Pro game Revolution?

[Which Tyler]

Straw-man argument is still a logical fallacy.

Just because you want to paint a proposal in that way doesn't mean that the proposal resembles your painting.

You can absolutely feel free to disagree with the proposal, but disagreeing with an imaginary one doesn't move the discussion forwards.

[Puja]

I'm not sold exposing the likes of Quins, Newcastle and so on to the finances of Bedford is the same as comprehensive. It seems to have some of the same fanciful thinking as the unions with their constant refrain that multimedia sports revenues will just rise and rise

Sod it, I'm gonna engage. Having two tiers of 10 (or one of 10 and one of 8, as I prefer) is not exposing Quins to the finances of Bedford.

At rhe moment, the Championship is not a product that can be sold to anyone. The quality ranges from Premiership-level (the relegated team) to comedically out of their depth - both on and off the pitch. The result is a foregone conclusion, with the relegated Prem side facing maybe 3-4 games in the whole season that could actually be considered competitive. There is no interest in any of it - how do you sell any sponsorship, advertising, or television deals for that?

I'm a massive rugby fan - I stay up till 2am to watch MLR in America for heavens' sake! - but I wouldn't subscribe to a TV package to get Championship games. Hell, if you put a regular-season match on in front of me, I'd have to have literally nothing else to do for me to bother watching it. The only exceptions to that in the last decade? When it was Wuss vs Bristol in the Championship playoffs - because I didn't know before the game started who was going to get promoted.

Make an 8 team Premiership 2 competition and have it with Bath, Gloucester, Worcester, Ealing, Cornish Pirates, Doncaster, Coventry, Bedford,* with the prize being top three qualify for play-offs with a grand final to decide who gets promoted. Suddenly, you have uncertainty, you have interest, you have something other than a meaningless slog to get to the relegated side's inevitable coronation. You have something you can sell.

On the other side, you get to keep relegation from the Premiership (Prem 1), which it is clear that broadcasters and fans are very keen on doing, while solving the problem of a relegated side disappearing into a empty void of no money, no interest, and possible bankruptcy if they somehow fail to go straight back up. You also get a wider net for youth development as well as the possibility of a genuine domestic cup (which could be played in international windows to level the playing field) - something else that can be sold.

Will this extra sponsorship and competitions to sell rights to result in more income than spreading the pot over 18 teams rather than 13? Not sure. My personal grand plan of everything involves a 4th AI to help fund things, but I think in a few years time, it could end up more than washing its own face.

Puja


*Bottom three currently in the Prem (and yes, I would accept it if Leicester fell into that group) plus five that I think have backing/fanbase/facilities that could be grown on - actual selection of that 5 to be done by franchise system and not even necessarily from Champ if a lower league team like Leeds put in a better bid)

[Which Tyler]

And that's forgetting the options of including Prem2 in the TV deal alongside Prem1, this boosting both their revenue and their value for sponsorship.
And the proposed Cup competition including both Prem1 and Prem2, boosting revenue, value for sponsorship and maintaining stronger competition (and interest).
Oh, and the possible involvement in the 3rd tier European competition

[Mellsblue]

I was on a Bedford Q&A last night and this topic came up.

Almost all of Bedford’s (and, therefore, I presume the Champ’s) ire is with the RFU. They’ve underfunded for years, broken promises, treated with contempt.... I paraphrase and the wording was more diplomatic but you get the idea.
I asked whether there was any chance of following the French model of the top two tiers (now top three) negotiating tv rights etc as one body. The response was that such ideas have been discussed but Prem Rugby always come back to the point that they have lost millions building the brand, the product etc (obvs arguments about how well) and why should they allow the Champ to take advantage for free whilst having less £££ themselves. The exec on the call said that the Prem would happily enter negs for a club to purchase (new) p shares but then said the asking price is £20/30 million. He also said he doesn’t really blame them for that stance.

[Digby]

I remain highly sceptical that in a minority sport that can't sustain one self-funding league there's scope for expanding to two leagues. I'd like there to be, but I'm not seeing it.

Maybe we could get the Championship to sell its rights to the BBC and have them host a really stripped back coverage rather than Bargain Hunt on a weekend afternoon. But the Beeb would probably think Bargain Hunt is much cheaper to make than even a very basic piece of sport coverage, can be repeated ad infinitum, and even on its 18th repeat would draw a bigger audience than Championship rugby.

Mostly I think rugby is in a rush to develop when it doesn't need to be. Stom noted above the ground improvements we've seen, that games are way better attenended than once was the case, and really pro rugby has come a long way since 1995.

[Puja]

I remain highly sceptical that in a minority sport that can't sustain one self-funding league there's scope for expanding to two leagues. I'd like there to be, but I'm not seeing it.

Maybe we could get the Championship to sell its rights to the BBC and have them host a really stripped back coverage rather than Bargain Hunt on a weekend afternoon. But the Beeb would probably think Bargain Hunt is much cheaper to make than even a very basic piece of sport coverage, can be repeated ad infinitum, and even on its 18th repeat would draw a bigger audience than Championship rugby.

Mostly I think rugby is in a rush to develop when it doesn't need to be. Stom noted above the ground improvements we've seen, that games are way better attenended than once was the case, and really pro rugby has come a long way since 1995.

If it helps, think of it as expanding the Premiership to 18, rather than "setting up a whole new league." The idea that there isn't a fanbase for 5 extra teams to garner crowds of 5-8k, especially if located in areas where there isn't competition (Doncaster, Pirates) is miserably pessimistic. And they wouldn't need much more than 5k to be viable - the salary cap would be a limit, not a guide and a side at the bottom of Prem2 could keep a much lower cost squad if they weren't getting the fans through the door.

Puja

[Doorzetbornandbred]

British and Irish League is what Id like, 2 Divisions, 2 up 2 down each year. If an English side finish bottom of Div 2 they get relegated to the Championship and Championship side come up. Get the Championship onto TV(whatever company). Start the first year with the top half of the Premiership and Pro 14 British/Irish sides in Div 1 and the rest in Div 2, give them a seasons notice so they can have a fair crack at making the top half of tables. Over a few seasons it would soon sort out the pecking order. Max of 5 non British or Irish players in a matchday squad, British or Irish players to be available for internationals and not have to go back and forth between club and country.

[Digby]

There's already a British and Irish League, which thankfully we're not part of

[Digby]

I remain highly sceptical that in a minority sport that can't sustain one self-funding league there's scope for expanding to two leagues. I'd like there to be, but I'm not seeing it.

Maybe we could get the Championship to sell its rights to the BBC and have them host a really stripped back coverage rather than Bargain Hunt on a weekend afternoon. But the Beeb would probably think Bargain Hunt is much cheaper to make than even a very basic piece of sport coverage, can be repeated ad infinitum, and even on its 18th repeat would draw a bigger audience than Championship rugby.

Mostly I think rugby is in a rush to develop when it doesn't need to be. Stom noted above the ground improvements we've seen, that games are way better attenended than once was the case, and really pro rugby has come a long way since 1995.

If it helps, think of it as expanding the Premiership to 18, rather than "setting up a whole new league." The idea that there isn't a fanbase for 5 extra teams to garner crowds of 5-8k, especially if located in areas where there isn't competition (Doncaster, Pirates) is miserably pessimistic. And they wouldn't need much more than 5k to be viable - the salary cap would be a limit, not a guide and a side at the bottom of Prem2 could keep a much lower cost squad if they weren't getting the fans through the door.

Puja

I wouldn't as things stand support such expansion either. I'm not going to worry much if they do it, it's their choice, but I think if they go for it it'll be about increasing their independence not increasing their reliance on central handouts. We can call it what we want but Club Vs Country is still what's going on.

Much of the fan thinking on this seems to start with or at least be informed by what would benefit the England team, and that's maybe a distant 9th priority for the clubs. And it'd be worth noting I have no good ideas on how they should do this myself, I fall between the hurdles of thinking it'd be daft to replace the clubs with regional entities that displace existing fans who actually go to watch games, that I want geographical representation rather than just the South West, the Midlands and London, that I want less clubs to concentrate the talent with a view to England, and that I respect the clubs larger number of teams format to try and set themselves up as independently viable businesses. Given the contradictions in what I'd look for I'm damned if I've got a good idea, none of which will discourage me from labelling other ideas as pants because why wouldn't one mock and deride as a default

[Puja]

I remain highly sceptical that in a minority sport that can't sustain one self-funding league there's scope for expanding to two leagues. I'd like there to be, but I'm not seeing it.

Maybe we could get the Championship to sell its rights to the BBC and have them host a really stripped back coverage rather than Bargain Hunt on a weekend afternoon. But the Beeb would probably think Bargain Hunt is much cheaper to make than even a very basic piece of sport coverage, can be repeated ad infinitum, and even on its 18th repeat would draw a bigger audience than Championship rugby.

Mostly I think rugby is in a rush to develop when it doesn't need to be. Stom noted above the ground improvements we've seen, that games are way better attenended than once was the case, and really pro rugby has come a long way since 1995.

If it helps, think of it as expanding the Premiership to 18, rather than "setting up a whole new league." The idea that there isn't a fanbase for 5 extra teams to garner crowds of 5-8k, especially if located in areas where there isn't competition (Doncaster, Pirates) is miserably pessimistic. And they wouldn't need much more than 5k to be viable - the salary cap would be a limit, not a guide and a side at the bottom of Prem2 could keep a much lower cost squad if they weren't getting the fans through the door.

Puja

I wouldn't as things stand support such expansion either. I'm not going to worry much if they do it, it's their choice, but I think if they go for it it'll be about increasing their independence not increasing their reliance on central handouts. We can call it what we want but Club Vs Country is still what's going on.

Much of the fan thinking on this seems to start with or at least be informed by what would benefit the England team, and that's maybe a distant 9th priority for the clubs. And it'd be worth noting I have no good ideas on how they should do this myself, I fall between the hurdles of thinking it'd be daft to replace the clubs with regional entities that displace existing fans who actually go to watch games, that I want geographical representation rather than just the South West, the Midlands and London, that I want less clubs to concentrate the talent with a view to England, and that I respect the clubs larger number of teams format to try and set themselves up as independently viable businesses. Given the contradictions in what I'd look for I'm damned if I've got a good idea, none of which will discourage me from labelling other ideas as pants because why wouldn't one mock and deride as a default

I mean, I will absolutely agree that my grand plans of everything are based around a structure suiting both England and clubs and creating a stable professional game that suits everybody, but it only really works if you get everybody pulling together at the same time, which is why it'll never work.

There does need to be change because the current structure is untenable - the Championship is underfunded and a mess as discussed, but ringfencing won't work because there are 12 Prem slots and 13 teams, expanding the Prem is problematic because there's already too much overlap with internationals, and the current method of storing their extra team in the Championship won't last. That's not to mention that sides like Worcester are going into ridiculous debt to spend up to the salary cap to try to survive because the alternative is a trip to the void and potential oblivion.

However, absent of someone with power and influence doing something visionary to shake things up, we're going to stumble into some kind of imperfect permanent solution: either waiting for a side to go bust and then ringfencing or ringfencing and having a clunky 13 team league.

Puja

[fivepointer]

What is the Championship for? Get some consensus around that question and we might be able to plot a way forward.

Is it a fully Pro league with all clubs intending to eventually move into the Premiership, or at the other extreme is it a semi pro league recognising that for the clubs in it that is as far as they will go?

[Digby]

If it helps, think of it as expanding the Premiership to 18, rather than "setting up a whole new league." The idea that there isn't a fanbase for 5 extra teams to garner crowds of 5-8k, especially if located in areas where there isn't competition (Doncaster, Pirates) is miserably pessimistic. And they wouldn't need much more than 5k to be viable - the salary cap would be a limit, not a guide and a side at the bottom of Prem2 could keep a much lower cost squad if they weren't getting the fans through the door.

Puja

I wouldn't as things stand support such expansion either. I'm not going to worry much if they do it, it's their choice, but I think if they go for it it'll be about increasing their independence not increasing their reliance on central handouts. We can call it what we want but Club Vs Country is still what's going on.

Much of the fan thinking on this seems to start with or at least be informed by what would benefit the England team, and that's maybe a distant 9th priority for the clubs. And it'd be worth noting I have no good ideas on how they should do this myself, I fall between the hurdles of thinking it'd be daft to replace the clubs with regional entities that displace existing fans who actually go to watch games, that I want geographical representation rather than just the South West, the Midlands and London, that I want less clubs to concentrate the talent with a view to England, and that I respect the clubs larger number of teams format to try and set themselves up as independently viable businesses. Given the contradictions in what I'd look for I'm damned if I've got a good idea, none of which will discourage me from labelling other ideas as pants because why wouldn't one mock and deride as a default

I mean, I will absolutely agree that my grand plans of everything are based around a structure suiting both England and clubs and creating a stable professional game that suits everybody, but it only really works if you get everybody pulling together at the same time, which is why it'll never work.

There does need to be change because the current structure is untenable - the Championship is underfunded and a mess as discussed, but ringfencing won't work because there are 12 Prem slots and 13 teams, expanding the Prem is problematic because there's already too much overlap with internationals, and the current method of storing their extra team in the Championship won't last. That's not to mention that sides like Worcester are going into ridiculous debt to spend up to the salary cap to try to survive because the alternative is a trip to the void and potential oblivion.

However, absent of someone with power and influence doing something visionary to shake things up, we're going to stumble into some kind of imperfect permanent solution: either waiting for a side to go bust and then ringfencing or ringfencing and having a clunky 13 team league.

Puja

The Championship is either rampantly underfunded or rampantly overfunded depending if one wants to argue in either fashion. I think it will remain chugging along as it has been since the 90s, it's never been sending up quality teams each season outside the main grouping, well not that have stayed up whether looking at Leeds, Rotherham, Bedford..., the key for me is to keep the possibility/dream open

I don't know Wuss's debt is any worse than many others. Historically they kept a good deal of their income separate from the rugby, which always made them look much worse but it actually wasn't, now it will be much worse, but everyone else that has had their stadium income activities both match day and non match day savaged will still be in the same boat.

Also whilst Wuss's finances are bad, and Glaws and Exeter and Bath and so on, you could give them 10x the revenue, and their finances would still be bad. They'd just be spending bigger sums on players, agents, transfers and facilities. There's little in sport across the world that suggests they'd be responsible with much larger incomes.

[Bored Falcon]

I know this would never happen but I'll throw my stupid idea out there. To start with I'm getting rid of promotion -relegation. there just isn't enough support in the country and right now the Prem isn't really providing a great product consistantly enough. I actually stopped watching rugby for a couple of weeks after the first Newc-Sale match this year.

no relegation would encourage teams to focus on attacking rugby and hopefully lead to more adventurous team selections.

For the league I'd go in an NFL direction, 3 conferences of 6. you play everyone in your conference twice and one of the other conferencs once.

You would have an 8 team playoff at the end of the year.

Fewer games for each team but more games overall (I think) plus a more exciting playoff structure. Hopefully taking away the uncertainty of relegation would help teams accept the fewer games.

There should be more opportunities for young English players and maybe less incentive for teams like Sale to bore the shit out of people.

(my feelings about sale aren't all together rational btw)

[Bored Falcon]

Duplicate, but keeping so that they're out of post approvals - Mod

[Puja]

I know this would never happen but I'll throw my stupid idea out there. To start with I'm getting rid of promotion -relegation. there just isn't enough support in the country and right now the Prem isn't really providing a great product consistantly enough. I actually stopped watching rugby for a couple of weeks after the first Newc-Sale match this year.

no relegation would encourage teams to focus on attacking rugby and hopefully lead to more adventurous team selections.

For the league I'd go in an NFL direction, 3 conferences of 6. you play everyone in your conference twice and one of the other conferencs once.

You would have an 8 team playoff at the end of the year.

Fewer games for each team but more games overall (I think) plus a more exciting playoff structure. Hopefully taking away the uncertainty of relegation would help teams accept the fewer games.

There should be more opportunities for young English players and maybe less incentive for teams like Sale to bore the shit out of people.

(my feelings about sale aren't all together rational btw)

I don't know non-US sports fans are wired to deal with conferences - I know no Celts who are thrilled about the Pro XX's change of format and it was a big turnoff for fans in Super Rugby. As well, I'm not sure there are players enough to spread across 18 top-flight teams and certainly not English qualified. Are you thinking of a British and Irish league with your idea?

I'm also unsure of the bromide that no relegation makes for attacking rugby. As you've noted, Sale are boring the sh*t out of everybody and they're doing it to try and crack the top 4, not to avoid relegation.

Puja

[Bored Falcon]

Duplicate being kept to help poster out of pre-moderation of posts - Mod

[Bored Falcon]

I'm confident that we could fill the extra teams with players enough. I went for 18 teams to give the too championship sides (which I nicked from your post tbh). Actually, now I think of it the player requirements would be the same as your suggestion no?

I think UK fans are at a point when they can start to get conferences. NFL gets bigger here each year.

, I would hope that ending relegation would focus the minds of the club's on improving the entertainment factor. You're right though, it probably wouldn't

[Digby]

We get conferences, and what we get about them in particular is they're rubbish and we don't want them, and we do want our leagues, and we like the drama of relegation no matter the relegating club doesn't like it nor other clubs at risk.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Starting to come round to Puja's idea rather than groups/conferences, and since it has become apparent that TV money seems to put a large emphasis on relegation being a thing.
Trouble is I have a horrible feeling that 18 fully pro teams might still be too many to be sustainable at the moment. At least until we grow the games viewership, which, I come back to, can only be done through a successful international team - regularly playing in meaningful games/tournaments. And 10 teams may well not be concentrated enough for England to be as competitive as other systems.
I think part of the reason many of us are against this is because we're very into rugby, therefore very attached to our clubs as they are. I think we have to be aware that if we genuinely want to grow the game, even just to the extent of financial viability. We probably have to accept some kind of change to the format.

[Puja]

Starting to come round to Puja's idea rather than groups/conferences, and since it has become apparent that TV money seems to put a large emphasis on relegation being a thing.
Trouble is I have a horrible feeling that 18 fully pro teams might still be too many to be sustainable at the moment. At least until we grow the games viewership, which, I come back to, can only be done through a successful international team - regularly playing in meaningful games/tournaments. And 10 teams may well not be concentrated enough for England to be as competitive as other systems.
I think part of the reason many of us are against this is because we're very into rugby, therefore very attached to our clubs as they are. I think we have to be aware that if we genuinely want to grow the game, even just to the extent of financial viability. We probably have to accept some kind of change to the format.

Yessss, another convert (although it should be noted that Which holds the patent to the idea; I just waffle about it a lot). Don't suppose you're on the RFU or PRL board, are you?

I don't see 18 teams as being a stretch as we already have 14 who are already fully pro (top 13 plus Ealing), as well as Pirates who have good support and are imminently about to have their own ground. The additional 3 wouldn't be required to compete at Prem level or finances, as I'd have no relegation from Prem 2 for at least 5 years (and then after that it'd be more likely to be accepting franchise applications to expand to 20 than relegating) and so they would be able to live within their means without fear that it would lead to their West Hartlepool/Orrell style annihilation.

Puja

[Bored Falcon]

Is there a danger that teams get stuck at the bottom of division two? Struggling.to attract talent then just becoming like Italy in the SN?

Also, would advertising/tb money be shared equally between the two leagues? apologies if that has already been covered. While I love the idea of expanding the number of teams playing fully pro rugby each week, I'm worried a the public won't be interested in a tier 2. even an enhanced one like this

I'm still a fan of the conference system but guess I'm in the minority. Just glad I didn't out my NFL style draft idea out.there.... (this is a joke btw).

[Bored Falcon]

And the deal goes through, selling 1/7th of the Six Nations to CVC, with every union desperate for the cash.

Not quite sure how their sliding scale is worked out but the reports seems to suggest the RFU are getting pretty much twice what the WRU are getting, which is quite some scale for equal participants. And something that's drawn a ringing endorsement from the WRU, so why all the arguments about financing elsewhere for far less?

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea.

CVC almost killed F1. They couldn't care less about the sport or about growing it, they only care about making money and then cashing out.

So the 6N will likely increase in value but at the detriment of the sport.

Just like in the Premiership, where perhaps CVCs involvement is one of the drivers toward bringing ring-fencing forward.

There was a rare good article on the Guardian about the importance of the Championship. I completely agreed: we need to be building the sport up, not narrowing it's focus.

Look at cricket. Back in 2005, people knew the cricketers. Now, I doubt many know any of them. Even Stokes is very unlikely to be a name known outside cricket fans.

The pandemic has made it really tough and the focus on the pro game is understandable right now, but the Championship could play a big part in this. As Which has said countless times, 2 divisions of 10 teams each would be a really, really good start, imo.

Bring the standard up for the 7 outside of the PRL 13, increase competition... Just look how much Quins, for example (because they're the only ones I know) have pushed attendance in the past 15 years. Back when I first went to a match at The Stoop (not Quins, actually, it was a schoolboys match between England and Wales back around 1996), there was seating for around 2k, the rest was standing like at Richmond. The last match I went to, there were 2 brand new stands and a fully enclosed stadium that could host 15k and regularly did.

Multiply that by 12 and suddenly you see that we should be a long way ahead of where we are.

Constant law tinkering (instead of applying the laws as they are), poor fan engagement, and the hiding of matches behind paywalls has blunted the appeal.

How will CVC, an American company only interested in profit, do anything positive about this?

While I would probably so something's differently to you when it comes to fixing the issues, I share every one of your concerns and broadly agree with what you propose.

I've long been worried Union will go the way of cricket too.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Starting to come round to Puja's idea rather than groups/conferences, and since it has become apparent that TV money seems to put a large emphasis on relegation being a thing.
Trouble is I have a horrible feeling that 18 fully pro teams might still be too many to be sustainable at the moment. At least until we grow the games viewership, which, I come back to, can only be done through a successful international team - regularly playing in meaningful games/tournaments. And 10 teams may well not be concentrated enough for England to be as competitive as other systems.
I think part of the reason many of us are against this is because we're very into rugby, therefore very attached to our clubs as they are. I think we have to be aware that if we genuinely want to grow the game, even just to the extent of financial viability. We probably have to accept some kind of change to the format.

Yessss, another convert (although it should be noted that Which holds the patent to the idea; I just waffle about it a lot). Don't suppose you're on the RFU or PRL board, are you?

I don't see 18 teams as being a stretch as we already have 14 who are already fully pro (top 13 plus Ealing), as well as Pirates who have good support and are imminently about to have their own ground. The additional 3 wouldn't be required to compete at Prem level or finances, as I'd have no relegation from Prem 2 for at least 5 years (and then after that it'd be more likely to be accepting franchise applications to expand to 20 than relegating) and so they would be able to live within their means without fear that it would lead to their West Hartlepool/Orrell style annihilation.

Puja

But how many of them actually make a profit as opposed to being a vanity project for a rich owner? Obviously with Covid none, but even before that...
As you say, expansion could definitely be on the cards later on, when we're all swimming in money and Rugby in general is nice and healthy. Maybe we could start with 8 in each league?
Not sure how much we've talked about player welfare too. Smaller leagues would hopefully mean less games, but we are essentially asking for more with less, purely quantity wise.
I don't think it would be a problem, with each game meaning more, we'd hopefully just have a better product , and if we can sort out international clashes too...

[Puja]

Is there a danger that teams get stuck at the bottom of division two? Struggling.to attract talent then just becoming like Italy in the SN?

Also, would advertising/tb money be shared equally between the two leagues? apologies if that has already been covered. While I love the idea of expanding the number of teams playing fully pro rugby each week, I'm worried a the public won't be interested in a tier 2. even an enhanced one like this

I'm still a fan of the conference system but guess I'm in the minority. Just glad I didn't out my NFL style draft idea out.there.... (this is a joke btw).

I would imagine that Prem 1 would get a larger amount of advertising/central money as the standars bearers of the country, but not by a massive amount.

You're right that the general public wouldn't buy into a second division as much as the top division, but it doesn't actually need that many more people to in order to be viable. The best supported teams in the Champ already get okay crowds, especially when they're playing against the relegated team, and an average crowd of 5k would be more than possible.

There is definitely a possibility that a side would get stuck at the bottom of P2, as is always the case with any ringfencing anywhere. However, attracting talent isn't likely to be a problem, given that Championship teams currently attract players while working on a shoestring budget. If a side is a complete irretrievable basketcase, then there would be the option to replace them with another franchise.

I look at rugby league - they've got sugar daddies trying to set up Newcastle and Liverpool franchises into their lower leagues. And yes, it's cheaper to run a rugby league team and they do have the advantage of having an inbuilt enemy to fight against which drives passion for fans and owners, but I see no reason why that couldn't happen in union if we provide a guarantee that they could start in P2 and have no risk of relegation and annihilation. At the moment we've only got that with Ealing and they're regarded with genial disdain rather than welcomed as a new part of the English game.

Puja

[Puja]

Starting to come round to Puja's idea rather than groups/conferences, and since it has become apparent that TV money seems to put a large emphasis on relegation being a thing.
Trouble is I have a horrible feeling that 18 fully pro teams might still be too many to be sustainable at the moment. At least until we grow the games viewership, which, I come back to, can only be done through a successful international team - regularly playing in meaningful games/tournaments. And 10 teams may well not be concentrated enough for England to be as competitive as other systems.
I think part of the reason many of us are against this is because we're very into rugby, therefore very attached to our clubs as they are. I think we have to be aware that if we genuinely want to grow the game, even just to the extent of financial viability. We probably have to accept some kind of change to the format.

Yessss, another convert (although it should be noted that Which holds the patent to the idea; I just waffle about it a lot). Don't suppose you're on the RFU or PRL board, are you?

I don't see 18 teams as being a stretch as we already have 14 who are already fully pro (top 13 plus Ealing), as well as Pirates who have good support and are imminently about to have their own ground. The additional 3 wouldn't be required to compete at Prem level or finances, as I'd have no relegation from Prem 2 for at least 5 years (and then after that it'd be more likely to be accepting franchise applications to expand to 20 than relegating) and so they would be able to live within their means without fear that it would lead to their West Hartlepool/Orrell style annihilation.

Puja

But how many of them actually make a profit as opposed to being a vanity project for a rich owner? Obviously with Covid none, but even before that...
As you say, expansion could definitely be on the cards later on, when we're all swimming in money and Rugby in general is nice and healthy. Maybe we could start with 8 in each league?
Not sure how much we've talked about player welfare too. Smaller leagues would hopefully mean less games, but we are essentially asking for more with less, purely quantity wise.
I don't think it would be a problem, with each game meaning more, we'd hopefully just have a better product , and if we can sort out international clashes too...

No rugby clubs makes a profit apart from Exeter and occasionally Leicester. The game in this country is dependent on vanity projects for rich owners.

I wouldn't be averse to 8:8, but it would significantly reduce the number of home games played and thus money coming in. 10:8 means that there's 9 home games rather than 11, but would have the advantage of a meaningful cup which would hopefully make up for it.

Puja