money=merit model. I am just saying that is what it is and always will be in professional sport without some very serious, workable intervention (the draft being an example). Workable because the salary cap didn't work. What I am saying is do not try to compete with those who clearly have deeper pockets than you. You'll lose (you ever read the story of Kerry Packer at Monte Carlo?).

[Torquemada 1420]

I'd think it's a perfectly straightforward issue to solve - if we can align the incentives for each of the involved parties. One sticking point is that the international window is, well, international, which makes any changes painful.

Toga made a recent point about Sarries being hammered by England call-ups, and I have every sympathy with that complaint which is reflected in the article you've linked to. That's within the gift of the RFU and the clubs to sort. It needs sorting.

Toulouse will argue they've been hammered by that for very much longer than Sarries. The only solutions are
- have no internationals in your squad
- convince the f**kwits running the game that there is too much rugby being played

[JM2K6]

Compete with each other.

Sport doesn't need to be a financial arms race. Rugby is not football. Apart from the insanity of holding up one of the most ridiculous sports on the planet as being an example of how inequality is a fact of life in sport, a sport that no-one should be looking to for inspiration, the issue is that rugby in this country cannot survive with haves and have-nots because it is not popular enough a sport to survive. Clubs aren't going to get Sunderland-level attendances and football-level TV deals. No-one is going to buy London Irish shirts in Japan. Football and rugby operate in entirely different worlds and the relationship with the fans is completely different. It's taken a huge amount of work to double attendances and viewing figures and it's still a small percentage of what mediocre football clubs achieve, with no fear for those clubs that the fans will walk away or new fans might not appear. It was a huge amount of work to make top level English club rugby an actually good & attractive professional spectator sport with enough fans and income to aim for a better financial future. It was badly damaged in the space of a few years. The gains in terms of supporters are equally at risk.

But more importantly, all you're saying here is to let the sides with backers who have an order of magnitude more money to spend actually spend that money. That doesn't improve the health of the sport one bit. None of these sides are financially "viable" in your eyes. They just have sugar daddies with much deeper pockets. You say that a haves-and-have-nots situation should be accepted. But everyone is a have-not. Letting a handful of sides set money on fire in vast quantities is going to damage the other sides, who are already at risk. Fuck that. Where's the benefit to anyone who isn't one of the tiny number of people who are either fans of the clubs in question or employed by them?

What sport needs to be and what sport is is pretty much diametrically opposite. The greater the money involved, the worse it is. Football, Olympics, all motorsport, cycling, cricket............... Football might be the most ridiculous in absolute $ terms but the rest are mini-me copies. Name me a major team sport that hasn't been wrecked by professionalism.

And you really are misreading what I wrote or putting words into my mouth! I absolutely do not condone the money=merit model. I am just saying that is what it is and always will be in professional sport without some very serious, workable intervention (the draft being an example). Workable because the salary cap didn't work. What I am saying is do not try to compete with those who clearly have deeper pockets than you. You'll lose (you ever read the story of Kerry Packer at Monte Carlo?).

If English Premiership clubs do not try and compete with those in the league who can spend more money they are at huge risk of going bust, and they do not have such dedicated fanbases that they'd keep the majority of those around if they dropped down a league / became perennial cannon-fodder.

The salary cap worked until it was deliberately busted and raised too high with too many ways round it, and until Covid stuck a massive hole in everyone's finances. The salary cap worked because we had a good, competitive league where teams were working towards financial stability and at the same time starting to produce a much higher quality of player.

Cricket is still pretty merit-based. Surrey might have more money than Derbyshire but the level of inequality in county cricket is nothing like that in the Premiership, and especially in the shorter forms of the game where the fanbase is, it's a very competitive setup. Football is an absolute joke, obviously, and every effort should be made to do the opposite of what football does.

Note that I do not actually give a shit about competing in Europe. The argument in favour of removing / massively increasing the cap always centres on European competition. English clubs do not have municipal stadia or the sheer number of pro sides with big fanbases and huge local community involvement. It is a mug's game trying to compete financially.

[inactionman]

Compete with each other.

Sport doesn't need to be a financial arms race. Rugby is not football. Apart from the insanity of holding up one of the most ridiculous sports on the planet as being an example of how inequality is a fact of life in sport, a sport that no-one should be looking to for inspiration, the issue is that rugby in this country cannot survive with haves and have-nots because it is not popular enough a sport to survive. Clubs aren't going to get Sunderland-level attendances and football-level TV deals. No-one is going to buy London Irish shirts in Japan. Football and rugby operate in entirely different worlds and the relationship with the fans is completely different. It's taken a huge amount of work to double attendances and viewing figures and it's still a small percentage of what mediocre football clubs achieve, with no fear for those clubs that the fans will walk away or new fans might not appear. It was a huge amount of work to make top level English club rugby an actually good & attractive professional spectator sport with enough fans and income to aim for a better financial future. It was badly damaged in the space of a few years. The gains in terms of supporters are equally at risk.

But more importantly, all you're saying here is to let the sides with backers who have an order of magnitude more money to spend actually spend that money. That doesn't improve the health of the sport one bit. None of these sides are financially "viable" in your eyes. They just have sugar daddies with much deeper pockets. You say that a haves-and-have-nots situation should be accepted. But everyone is a have-not. Letting a handful of sides set money on fire in vast quantities is going to damage the other sides, who are already at risk. Fuck that. Where's the benefit to anyone who isn't one of the tiny number of people who are either fans of the clubs in question or employed by them?

What sport needs to be and what sport is is pretty much diametrically opposite. The greater the money involved, the worse it is. Football, Olympics, all motorsport, cycling, cricket............... Football might be the most ridiculous in absolute $ terms but the rest are mini-me copies. Name me a major team sport that hasn't been wrecked by professionalism.

And you really are misreading what I wrote or putting words into my mouth! I absolutely do not condone the money=merit model. I am just saying that is what it is and always will be in professional sport without some very serious, workable intervention (the draft being an example). Workable because the salary cap didn't work. What I am saying is do not try to compete with those who clearly have deeper pockets than you. You'll lose (you ever read the story of Kerry Packer at Monte Carlo?).

If English Premiership clubs do not try and compete with those in the league who can spend more money they are at huge risk of going bust, and they do not have such dedicated fanbases that they'd keep the majority of those around if they dropped down a league / became perennial cannon-fodder.

The salary cap worked until it was deliberately busted and raised too high with too many ways round it, and until Covid stuck a massive hole in everyone's finances. The salary cap worked because we had a good, competitive league where teams were working towards financial stability and at the same time starting to produce a much higher quality of player.

Cricket is still pretty merit-based. Surrey might have more money than Derbyshire but the level of inequality in county cricket is nothing like that in the Premiership, and especially in the shorter forms of the game where the fanbase is, it's a very competitive setup. Football is an absolute joke, obviously, and every effort should be made to do the opposite of what football does.

Note that I do not actually give a shit about competing in Europe. The argument in favour of removing / massively increasing the cap always centres on European competition. English clubs do not have municipal stadia or the sheer number of pro sides with big fanbases and huge local community involvement. It is a mug's game trying to compete financially.

I'm not trying to caveat or speak on your behalf, but I'd probably phrase it more that I would not compromise, hobble or otherwise damage English club rugby simply for a perceived benefit in Europe.

Matches like Bath-Gloucester are the heartbeat of the club game, much as I enjoy playing the likes of Leinster and Toulouse there's just not quite the rivalry and excitement of it.

[inactionman]

Jesus.

The Rugby Football Union has banned a distinguished former council member from Twickenham for making racist comments during a Six Nations match last year. Alex Murphy has also been stripped of his “distinguished” status and had his privileges removed.

The incident took place in the RFU council box during England’s victory over Wales in February 2022. A summary of the decision, seen by the Guardian, explains how Murphy was charged with saying to another volunteer “you realise they don’t let n****** in the Royal Box”. The summary does not name the “volunteer” but details how a similar remark was made near the bar and how their spouse was distressed by the comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ions-match

To be frank, there are a fair few blazers we need to ship on/out/through the window.

[JM2K6]

What sport needs to be and what sport is is pretty much diametrically opposite. The greater the money involved, the worse it is. Football, Olympics, all motorsport, cycling, cricket............... Football might be the most ridiculous in absolute $ terms but the rest are mini-me copies. Name me a major team sport that hasn't been wrecked by professionalism.

And you really are misreading what I wrote or putting words into my mouth! I absolutely do not condone the money=merit model. I am just saying that is what it is and always will be in professional sport without some very serious, workable intervention (the draft being an example). Workable because the salary cap didn't work. What I am saying is do not try to compete with those who clearly have deeper pockets than you. You'll lose (you ever read the story of Kerry Packer at Monte Carlo?).

If English Premiership clubs do not try and compete with those in the league who can spend more money they are at huge risk of going bust, and they do not have such dedicated fanbases that they'd keep the majority of those around if they dropped down a league / became perennial cannon-fodder.

The salary cap worked until it was deliberately busted and raised too high with too many ways round it, and until Covid stuck a massive hole in everyone's finances. The salary cap worked because we had a good, competitive league where teams were working towards financial stability and at the same time starting to produce a much higher quality of player.

Cricket is still pretty merit-based. Surrey might have more money than Derbyshire but the level of inequality in county cricket is nothing like that in the Premiership, and especially in the shorter forms of the game where the fanbase is, it's a very competitive setup. Football is an absolute joke, obviously, and every effort should be made to do the opposite of what football does.

Note that I do not actually give a shit about competing in Europe. The argument in favour of removing / massively increasing the cap always centres on European competition. English clubs do not have municipal stadia or the sheer number of pro sides with big fanbases and huge local community involvement. It is a mug's game trying to compete financially.

I'm not trying to caveat or speak on your behalf, but I'd probably phrase it more that I would not compromise, hobble or otherwise damage English club rugby simply for a perceived benefit in Europe.

Matches like Bath-Gloucester are the heartbeat of the club game, much as I enjoy playing the likes of Leinster and Toulouse there's just not quite the rivalry and excitement of it.

Yup - basically I recognise it's a wildly uneven playing field and making changes to our domestic game in order to compete more in Europe would be irresponsible and stupid. We've benefited in the past from the uneven playing field and we're suffering a bit now. So be it. It's not a great tournament in my eyes and it comes a distant 4th in importance to me behind the Premiership, international rugby, and any sort of development competition.

[SaintK]

Jesus.

The Rugby Football Union has banned a distinguished former council member from Twickenham for making racist comments during a Six Nations match last year. Alex Murphy has also been stripped of his “distinguished” status and had his privileges removed.

The incident took place in the RFU council box during England’s victory over Wales in February 2022. A summary of the decision, seen by the Guardian, explains how Murphy was charged with saying to another volunteer “you realise they don’t let n****** in the Royal Box”. The summary does not name the “volunteer” but details how a similar remark was made near the bar and how their spouse was distressed by the comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ions-match

To be frank, there are a fair few blazers we need to ship on/out/through the window.

I wonder if he would have said that to Kyle Sinckler or Ellis Genge?
Why do these pricks still get "perks and privileges" even after they've retired?

[Torquemada 1420]

Football has never had a salary cap, has never had any regulations around national team selection and - in England - the Premier League is a separate entity to the governing body, the FA. It's no real surprise that any control over finances has been completely lost - although not helped by a meaningless and utterly unfit for purpose fitness for purpose test.

Rugby really wants to avoid this fate, and its fate is currently - to a greater or lesser extent - in its own hands. (Sadly, for England, anyway, that means it's in the RFU's arthritic, shaky hands)

Still can't see this wild capability gap - some Irish and French clubs are in very good nick, but I've been subjected to a fair few dross matches in those leagues. Not quite sure I go with your 'feelings' on this. Sorry. If anything, it feels like the national side and the top teams in England are at the bottom of a cycle and I think people are reading far, far too much into it.

Not relevant but actually One and Two had caps for a while until quite recently. Otherwise Wrexham would still be the arse end of Wales only. And there was a cap for all until 1961 (I think).

You are mixing up quality and entertainment over effectiveness. T14 is mostly dross matches which I've already acknowledged cw Prem (esp this season). And concede it might just be a cycle but it looks like a conflux of issues
- clubs going bust and it's the financial viability of the piece that I think is the biggest worry
- drop off in European club comps
- struggling ntl side (but, again, I don't necessarily draw a line between club and country)
- Under 20s looked the worst crop I can recall

[inactionman]

Football has never had a salary cap, has never had any regulations around national team selection and - in England - the Premier League is a separate entity to the governing body, the FA. It's no real surprise that any control over finances has been completely lost - although not helped by a meaningless and utterly unfit for purpose fitness for purpose test.

Rugby really wants to avoid this fate, and its fate is currently - to a greater or lesser extent - in its own hands. (Sadly, for England, anyway, that means it's in the RFU's arthritic, shaky hands)

Still can't see this wild capability gap - some Irish and French clubs are in very good nick, but I've been subjected to a fair few dross matches in those leagues. Not quite sure I go with your 'feelings' on this. Sorry. If anything, it feels like the national side and the top teams in England are at the bottom of a cycle and I think people are reading far, far too much into it.

Not relevant but actually One and Two had caps for a while until quite recently. Otherwise Wrexham would still be the arse end of Wales only. And there was a cap for all until 1961 (I think).

You are mixing up quality and entertainment over effectiveness. T14 is mostly dross matches which I've already acknowledged cw Prem (esp this season). And concede it might just be a cycle but it looks like a conflux of issues
- clubs going bust and it's the financial viability of the piece that I think is the biggest worry
- drop off in European club comps
- struggling ntl side (but, again, I don't necessarily draw a line between club and country)
- Under 20s looked the worst crop I can recall

I'm really not mixing anything up. The quality of many URC and Top14 games has been poor. The quality of a number has been excellent. Just like the English premiership.

The underlying issues in England are of finance and the never-ending tension between national team and club commitments - which impacts just about every aspect of player pathway, career and performance. The travails of the national team have been analysed to death, and it will take a while to pick up the pieces and adjust to a new coaching team and ethos - but note that France were in the doldrums a few years back, and Galthie has done a lot of good work in improving relations between club and country which are one part of a notable improvement in national team performance. This is an important observation for England, as France is the only other top tier rugby nation that I can think of to have clubs as private ventures. Jones was actively antagonistic to the clubs, which helped no-one.

[Torquemada 1420]

If English Premiership clubs do not try and compete with those in the league who can spend more money they are at huge risk of going bust, and they do not have such dedicated fanbases that they'd keep the majority of those around if they dropped down a league / became perennial cannon-fodder.

The salary cap worked until it was deliberately busted and raised too high with too many ways round it, and until Covid stuck a massive hole in everyone's finances. The salary cap worked because we had a good, competitive league where teams were working towards financial stability and at the same time starting to produce a much higher quality of player.

Cricket is still pretty merit-based. Surrey might have more money than Derbyshire but the level of inequality in county cricket is nothing like that in the Premiership, and especially in the shorter forms of the game where the fanbase is, it's a very competitive setup. Football is an absolute joke, obviously, and every effort should be made to do the opposite of what football does.

Note that I do not actually give a shit about competing in Europe. The argument in favour of removing / massively increasing the cap always centres on European competition. English clubs do not have municipal stadia or the sheer number of pro sides with big fanbases and huge local community involvement. It is a mug's game trying to compete financially.

I actually think that the fanbases have become increasingly a sideshow in Prem Football budgets. The money comes from the oligarchs and if it buys success, the "fans" turn up. Relegation is a disaster because of the enormous gulf in funding between the 2 leagues and not because of any fan drop off.

You might be right that if there had been no COVID, post Sarries it might have all worked. We'll never know.

Like you, I don't care about competing in Europe (any longer anyway since they ruined the comp) and the majority of Fre fans still feel that way. It absolutely is not worth breaking your club or domestic league over and you are spot on that English clubs cannot compete against the budgets hence my Man City v Real example earlier.

[Torquemada 1420]

I'm really not mixing anything up. The quality of many URC and Top14 games has been poor. The quality of a number has been excellent. Just like the English premiership.

The underlying issues in England are of finance and the never-ending tension between national team and club commitments - which impacts just about every aspect of player pathway, career and performance. The travails of the national team have been analysed to death, and it will take a while to pick up the pieces and adjust to a new coaching team and ethos - but note that France were in the doldrums a few years back, and Galthie has done a lot of good work in improving relations between club and country which are one part of a notable improvement in national team performance. This is an important observation for England, as France is the only other top tier rugby nation that I can think of to have clubs as private ventures. Jones was actively antagonistic to the clubs, which helped no-one.

Yes. You are. T14 and URC has been way below GP in terms of entertainment but in terms of effectiveness, Eng clubs have been bummed by both the other comps for the last few seasons. That's the effectiveness bit. Of course, if you take JM's (reasonable) argument of not caring a stuff about Europe (and not attempting too either), then that does not matter. Mind you, it;s kinda funny because the Fre clubs took sh*t from all and sundry forever for adopting that stance.

The parallel with France doesn't work really. The reason France has become far more effective at intl level is down to
- the grains of professionalism finally working through the mindset of French players: fitness, discipline, diet, skills training. In no small part to non French coaches.
- JIFF. Crushing the number of foreign players that could be fielded. That has had a massive knock on in developing young players by bringing them into game time early. Maybe if T14 was not so long, that might not
have happened.
- the class shift. Different class division in France to England. In France, it's taken an age to get the poor from the banlieues involved but the number of black and other ethnic players has been on a big upward trajectory which has eclipsed the drop
off in heartland participation.

I don't think the relationship between club and country is rosy but country now has players who don't need to be reconditioned as soon as they arrive at Marcoussis. What Galthie has managed to do it largely pick the right players which seemed beyond the previous coaches abilities stretching back to Laporte.

[Torquemada 1420]

Yup - basically I recognise it's a wildly uneven playing field and making changes to our domestic game in order to compete more in Europe would be irresponsible and stupid. We've benefited in the past from the uneven playing field and we're suffering a bit now. So be it. It's not a great tournament in my eyes and it comes a distant 4th in importance to me behind the Premiership, international rugby, and any sort of development competition.

100% this for me. And why, for so long, many Fre clubs paid lip service to Europe (and still do).

Club, Ux, intl and intl womens. I couldn't be arsed to go to any Euro games this year. The comp now is a sh*te format.

[inactionman]

I'm really not mixing anything up. The quality of many URC and Top14 games has been poor. The quality of a number has been excellent. Just like the English premiership.

The underlying issues in England are of finance and the never-ending tension between national team and club commitments - which impacts just about every aspect of player pathway, career and performance. The travails of the national team have been analysed to death, and it will take a while to pick up the pieces and adjust to a new coaching team and ethos - but note that France were in the doldrums a few years back, and Galthie has done a lot of good work in improving relations between club and country which are one part of a notable improvement in national team performance. This is an important observation for England, as France is the only other top tier rugby nation that I can think of to have clubs as private ventures. Jones was actively antagonistic to the clubs, which helped no-one.

Yes. You are. T14 and URC has been way below GP in terms of entertainment but in terms of effectiveness, Eng clubs have been bummed by both the other comps for the last few seasons. That's the effectiveness bit. Of course, if you take JKM's (reasonable) argument of not caring a stuff about Europe (and not attempting too either), then that does not matter. Mind you, it;s kinda funny because the Fre clubs took sh*t from all and sundry forever for adopting that stance.

The parallel with France doesn't work really. The reason France has become far more effective at intl level is down to
- the grains of professionalism finally working through the mindset of French players: fitness, discipline, diet, skills training. In no small part to non French coaches.
- JIFF. Crushing the number of foreign players that could be fielded. That has had a massive knock on in developing young players by bringing them into game time early. Maybe if T14 was not so long, that might not
have happened.
- the class shift. Different class division in France to England. In France, it's taken an age to get the poor from the banlieues involved but the number of black and other ethnic players has been on a big upward trajectory which has eclipsed the drop
off in heartland participation.

I don't think the relationship between club and country is rosy but country now has players who don't need to be reconditioned as soon as they arrive at Marcoussis. What Galthie has managed to do it largely pick the right players which seemed beyond the previous coaches abilities stretching back to Laporte.

I think extrapolating a few losing knockout matches in European competition to a whole capability gap is stretching things, to put it as mildly as I can.

France have improved a number of things, one of which is a better transition into international rugby for club players. That doesn't happen by chance, and the club coaches deserve a lot of credit, as does Galthie and his team.

[inactionman]

For those with any residual interest, Bath's plans for the Rec Development to be showcased after the Sarries home game on Saturday to season ticket holders then for the general public on the 10th.

I have totally lost track of what is going on, what has been proposed, what has been objected to, what has been counter-proposed, what has actually been approved and generally which way is up. Hard to keep much faith given the era of false dawns.

Plan is for capacity of 18k (currently around 14.5k) and the underground carpark idea has been dropped - probably a good idea given no-one wants their shiny Range Rover to get flooded (I think it was actually binned due to traffic concerns).

I know you're all on edge of seats so I'll post some photos once they're revealed on the club site. Unless the proposal is crap, then I won't bother.

I'm sure you're all still on edge of seats.

Here you go:
https://www.bathrugby.com/stadium-for-bath/?

I have wondered for years why Bath (the city) don't make more of the Avon - there are no bars, cafes etc which open onto the banks of the river. It does flood, but the bars etc don't need to be at water level. The design seems to incorporate that, which is a plus.

[SaintK]

For those with any residual interest, Bath's plans for the Rec Development to be showcased after the Sarries home game on Saturday to season ticket holders then for the general public on the 10th.

I have totally lost track of what is going on, what has been proposed, what has been objected to, what has been counter-proposed, what has actually been approved and generally which way is up. Hard to keep much faith given the era of false dawns.

Plan is for capacity of 18k (currently around 14.5k) and the underground carpark idea has been dropped - probably a good idea given no-one wants their shiny Range Rover to get flooded (I think it was actually binned due to traffic concerns).

I know you're all on edge of seats so I'll post some photos once they're revealed on the club site. Unless the proposal is crap, then I won't bother.

I'm sure you're all still on edge of seats.

Here you go:
https://www.bathrugby.com/stadium-for-bath/?

I have wondered for years why Bath (the city) don't make more of the Avon - there are no bars, cafes etc which open onto the banks of the river. It does flood, but the bars etc don't need to be at water level. The design seems to incorporate that, which is a plus.

Well that's going to look pretty good.

[JM2K6]

As for being bummed by the other leagues, well...

R1
Glaws beat Bordeaux
Exeter beat Castres
Sale humped Ulster
Sarries beat Edinbrgh
Tigers beat Ospreys

R2
Exeter humped the Bulls
Tigers beat Clermont
Saracens beat Lyon
Quins beat Racing92

R3
Tigers humped Clermont
Saracens humped Lyon

R4
Quins beat Sharks
Glaws beat Bordeaux
Exeter humped Castres
Irish drew with Montpellier

Rof16
Tigers beat Edinburgh
Exeter beat Montpellier
Saracens beat Ospreys

QF
Exeter humped Stormers

A few dickings handed out by Premiership clubs, plenty of wins over T14 and URC oppo, and some tight losses alongside some blowouts. Basically unless you're a Leinster, Toulouse, or La Rochelle fan there's not a huge amount to crow about here. London Irish, Saints, and Sale did poorly; Glaws and Quins did OK; Saracens, Exeter, and Tigers won plenty.

Glaws and Quins won 2 each. That's the same as Munster and the Bulls, and better than Lyon, Racing92, Bordeaux, Castres, Montpellier, Clermont, and Ulster. The only non-Premiership sides who did better were Leinster (of course), Sharks (who were well beaten by Quins), Edinburgh (shared spoils with Saracens), Ospreys, Stormers, Toulouse, and La Rochelle. So a couple of super rugby sides, two all-star teams in Leinster and Toulouse, last season's champions La Rochelle, and then Edinburgh and Ospreys having good seasons.

Three English clubs doing well, 2 doing OK, 3 doing poorly. Two of the three got to the QF, one of them got to the SF. Oh no what a bumming.

[Margin__Walker]

We had imposter syndrome in the competition so were charitable enough to concede first half reds in both our home games. Not a glorious reintroduction to HC rugby.

[Torquemada 1420]

Three English clubs doing well, 2 doing OK, 3 doing poorly. Two of the three got to the QF, one of them got to the SF. Oh no what a bumming.

The upshot of all the yada is the best England can currently offer was hammered at the sharp end and bar another display of cheating by Brace, would have seen Exeter bow out before the 1/4s against a side who have won 3 out of 10 in the league. OTTOMH no representatives even made the 1/4s of the Mickey Mouse?

With that level of dressing up disaster, you should consider some PR for the Tories after the local elections.

[Margin__Walker]

Why are you here Torq? I mean it's a free country and all so feel free to stay, but there are few things more tedious that someone dropping into a national thread to conduct a lengthy lecture on where it all went wrong for that nation.

[JM2K6]

Three English clubs doing well, 2 doing OK, 3 doing poorly. Two of the three got to the QF, one of them got to the SF. Oh no what a bumming.

The upshot of all the yada is the best England can currently offer was hammered at the sharp end and bar another display of cheating by Brace, would have seen Exeter bow out before the 1/4s against a side who have won 3 out of 10 in the league. OTTOMH no representatives even made the 1/4s of the Mickey Mouse?

With that level of dressing up disaster, you should consider some PR for the Tories after the local elections.

Ah, it's the referee wot did it.

I guess it's easier than acknowledging the truth.

[Kawazaki]

1. Describe a scenario from the past that didn't happen.
2. Ignore the scenario from the past that did happen.
3. Base your POV on the imagined scenario.
4. Repeat.


Don't feed the idiot.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

1. Describe a scenario from the past that didn't happen.
2. Ignore the scenario from the past that did happen.
3. Base your POV on the imagined scenario.
4. Repeat.


Don't feed the idiot.

My irony meter just exploded.

[SaintK]

Sounds like that night LCD had out in France was exceedingly heavy.

So LCD failed his Montpellier medical because of fused cervical discs in his neck and due to the stringent T14 rules on such things had his contract revoked
No room for him at Exeter anymore and rumours that he may be heading to Sale to replace Ashman!

[inactionman]

Ollie Lawrence is Premiership player of the season - well deserved. There's a vid of his tries in the link below:

https://www.bathrugby.com/club-news/oll ... the-season

Tom Pearson is breakthrough player of season, he's a unit and a half.

[Joost]

Well deserved for Lawrence and finally looked the part for England as well this year, nice for to score the try that clinched 8th against Sarries too.

Re the stadium, the court action over the last few years has been about a set of restrictive covenants that were in the 1922 conveyance, which prevent any development of the Rec that may cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties. Court of appeal ruled that it was unenforceable, as it wasn’t clear who it was intended to benefit and no-one around now can claim the benefit of it. The cranks trying to enforce the covenants tried appealing to the Supreme Court, but were told to f*ck off.

Now that is dealt with, the plans will now go through all the local planning processes. Imagine they will be passed, as pretty much everyone in the city supports the redevelopment, but expect all sorts of challenges/legal action and no doubt eventually someone chaining themselves to a bulldozer because it may divert their morning walk or change the view from their flat of the Avon.

[inactionman]

Well deserved for Lawrence and finally looked the part for England as well this year, nice for to score the try that clinched 8th against Sarries too.

Re the stadium, the court action over the last few years has been about a set of restrictive covenants that were in the 1922 conveyance, which prevent any development of the Rec that may cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties. Court of appeal ruled that it was unenforceable, as it wasn’t clear who it was intended to benefit and no-one around now can claim the benefit of it. The cranks trying to enforce the covenants tried appealing to the Supreme Court, but were told to f*ck off.

Now that is dealt with, the plans will now go through all the local planning processes. Imagine they will be passed, as pretty much everyone in the city supports the redevelopment, but expect all sorts of challenges/legal action and no doubt eventually someone chaining themselves to a bulldozer because it may divert their morning walk or change the view from their flat of the Avon.

How did they get around the charity status (if that is right term) of the land itself?

It was gifted for the benefit of the people of Bath, much as I want the stadium to be developed I can't realistically see how it can be owned by a private venture under those circumstances. There was talk of buying up land on the tops of the hills and essentially swapping those out to be used as village greens, not sure how far that got.

[Joost]

Well deserved for Lawrence and finally looked the part for England as well this year, nice for to score the try that clinched 8th against Sarries too.

Re the stadium, the court action over the last few years has been about a set of restrictive covenants that were in the 1922 conveyance, which prevent any development of the Rec that may cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties. Court of appeal ruled that it was unenforceable, as it wasn’t clear who it was intended to benefit and no-one around now can claim the benefit of it. The cranks trying to enforce the covenants tried appealing to the Supreme Court, but were told to f*ck off.

Now that is dealt with, the plans will now go through all the local planning processes. Imagine they will be passed, as pretty much everyone in the city supports the redevelopment, but expect all sorts of challenges/legal action and no doubt eventually someone chaining themselves to a bulldozer because it may divert their morning walk or change the view from their flat of the Avon.

How did they get around the charity status (if that is right term) of the land itself?

It was gifted for the benefit of the people of Bath, much as I want the stadium to be developed I can't realistically see how it can be owned by a private venture under those circumstances. There was talk of buying up land on the tops of the hills and essentially swapping those out to be used as village greens, not sure how far that got.

It’s owned by Bath Recreation Ltd (a charity), who then leases it to Bath rugby and the owners of the leisure centre next door. Believe as long as the stadium has other appropriate uses that are in-line with BRL’s overarching purpose then it’s ok - hence this being a ‘Stadium for Bath’, rather than the Stuart Hooper Memorial Ground.

This is the blurb from the website:

The Recreation Ground is owned and operated by Bath Recreation Ltd, an independent charity.

Bath Recreation Ltd’s purpose is to provide recreation facilities in or near Bath for the benefit of the public; helping to create opportunities for the local community to lead healthy, active and happy lives. Bath Recreation Ltd leases land at the Recreation Ground to its two anchor tenants - Bath Rugby and Bath Sports and Leisure Centre.

The rent paid by Bath Rugby, is an important income stream for Bath Recreation Ltd which enables it to invest in recreation facilities at the Recreation Ground and across Bath such as the Glasshouse playing fields site in Combe Down and Broadmoor Orchard in Weston.

[inactionman]

Well deserved for Lawrence and finally looked the part for England as well this year, nice for to score the try that clinched 8th against Sarries too.

Re the stadium, the court action over the last few years has been about a set of restrictive covenants that were in the 1922 conveyance, which prevent any development of the Rec that may cause a nuisance to neighbouring properties. Court of appeal ruled that it was unenforceable, as it wasn’t clear who it was intended to benefit and no-one around now can claim the benefit of it. The cranks trying to enforce the covenants tried appealing to the Supreme Court, but were told to f*ck off.

Now that is dealt with, the plans will now go through all the local planning processes. Imagine they will be passed, as pretty much everyone in the city supports the redevelopment, but expect all sorts of challenges/legal action and no doubt eventually someone chaining themselves to a bulldozer because it may divert their morning walk or change the view from their flat of the Avon.

How did they get around the charity status (if that is right term) of the land itself?

It was gifted for the benefit of the people of Bath, much as I want the stadium to be developed I can't realistically see how it can be owned by a private venture under those circumstances. There was talk of buying up land on the tops of the hills and essentially swapping those out to be used as village greens, not sure how far that got.

It’s owned by Bath Recreation Ltd (a charity), who then leases it to Bath rugby and the owners of the leisure centre next door. Believe as long as the stadium has other appropriate uses that are in-line with BRL’s overarching purpose then it’s ok - hence this being a ‘Stadium for Bath’, rather than the Stuart Hooper Memorial Ground.

This is the blurb from the website:

The Recreation Ground is owned and operated by Bath Recreation Ltd, an independent charity.

Bath Recreation Ltd’s purpose is to provide recreation facilities in or near Bath for the benefit of the public; helping to create opportunities for the local community to lead healthy, active and happy lives. Bath Recreation Ltd leases land at the Recreation Ground to its two anchor tenants - Bath Rugby and Bath Sports and Leisure Centre.

The rent paid by Bath Rugby, is an important income stream for Bath Recreation Ltd which enables it to invest in recreation facilities at the Recreation Ground and across Bath such as the Glasshouse playing fields site in Combe Down and Broadmoor Orchard in Weston.

If I understand correctly, Bruce C will therefore fund the stadium but not own it?

[Joost]

Presumably yes, although Bath rugby will no doubt have a very long lease!

[inactionman]

Presumably yes, although Bath rugby will no doubt have a very long lease!

It makes a load more sense - I couldn't see how they'd get around the charity thing, and that would explain it.

I hadn't entertained the thought that Bruce would pony up for a new stadium he'd not own outright, but expect the club would make a decent wedge on entertaining etc if that falls within the remit of the lease.

It looks pretty tidy, I'm sure I'll continue to miss Friday nights on the terraces in TTE but they really need decent facilities.

[Joost]

Presumably yes, although Bath rugby will no doubt have a very long lease!

It makes a load more sense - I couldn't see how they'd get around the charity thing, and that would explain it.

I hadn't entertained the thought that Bruce would pony up for a new stadium he'd not own outright, but expect the club would make a decent wedge on entertaining etc if that falls within the remit of the lease.

It looks pretty tidy, I'm sure I'll continue to miss Friday nights on the terraces in TTE but they really need decent facilities.

Looking forward to a covered East stand on a cold/wet winter evening, that’s for sure!

Whatever you think of Bruce and some of his clashes with other club owners and the RFU, the narrative that he is King Spiv trying to make a buck out of the game is laughable when you look at what he has invested in the club (without much to show for it so far) - hopefully the new stadium ends up being his legacy and sets the club on the way to long-term sustainability.

[JM2K6]

Presumably yes, although Bath rugby will no doubt have a very long lease!

It makes a load more sense - I couldn't see how they'd get around the charity thing, and that would explain it.

I hadn't entertained the thought that Bruce would pony up for a new stadium he'd not own outright, but expect the club would make a decent wedge on entertaining etc if that falls within the remit of the lease.

It looks pretty tidy, I'm sure I'll continue to miss Friday nights on the terraces in TTE but they really need decent facilities.

Looking forward to a covered East stand on a cold/wet winter evening, that’s for sure!

Whatever you think of Bruce and some of his clashes with other club owners and the RFU, the narrative that he is King Spiv trying to make a buck out of the game is laughable when you look at what he has invested in the club (without much to show for it so far) - hopefully the new stadium ends up being his legacy and sets the club on the way to long-term sustainability.

I think the accusation was that it was a big shiny toy to him a la Abramovich & Chelsea - just an ego trip for a guy with a ridiculous amount of money and a desire to leverage that money to his chosen toy's advantage.

[Joost]

I think the accusation was that it was a big shiny toy to him a la Abramovich & Chelsea - just an ego trip for a guy with a ridiculous amount of money and a desire to leverage that money to his chosen toy's advantage.

I think he’s a genuine Bath fan and a rugby man, there have certainly been some questionable indulgences (certain players and Farleigh House) and a lack of a clear strategy on the playing side at times, but stepping aside as chairman and continuing to financially support the club and push forward the Rec redevelopment, despite the myriad issues, shows what he’s really all about.

[JM2K6]

I think the accusation was that it was a big shiny toy to him a la Abramovich & Chelsea - just an ego trip for a guy with a ridiculous amount of money and a desire to leverage that money to his chosen toy's advantage.

I think he’s a genuine Bath fan and a rugby man, there have certainly been some questionable indulgences (certain players and Farleigh House) and a lack of a clear strategy on the playing side at times, but stepping aside as chairman and continuing to financially support the club and push forward the Rec redevelopment, despite the myriad issues, shows what he’s really all about.

Yeah, I think that's probably fair and he's certainly stuck with it through years of gross underperformance. I do think he has been and will continue to be a negative force in the battle to make Premiership rugby sustainable, but that's a different question.