NPR

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:21 pm Also why do we suddenly have a hard on for explaining a disjointed and misfiring attacking performance by saying "oh, having a second distributor was useful in some cases and he took pressure off Smith"? Do we want to take pressure off him? Ford was at his best when he was allowed to run a game. And in case anyone missed it, England have played with at least two distributors for the last 5+ years, often with a third at 13. Was anyone impressed with Farrell and Slade's distribution yesterday? Did it hurt Australia a lot?

Edit: Also, know what else makes space? A 9 who actually worries fringe defences. And one who passes quickly.

Don't tell PR, they think it was sublime flawless rugby and the Farrell Smith axis a masterstroke...must admit i
must have watched a completely different game to the writer

ASMO wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 3:07 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:21 pm Also why do we suddenly have a hard on for explaining a disjointed and misfiring attacking performance by saying "oh, having a second distributor was useful in some cases and he took pressure off Smith"? Do we want to take pressure off him? Ford was at his best when he was allowed to run a game. And in case anyone missed it, England have played with at least two distributors for the last 5+ years, often with a third at 13. Was anyone impressed with Farrell and Slade's distribution yesterday? Did it hurt Australia a lot?

Edit: Also, know what else makes space? A 9 who actually worries fringe defences. And one who passes quickly.

Don't tell PR, they think it was sublime flawless rugby and the Farrell Smith axis a masterstroke...must admit i
must have watched a completely different game to the writer

The writer gets his opinions from Eddie.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:21 pm
Edit: Also, know what else makes space? A 9 who actually worries fringe defences. And one who passes quickly.

At Test level in Tier 1?

Surely the answer is both?

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 3:51 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:21 pm
Edit: Also, know what else makes space? A 9 who actually worries fringe defences. And one who passes quickly.

At Test level in Tier 1?

Surely the answer is both?

Yes, that's the suggestion.

ASMO wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 3:07 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:21 pm Also why do we suddenly have a hard on for explaining a disjointed and misfiring attacking performance by saying "oh, having a second distributor was useful in some cases and he took pressure off Smith"? Do we want to take pressure off him? Ford was at his best when he was allowed to run a game. And in case anyone missed it, England have played with at least two distributors for the last 5+ years, often with a third at 13. Was anyone impressed with Farrell and Slade's distribution yesterday? Did it hurt Australia a lot?

Edit: Also, know what else makes space? A 9 who actually worries fringe defences. And one who passes quickly.

Don't tell PR, they think it was sublime flawless rugby and the Farrell Smith axis a masterstroke...must admit i
must have watched a completely different game to the writer

For the first time in a long time I clicked on Jake's take via Facebook and thought exactly the same thing. It was mostly garbage.

Cringeworthy PR headline on Facebook the Farrell & Smith:

“It was like seeing an old dog rejuvenated by a young puppy”

Narrative trumps reality.

"My income depends on me writing these gushing articles"

You can actually see him making the troll face as he says this.

“We were always going to mix and match but unfortunately we’ve got to put fixed numbers on their backs,” Jones said. “I’d prefer in rugby if we went to the basketball system, where players could pick a number at the start of the year and that’s their number. Even if you put them in their traditional numbers it’s very rare that 12 passes to a 13 who passes to the wingers.

“The combinations are all different and the game has become a lot more fluid and transitional. As you saw against Australia, there was a strong set-piece contest and then a lot of transitional play. Numbers are fairly archaic.”

We know where this goes, Charlie Hodgson being asked to play 12, Tindall killing JSD with hospital balls, Dimwit backrow selections and the continuing presence of Tom Wood.

Ah, back to "Everyone's a flanker, mate". Explains why Marcus Smith - playing alongside the defensive captain - made so many more tackles.

Who the fuck actually thinks that an international side can play this "no numbers" way? The side that got closest to doing it was the All Blacks and even they recognised that actually, it's best if you have players in their traditional roles but ones who are multi-skilled and able to create and exploit chances. Dane Coles being able to pass like a centre, Ma'a Nonu being able to carry like an 8, Kieran Reid spending time out in the 5 metre channels - these guys were just adding value to the jobs they already did. And so the team operated smoothly and everyone knew what the fuck they were supposed to be doing.

I am really excited for the future of the team with guys like Quirke, Dombrandt, Smith, Steward, Malins in there. Just not with Eddie anywhere near them.

Also, when Dombrandt came on for Underhill and immediately started taking the Aussies apart, why did we bring Underhill back on? It was the shot in the arm the team needed ffs.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:54 am Ah, back to "Everyone's a flanker, mate". Explains why Marcus Smith - playing alongside the defensive captain - made so many more tackles.

Who the fuck actually thinks that an international side can play this "no numbers" way? The side that got closest to doing it was the All Blacks and even they recognised that actually, it's best if you have players in their traditional roles but ones who are multi-skilled and able to create and exploit chances. Dane Coles being able to pass like a centre, Ma'a Nonu being able to carry like an 8, Kieran Reid spending time out in the 5 metre channels - these guys were just adding value to the jobs they already did. And so the team operated smoothly and everyone knew what the fuck they were supposed to be doing.

I am really excited for the future of the team with guys like Quirke, Dombrandt, Smith, Steward, Malins in there. Just not with Eddie anywhere near them.

Jones is Brian Ashton with hubris and a humongous ego.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:55 am Also, when Dombrandt came on for Underhill and immediately started taking the Aussies apart, why did we bring Underhill back on? It was the shot in the arm the team needed ffs.

?

Dombrandt took something like 5 minutes to get his first touch, had a nice interplay with Manu when he took a kick, but then ran away from his support (who were slow anyway), and got tackled by the first defender in front of him, and that was Beale. He made one other carry when he caught the overthrow, and was tackled by the first defender again. Then he came off.

I think at Quins he's used to having his support keep up with him. Not his fault if the England fatties aren't conditioned well enough.

Hal Jordan wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:35 am I think at Quins he's used to having his support keep up with him. Not his fault if the England fatties aren't conditioned well enough.

I certainly expected more from the England players, but they clearly head towards where they expect him to go (towards centrefield), effectively they run straight up the pitch, expecting him to angle in, setting up a midfield ruck at worst, or having options to pass to if not.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:54 am Ah, back to "Everyone's a flanker, mate". Explains why Marcus Smith - playing alongside the defensive captain - made so many more tackles.

Who the fuck actually thinks that an international side can play this "no numbers" way? The side that got closest to doing it was the All Blacks and even they recognised that actually, it's best if you have players in their traditional roles but ones who are multi-skilled and able to create and exploit chances. Dane Coles being able to pass like a centre, Ma'a Nonu being able to carry like an 8, Kieran Reid spending time out in the 5 metre channels - these guys were just adding value to the jobs they already did. And so the team operated smoothly and everyone knew what the fuck they were supposed to be doing.

I am really excited for the future of the team with guys like Quirke, Dombrandt, Smith, Steward, Malins in there. Just not with Eddie anywhere near them.

Well...... you'll be heartened to hear Galthie is following the Jones approach. Like Jones, he has a hard on for some players no matter what. With Jones, it is Farrell and Tuilagi. With Galthie, it is currently Jelonch and Ntamack. As a result we see
- a flanker playing at lock (Woki). AFAIK, Woki has never played lock at any level.
- another flanker playing at 8 (Jelonch against Arg) which meant arguably the best 8 in the NH (Aldritt) missed out
- a FH playing (badly) at 12 (Ntamack in a mirror of the Farrell situation) and then when Jaminet went off unnecessarily, he moves a 10 to 15 who has never played there before (Jalibert) whilst moving Ntamack to the most critical position on the field = 10 when even Galthie has conceded Ntamack is not 1st choice at 10.

Eng and Fra both have some really talented individuals but also have coaches who are going to squander them completely. Meantime, Farrell Snr is making the absolute most out of Ire's resources by having the genius to........ have a game plan based around the best players at your disposal.

Talking of sh*t coaches: how much longer can the Bath team survive? 71 points shipped against sh*thouse Glaws must be the most embarrassing defeat in top level club history in Eng.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:40 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:54 am Ah, back to "Everyone's a flanker, mate". Explains why Marcus Smith - playing alongside the defensive captain - made so many more tackles.

Who the fuck actually thinks that an international side can play this "no numbers" way? The side that got closest to doing it was the All Blacks and even they recognised that actually, it's best if you have players in their traditional roles but ones who are multi-skilled and able to create and exploit chances. Dane Coles being able to pass like a centre, Ma'a Nonu being able to carry like an 8, Kieran Reid spending time out in the 5 metre channels - these guys were just adding value to the jobs they already did. And so the team operated smoothly and everyone knew what the fuck they were supposed to be doing.

I am really excited for the future of the team with guys like Quirke, Dombrandt, Smith, Steward, Malins in there. Just not with Eddie anywhere near them.

Well...... you'll be heartened to hear Galthie is following the Jones approach. Like Jones, he has a hard on for some players no matter what. With Jones, it is Farrell and Tuilagi. With Galthie, it is currently Jelonch and Ntamack. As a result we see
- a flanker playing at lock (Woki). AFAIK, Woki has never played lock at any level.
- another flanker playing at 8 (Jelonch against Arg) which meant arguably the best 8 in the NH (Aldritt) missed out
- a FH playing (badly) at 12 (Ntamack in a mirror of the Farrell situation) and then when Jaminet went off unnecessarily, he moves a 10 to 15 who has never played there before (Jalibert) whilst moving Ntamack to the most critical position on the field = 10 when even Galthie has conceded Ntamack is not 1st choice at 10.

Eng and Fra both have some really talented individuals but also have coaches who are going to squander them completely. Meantime, Farrell Snr is making the absolute most out of Ire's resources by having the genius to........ have a game plan based around the best players at your disposal.

Talking of sh*t coaches: how much longer can the Bath team survive? 71 points shipped against sh*thouse Glaws must be the most embarrassing defeat in top level club history in Eng.

I'd swap Jones for Galthie in a heartbeat.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:40 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:54 am Ah, back to "Everyone's a flanker, mate". Explains why Marcus Smith - playing alongside the defensive captain - made so many more tackles.

Who the fuck actually thinks that an international side can play this "no numbers" way? The side that got closest to doing it was the All Blacks and even they recognised that actually, it's best if you have players in their traditional roles but ones who are multi-skilled and able to create and exploit chances. Dane Coles being able to pass like a centre, Ma'a Nonu being able to carry like an 8, Kieran Reid spending time out in the 5 metre channels - these guys were just adding value to the jobs they already did. And so the team operated smoothly and everyone knew what the fuck they were supposed to be doing.

I am really excited for the future of the team with guys like Quirke, Dombrandt, Smith, Steward, Malins in there. Just not with Eddie anywhere near them.

Well...... you'll be heartened to hear Galthie is following the Jones approach. Like Jones, he has a hard on for some players no matter what. With Jones, it is Farrell and Tuilagi. With Galthie, it is currently Jelonch and Ntamack. As a result we see
- a flanker playing at lock (Woki). AFAIK, Woki has never played lock at any level.
- another flanker playing at 8 (Jelonch against Arg) which meant arguably the best 8 in the NH (Aldritt) missed out
- a FH playing (badly) at 12 (Ntamack in a mirror of the Farrell situation) and then when Jaminet went off unnecessarily, he moves a 10 to 15 who has never played there before (Jalibert) whilst moving Ntamack to the most critical position on the field = 10 when even Galthie has conceded Ntamack is not 1st choice at 10.

Eng and Fra both have some really talented individuals but also have coaches who are going to squander them completely. Meantime, Farrell Snr is making the absolute most out of Ire's resources by having the genius to........ have a game plan based around the best players at your disposal.

Talking of sh*t coaches: how much longer can the Bath team survive? 71 points shipped against sh*thouse Glaws must be the most embarrassing defeat in top level club history in Eng.

It was a Prem Cup fixture rather than the Prem proper, so it might be let slide.

In the broader scheme of Bath results it looks horrible, but the Prem Cup simply doesn't matter and teams use it wildly differently. This week Bath put their academy out while Glaws put out a mixed team with plenty of Prem regulars like Ludlow and Twelvetrees.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:52 am It was a Prem Cup fixture rather than the Prem proper, so it might be let slide.

In the broader scheme of Bath results it looks horrible, but the Prem Cup simply doesn't matter and teams use it wildly differently. This week Bath put their academy out while Glaws put out a mixed team with plenty of Prem regulars like Ludlow and Twelvetrees.

Haven't Bath lost all their Prem games too (I think: from making the FR picks)?

Also, with a ring fenced Prem, maybe there's less pressure? I'd bet plenty had there been relegation at stake, matters would be very different!

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:51 am I'd swap Jones for Galthie in a heartbeat.

I'd be happy with that.......... mainly because Jones style would never work with Fre player mentality and he'd be gone in a matter of months.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:00 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:52 am It was a Prem Cup fixture rather than the Prem proper, so it might be let slide.

In the broader scheme of Bath results it looks horrible, but the Prem Cup simply doesn't matter and teams use it wildly differently. This week Bath put their academy out while Glaws put out a mixed team with plenty of Prem regulars like Ludlow and Twelvetrees.

Haven't Bath lost all their Prem games too (I think: from making the FR picks)?

Also, with a ring fenced Prem, maybe there's less pressure? I'd bet plenty had there been relegation at stake, matters would be very different!

They have and frankly I'd have binned off Hooper plus brought in a head coach and defence coach (so Hatley can go back to just doing the forwards) at the end of last season. With that not having happened, I've no gauge of what can be tolerated there. I've read somewhere that Bruce Craig is looking to sell the club, so he might not be overly fussed about sorting out the coaching set up, though I'd have thought it would be easier to sell if Bath weren't completely shithouse in the field.

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:16 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:55 am Also, when Dombrandt came on for Underhill and immediately started taking the Aussies apart, why did we bring Underhill back on? It was the shot in the arm the team needed ffs.

?

Dombrandt took something like 5 minutes to get his first touch, had a nice interplay with Manu when he took a kick, but then ran away from his support (who were slow anyway), and got tackled by the first defender in front of him, and that was Beale. He made one other carry when he caught the overthrow, and was tackled by the first defender again. Then he came off.

?

Dombrandt got his first touch at a lineout, but it's weird to say "took something like 5 minutes" when he came on for following events to happen: A Farrell kick at goal, a kickoff reception and clearing kick, a lineout, another lineout (lost), a Farrell kick at goal (missed). He literally got to do something with the ball the first time something other than a set piece happened. And what did he do? Wanders infield, puts Manu through a gap (GREAT line, btw) and follows up to take the offload and carries on sprinting forward, outruns the Aussie chasers, moves slightly left, gets tackled. It's absurd that no-one was near him - what would've happened if he'd been tackled when he passed to Manu? Manu would've been completely isolated himself.

Then he cleans up a lost Aussie lineout and makes good ground, gets England going again.

Honestly though, I accept that "taking the Aussies apart" is hyperbole, not least because I was in a ranting mood. But it was good impact - he made things happen, which was what England sorely needed at the time. Underhill should've stayed off. Not least because he was playing pretty poorly himself, he was missing shedloads of tackles. The plan was going to be to get Dombrandt on at 8 anyway, so why take him off only to put him back on 7 minutes later?

I really, really dislike the whole Curry at 8 thing. He's a magnificent 7, and Underhill's form isn't amazing.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:05 am They have and frankly I'd have binned off Hooper plus brought in a head coach and defence coach (so Hatley can go back to just doing the forwards) at the end of last season. With that not having happened, I've no gauge of what can be tolerated there. I've read somewhere that Bruce Craig is looking to sell the club, so he might not be overly fussed about sorting out the coaching set up, though I'd have thought it would be easier to sell if Bath weren't completely shithouse in the field.

You'd get a lot of money building a housing estate on The Rec. And would anyone miss Bath Rugby....?

Ah yes, the Rec, famously easily to get planning permission for

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:48 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:05 am They have and frankly I'd have binned off Hooper plus brought in a head coach and defence coach (so Hatley can go back to just doing the forwards) at the end of last season. With that not having happened, I've no gauge of what can be tolerated there. I've read somewhere that Bruce Craig is looking to sell the club, so he might not be overly fussed about sorting out the coaching set up, though I'd have thought it would be easier to sell if Bath weren't completely shithouse in the field.

You'd get a lot of money building a housing estate on The Rec. And would anyone miss Bath Rugby....?

As others have pointed out before, Bath don't own the Rec, they only have a long lease for its use. The Recis owned by a separate charity whose object are "The provision, with or without charge, of property in or near Bath (including, but not limited to, the Bath Recreation Ground) for use as indoor and outdoor recreational facilities for the benefit of the public."

There are also restrictive covenants dating back to 1922 covering the use of the site. The covenant, dated 6 April 1922, states that nothing may be built on the land “which may be or grow to be a nuisance and annoyance or disturbance or otherwise, prejudicially affect the adjoining premises or the neighbourhood”.

Good luck trying to get any kind of planning permission with those impediments.

There's a nostalgia attached to The Rec that really doesn't correlate with reality. It's a relic of the amateur era. It's 25 years out of date and aging very badly. If Bath ever want to start winning again then they need to play in a proper stadium.

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:39 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:48 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 11:05 am They have and frankly I'd have binned off Hooper plus brought in a head coach and defence coach (so Hatley can go back to just doing the forwards) at the end of last season. With that not having happened, I've no gauge of what can be tolerated there. I've read somewhere that Bruce Craig is looking to sell the club, so he might not be overly fussed about sorting out the coaching set up, though I'd have thought it would be easier to sell if Bath weren't completely shithouse in the field.

You'd get a lot of money building a housing estate on The Rec. And would anyone miss Bath Rugby....?

As others have pointed out before, Bath don't own the Rec, they only have a long lease for its use. The Recis owned by a separate charity whose object are "The provision, with or without charge, of property in or near Bath (including, but not limited to, the Bath Recreation Ground) for use as indoor and outdoor recreational facilities for the benefit of the public."

There are also restrictive covenants dating back to 1922 covering the use of the site. The covenant, dated 6 April 1922, states that nothing may be built on the land “which may be or grow to be a nuisance and annoyance or disturbance or otherwise, prejudicially affect the adjoining premises or the neighbourhood”.

Good luck trying to get any kind of planning permission with those impediments.

Thanks. I suspect a small donation to Tory Party coffers would see them disappear in a puff of "what covenant?".

If that were true I would have expected billionaire Bruce Craig to have overcome that hurdle already. You might just have to accept that it's a practically unwinnable situation.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:42 pm If that were true I would have expected billionaire Bruce Craig to have overcome that hurdle already. You might just have to accept that it's a practically unwinnable situation.

Has he really got that much? If so, seems odd he's prepared to breach salary caps but is happy to continue playing in an antiquity and not do anything about the awful pitch.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:45 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:42 pm If that were true I would have expected billionaire Bruce Craig to have overcome that hurdle already. You might just have to accept that it's a practically unwinnable situation.

Has he really got that much? If so, seems odd he's prepared to breach salary caps but is happy to continue playing in an antiquity and not do anything about the awful pitch.

Bath are trying to make changes, and have been trying to get planning permission to develop the ground for several years. They have also attempted to get the Covenants removed by declaring them unenforceable. However, earlier this year the High Court rejected Bath’s application, so the covenants are still legally enforceable.

Bath are actually in a better position than a few years ago, when the Charity that owned the ground were opposed to any development at all. However, as JMK says, trying to do anything more is virtually unwinnable.

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:55 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:45 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:42 pm If that were true I would have expected billionaire Bruce Craig to have overcome that hurdle already. You might just have to accept that it's a practically unwinnable situation.

Has he really got that much? If so, seems odd he's prepared to breach salary caps but is happy to continue playing in an antiquity and not do anything about the awful pitch.

Bath are trying to make changes, and have been trying to get planning permission to develop the ground for several years. They have also attempted to get the Covenants removed by declaring them unenforceable. However, earlier this year the High Court rejected Bath’s application, so the covenants are still legally enforceable.

Bath are actually in a better position than a few years ago, when the Charity that owned the ground were opposed to any development at all. However, as JMK says, trying to do anything more is virtually unwinnable.

If it's on a lease, then why not plan to f**k off and build a new stadium elsewhere?

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:05 pm

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:55 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:45 pm
Has he really got that much? If so, seems odd he's prepared to breach salary caps but is happy to continue playing in an antiquity and not do anything about the awful pitch.

Bath are trying to make changes, and have been trying to get planning permission to develop the ground for several years. They have also attempted to get the Covenants removed by declaring them unenforceable. However, earlier this year the High Court rejected Bath’s application, so the covenants are still legally enforceable.

Bath are actually in a better position than a few years ago, when the Charity that owned the ground were opposed to any development at all. However, as JMK says, trying to do anything more is virtually unwinnable.

If it's on a lease, then why not plan to f**k off and build a new stadium elsewhere?

Tradition, innit.

Problem is you will have to move quite a way from the centre of Bath to find anywhere suitable for a ground. The Rec, for all its flaws, is in a lovely location.

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:16 pm Tradition, innit.

Problem is you will have to move quite a way from the centre of Bath to find anywhere suitable for a ground. The Rec, for all its flaws, is in a lovely location.

Well, then Bath Rugby has to make a choice. I'm not unsympathetic to trad. And a move can kill a club's atmosphere: witness the move from Stradey to Parc y Scarlets........... although that really was greed because Strardey had plenty of space for redevelopment. Luton Town face a similar-ish issue although there it's the council trying to block all attempts to build a new stadium!

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:44 pm There's a nostalgia attached to The Rec that really doesn't correlate with reality. It's a relic of the amateur era. It's 25 years out of date and aging very badly. If Bath ever want to start winning again then they need to play in a proper stadium.

We were winning again, briefly, but then we lost the plot with the coaching. That's the main problem, the ground just means we'll never be a profitable venture.

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:55 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:45 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:42 pm If that were true I would have expected billionaire Bruce Craig to have overcome that hurdle already. You might just have to accept that it's a practically unwinnable situation.

Has he really got that much? If so, seems odd he's prepared to breach salary caps but is happy to continue playing in an antiquity and not do anything about the awful pitch.

Bath are trying to make changes, and have been trying to get planning permission to develop the ground for several years. They have also attempted to get the Covenants removed by declaring them unenforceable. However, earlier this year the High Court rejected Bath’s application, so the covenants are still legally enforceable.

Bath are actually in a better position than a few years ago, when the Charity that owned the ground were opposed to any development at all. However, as JMK says, trying to do anything more is virtually unwinnable.

Bruce Craig bought a load of land up on the surrounding hills and offered to swap all these as commons for a slice of the rec for redevelopment. Didn't work. It's just intractable.

It's only because Bath as a city was such a backwater for so long, with such depressed land values and almost no building control - the old Southgate centre, Snow Hill, the building of a train station car park by chucking a load of tarmac over the front of the Georgian train station (I kid you not, it was fucking criminal) - that there was ever a sport club on the rec in the first place. No way on god's green earth would it ever be allowed now, and no realistic way it's ever going to be extended or allowed to become permanent.

I'll happily live with the ground being small and made out of scaffolding, to be honest I quite like the Heath Robinson of it all, but the only way the pitch will ever be fixed is by going purely astro which again just won't wash under current arrangements.

As an aside, one of the main protagonists against development is a chap who lives on Pulteney called Jack Sparrow. no idea if it's his real name or a nome de guerre but there are many minted people (granted, some minted only as they were lucky enough to buy their houses in the 70s and 80s for pennies on the current pound) who are dead set against this, so it's not just a case of rich man Bruce getting his way.

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:54 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:44 pm There's a nostalgia attached to The Rec that really doesn't correlate with reality. It's a relic of the amateur era. It's 25 years out of date and aging very badly. If Bath ever want to start winning again then they need to play in a proper stadium.

We were winning again, briefly, but then we lost the plot with the coaching. That's the main problem, the ground just means we'll never be a profitable venture.

The coaching has been poop and the output from the Bath academy is one of the worst in the league both in terms of volume and quality (there are exceptions of course but that's what they are, exceptions). However, where you play sets the tone doesn't it. Playing on a cramped muddy pitch leased off the council puts Bath in the same bracket as Old Septictankians extra 'B'. In short, if it feels shite, it probably is.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 3:37 pm

inactionman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:54 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:44 pm There's a nostalgia attached to The Rec that really doesn't correlate with reality. It's a relic of the amateur era. It's 25 years out of date and aging very badly. If Bath ever want to start winning again then they need to play in a proper stadium.

We were winning again, briefly, but then we lost the plot with the coaching. That's the main problem, the ground just means we'll never be a profitable venture.

The coaching has been poop and the output from the Bath academy is one of the worst in the league both in terms of volume and quality (there are exceptions of course but that's what they are, exceptions). However, where you play sets the tone doesn't it. Playing on a cramped muddy pitch leased off the council puts bath in the same bracket as Old Septictankians extra 'B'. In short, if it feels shite, it probably is.

It's really not the problem, and in fact contradicts most of what I've heard elsewhere- the training at Farleigh is just too swanky and comfortable and there's a general air of complacency which appears to be on of the root causes of current malaise.

In terms of the grounds, I can't speak for the players, having not played on it, but it's a gorgeous setting - it's more the fans who 'experience' the rudimentary facilities. The pitch condition is, I admit, far from ideal.

Also not quite sure where you're going with academy, or over what period. There have been very good players in previous crops and there are good players now.

You'll hear no argument about the coaching from me - it's not been right for a while. Ford brought some success but brought it all crashing down, and his snidey entrance also opened a few fissures.

Wealthy homeowners of a certain age on a moral high horse cannot be defeated. There's no point Bath trying.

Harry fucking Elrington just got called up. Lovely bloke, and decent in the loose, but as someone who's seen him scrum a lot I wouldn't want him within a million miles of that SA front row.

Will Goodrick-Clark was miles better than him for LI, so surprised to see him behind in the queue here.

George and Faz out with injury. Singleton also called up

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:35 pm Harry fucking Elrington just got called up. Lovely bloke, and decent in the loose, but as someone who's seen him scrum a lot I wouldn't want him within a million miles of that SA front row.

Will Goodrick-Clark was miles better than him for LI, so surprised to see him behind in the queue here.

George and Faz out with injury. Singleton also called up

This is just more page 1 shite from the Eddie Jones book of ego isn't it. He'd rather nail gun his scrotum to a workbench than go back to either a player he's already dropped or a media favourite.