Bill Sweeney gets his bonus

[Puja]

I don't always agree with Brian Moore, but he's hit the nail on the head here with castigating SCW's populist calls for "obvious solutions" and "simple common sense": https://archive.ph/Xja6c

Deep-rooted issues in English rugby will not be solved by Sir Clive & Co
Complex corporate matters cannot be solved by some form of strange rugby-knowledge osmosis – a braoder approach is needed

Sir Clive Woodward has put forward his 10-point plan to solve England’s problems but some of his points simply do not hold up, and below are just two examples.

Clive asked: “Why isn’t Martin Johnson on the RFU board? Why aren’t guys like Will Greenwood and Matt Dawson involved in the game?” and continued “The RFU needs no-nonsense figures with rugby experience who will front up to the media, supporters and the clubs on big issues.” I have huge respect for Clive and the three mentioned players but what the hell does this mean?

All those mentioned could have offered their services as Jason Leonard, Jon Webb, Phil de Glanville, Maggie Alphonsi and Gill Burns have already done. Johnson was put in charge of the England team and his win-loss ratio was 53 per cent.

Greenwood and Dawson do not have elite-level coaching experience, so to what roles should they be appointed and how much should they be paid? How will this fit in with Steve Borthwick’s structure and if he doesn’t agree to an appointment, are you going to force it upon him?

None of the aforesaid have legal or medical expertise or, as far as I am aware, experience of operating within complicated organisational governance structures. How will “no-nonsense fronting up” be applied? To what governance roles are they suited and why will any of this succeed?

Clive also took a swipe at what he called nameless committees, including the one which advises on the appointment of England’s head coach. He called for transparency, saying – ‘‘We simply don’t know who the people who make these decisions are. It has been indicated the RFU doesn’t name the decision-makers for fear of social media abuse. How utterly pathetic!”

I know that some of the members of this advisory panel were in Clive’s successful 2003 team and that they only agreed to help if their identities were not released. Should the RFU have broken that agreement, or should they have insisted that panel members be publicly named, in which case they would have been denied the sort of input Clive calls for?

Important details around Sweeney’s contract need analysing

There are deep-rooted and serious issues facing both English and world rugby, but they will not be solved by soundbites that offer unevidenced solutions. I don’t believe that complex corporate issues can be solved by some form of strange rugby-knowledge osmosis.

That said, the optics of Bill Sweeney’s remuneration package, which included a bonus award of £358,000, look terrible against the background of the RFU’s recent projected £37.9 million loss and the losing streak of its men’s international team. The story has attracted the inevitable headlines and calls of Sweeney to fall on his sword, but important details have not been analysed properly.

Let’s take Sweeney’s contract first. The responsibility for its negotiation and conclusion lies not with Sweeney but with the board at the time of its implementation. It was framed against a background of Covid 19, when Sweeney and others accepted large pay cuts. The bonus was paid after it had been deferred, by agreement, for three years and that an offer for a further rollover was not possible. You can take the view that Sweeney should have waived it altogether, but who would have done this if a remuneration committee had ok’d the award? I wouldn’t and I don’t believe many people can honestly say they would. If critics want somebody’s head for this, they should include the relevant board members.

You also need to examine the RFU as an entity and consider what level of pay is appropriate and what sort of people and skills are required to run it. The RFU is not like a FTSE 500 company. It has legal, operational and tactical responsibilities as a governing body for an entire sector. Its remit is huge and vastly complicated. Its stakeholders (the community clubs) have constitutional power over certain decisions that shareholders do not have in ordinary businesses. The elite club end of English rugby is run by its owners whose focus is what is best for their own club, which means a continual tension between the interests of them, the international team and grass-roots rugby. Picking your way through these complexities requires a lot more than simple rugby knowledge.

It is a complex situation that requires more than superficial plans to work properly.

Puja

[Banquo]

I don't always agree with Brian Moore, but he's hit the nail on the head here with castigating SCW's populist calls for "obvious solutions" and "simple common sense": https://archive.ph/Xja6c

Deep-rooted issues in English rugby will not be solved by Sir Clive & Co
Complex corporate matters cannot be solved by some form of strange rugby-knowledge osmosis – a braoder approach is needed

Sir Clive Woodward has put forward his 10-point plan to solve England’s problems but some of his points simply do not hold up, and below are just two examples.

Clive asked: “Why isn’t Martin Johnson on the RFU board? Why aren’t guys like Will Greenwood and Matt Dawson involved in the game?” and continued “The RFU needs no-nonsense figures with rugby experience who will front up to the media, supporters and the clubs on big issues.” I have huge respect for Clive and the three mentioned players but what the hell does this mean?

All those mentioned could have offered their services as Jason Leonard, Jon Webb, Phil de Glanville, Maggie Alphonsi and Gill Burns have already done. Johnson was put in charge of the England team and his win-loss ratio was 53 per cent.

Greenwood and Dawson do not have elite-level coaching experience, so to what roles should they be appointed and how much should they be paid? How will this fit in with Steve Borthwick’s structure and if he doesn’t agree to an appointment, are you going to force it upon him?

None of the aforesaid have legal or medical expertise or, as far as I am aware, experience of operating within complicated organisational governance structures. How will “no-nonsense fronting up” be applied? To what governance roles are they suited and why will any of this succeed?

Clive also took a swipe at what he called nameless committees, including the one which advises on the appointment of England’s head coach. He called for transparency, saying – ‘‘We simply don’t know who the people who make these decisions are. It has been indicated the RFU doesn’t name the decision-makers for fear of social media abuse. How utterly pathetic!”

I know that some of the members of this advisory panel were in Clive’s successful 2003 team and that they only agreed to help if their identities were not released. Should the RFU have broken that agreement, or should they have insisted that panel members be publicly named, in which case they would have been denied the sort of input Clive calls for?

Important details around Sweeney’s contract need analysing

There are deep-rooted and serious issues facing both English and world rugby, but they will not be solved by soundbites that offer unevidenced solutions. I don’t believe that complex corporate issues can be solved by some form of strange rugby-knowledge osmosis.

That said, the optics of Bill Sweeney’s remuneration package, which included a bonus award of £358,000, look terrible against the background of the RFU’s recent projected £37.9 million loss and the losing streak of its men’s international team. The story has attracted the inevitable headlines and calls of Sweeney to fall on his sword, but important details have not been analysed properly.

Let’s take Sweeney’s contract first. The responsibility for its negotiation and conclusion lies not with Sweeney but with the board at the time of its implementation. It was framed against a background of Covid 19, when Sweeney and others accepted large pay cuts. The bonus was paid after it had been deferred, by agreement, for three years and that an offer for a further rollover was not possible. You can take the view that Sweeney should have waived it altogether, but who would have done this if a remuneration committee had ok’d the award? I wouldn’t and I don’t believe many people can honestly say they would. If critics want somebody’s head for this, they should include the relevant board members.

You also need to examine the RFU as an entity and consider what level of pay is appropriate and what sort of people and skills are required to run it. The RFU is not like a FTSE 500 company. It has legal, operational and tactical responsibilities as a governing body for an entire sector. Its remit is huge and vastly complicated. Its stakeholders (the community clubs) have constitutional power over certain decisions that shareholders do not have in ordinary businesses. The elite club end of English rugby is run by its owners whose focus is what is best for their own club, which means a continual tension between the interests of them, the international team and grass-roots rugby. Picking your way through these complexities requires a lot more than simple rugby knowledge.

It is a complex situation that requires more than superficial plans to work properly.

Puja

Generally agree with that- but 'The RFU is not like a FTSE 500 company.'. Correct, it is a governing body, so why is it paying out LTIP's ? The real failure around the exec monies is governance, which is down to Ilube and the Non execs (and council, probably, who represent the members (us)).
Need to separate out the annoyance over remuneration vs what the game actually needs to do.

[Banquo]

Emergency (:)) Council meeting on the 18th.

[Mellsblue]

I feel a bit sorry for Sweeno. He didn’t vote for his own remuneration package and the bonus is smoothed over 3 years (isn’t this what we all wanted after the credit crunch) so isn’t just a representation of this year’s performance. It’s set against targets, albeit there seems to be some fudging around the men’s results, so what else is the right thing to do. You could argue he should hand back some of the bonus but that then sets precedents/put pressure on others whose pay package isn’t as erm generous. Perhaps, in hindsight, those who were awarded the bonuses could’ve collectively agreed to each fund a community rugby officer (or whatever they’re called) for the next eg 3 years, they’re not exactly on hefty salaries, but well what’s that saying about hindsight. Outside of the men’s England team he’s actually done a pretty good job:
Best pro women’s league in the world.
Best women’s team in the world.
New EPS agreement with enhanced access (albeit with vfm questions).
Tier 2 deal that seems to have kept almost everyone happy.
Marketing beating stadium naming rights.

That’s not too bad, if nowhere near perfect.

[Banquo]

I feel a bit sorry for Sweeno. He didn’t vote for his own remuneration package and the bonus is smoothed over 3 years (isn’t this what we all wanted after the credit crunch) so isn’t just a representation of this year’s performance. It’s set against targets, albeit there seems to be some fudging around the men’s results, so what else is the right thing to do. You could argue he should hand back some of the bonus but that then sets precedents/put pressure on others whose pay package isn’t as erm generous. Perhaps, in hindsight, those who were awarded the bonuses could’ve collectively agreed to each fund a community rugby officer (or whatever they’re called) for the next eg 3 years, they’re not exactly on hefty salaries, but well what’s that saying about hindsight. Outside of the men’s England team he’s actually done a pretty good job:
Best pro women’s league in the world.
Best women’s team in the world.
New EPS agreement with enhanced access (albeit with vfm questions).
Tier 2 deal that seems to have kept almost everyone happy.
Marketing beating stadium naming rights.

That’s not too bad, if nowhere near perfect.

The EGM will be more likely focused on the Chair (who actually inherited the bonus scheme from previous chair, Blackett) and the board, rather than Sweeney Todd. The problem he has is that the successes you point to are perceived to have been at the 'expense' of the community game and Championship.

[Mellsblue]

I feel a bit sorry for Sweeno. He didn’t vote for his own remuneration package and the bonus is smoothed over 3 years (isn’t this what we all wanted after the credit crunch) so isn’t just a representation of this year’s performance. It’s set against targets, albeit there seems to be some fudging around the men’s results, so what else is the right thing to do. You could argue he should hand back some of the bonus but that then sets precedents/put pressure on others whose pay package isn’t as erm generous. Perhaps, in hindsight, those who were awarded the bonuses could’ve collectively agreed to each fund a community rugby officer (or whatever they’re called) for the next eg 3 years, they’re not exactly on hefty salaries, but well what’s that saying about hindsight. Outside of the men’s England team he’s actually done a pretty good job:
Best pro women’s league in the world.
Best women’s team in the world.
New EPS agreement with enhanced access (albeit with vfm questions).
Tier 2 deal that seems to have kept almost everyone happy.
Marketing beating stadium naming rights.

That’s not too bad, if nowhere near perfect.

have been at the 'expense' of the community game and Championship.

Let them eat cake.

As I said, the bonus is set against defined targets and, the fudging I mentioned aside, it seems to have been awarded against those targets. Perhaps they should’ve seen the backlash coming. Who knows. Perhaps there needs to be an ‘optics’ metric in the next set of targets, alongside a redundancies target.
If we’re worried about the community game and The Champ then perhaps we should cut the funding for the loss making Roses (insert tongue in cheek emoji here). I appreciate I’m using your own devils advocate argument against you! Priorities have to be decided upon. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

[Banquo]

I feel a bit sorry for Sweeno. He didn’t vote for his own remuneration package and the bonus is smoothed over 3 years (isn’t this what we all wanted after the credit crunch) so isn’t just a representation of this year’s performance. It’s set against targets, albeit there seems to be some fudging around the men’s results, so what else is the right thing to do. You could argue he should hand back some of the bonus but that then sets precedents/put pressure on others whose pay package isn’t as erm generous. Perhaps, in hindsight, those who were awarded the bonuses could’ve collectively agreed to each fund a community rugby officer (or whatever they’re called) for the next eg 3 years, they’re not exactly on hefty salaries, but well what’s that saying about hindsight. Outside of the men’s England team he’s actually done a pretty good job:
Best pro women’s league in the world.
Best women’s team in the world.
New EPS agreement with enhanced access (albeit with vfm questions).
Tier 2 deal that seems to have kept almost everyone happy.
Marketing beating stadium naming rights.

That’s not too bad, if nowhere near perfect.

have been at the 'expense' of the community game and Championship.

Let them eat cake.

As I said, the bonus is set against defined targets and, the fudging I mentioned aside, it seems to have been awarded against those targets. Perhaps they should’ve seen the backlash coming. Who knows. Perhaps there needs to be an ‘optics’ metric in the next set of targets, alongside a redundancies target.
If we’re worried about the community game and The Champ then perhaps we should cut the funding for the loss making Roses (insert tongue in cheek emoji here). I appreciate I’m using your own devils advocate argument against you! Priorities have to be decided upon. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I'm not advocating anything here- just stating what is going on and why.

The reality, as you infer, is that the game hasn't enough money to do what it needs to (embodied by the RFU), and therefore is prioritising--- which is what the RFU should actually say (rather than there is NO money). Mind, that goes to sh7t when they then do get c £1m in bonuses and pretty chunky salaries out of kilter with other governing bodies (there is of course the argument that this governing body also funds and is a fund raiser). Unlike other Champ clubs, we don't expect to be subsidised in order to run a semi pro/pro side; but we didn't expect a huge funding (which was against the RFU decided had to be in place- medical amongst other things) cut whilst having new standards imposed.

Optics is a part of it, as is the mirror test. As you say, the board were offered deals, and these are now being honoured. I see both sides.

[Mellsblue]

have been at the 'expense' of the community game and Championship.

Let them eat cake.

As I said, the bonus is set against defined targets and, the fudging I mentioned aside, it seems to have been awarded against those targets. Perhaps they should’ve seen the backlash coming. Who knows. Perhaps there needs to be an ‘optics’ metric in the next set of targets, alongside a redundancies target.
If we’re worried about the community game and The Champ then perhaps we should cut the funding for the loss making Roses (insert tongue in cheek emoji here). I appreciate I’m using your own devils advocate argument against you! Priorities have to be decided upon. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I see both sides.

Same. Just felt like the poor bloke needed defending. He can’t do it himself from the ivory holiday home he’s just bought!

On a slight tangent, I find the salary comparison, as with the stadium naming, a bit of apples and pairs. There’s not a comparable job in the country. Off the top of my head, the LTA perhaps but that’s it. I’m happy to pay an extra 10p on a bit of England branded kit, tickets etc if that means they can employee the best of the best. Not arguing that’s what Sweeney is.

[Banquo]

Let them eat cake.

As I said, the bonus is set against defined targets and, the fudging I mentioned aside, it seems to have been awarded against those targets. Perhaps they should’ve seen the backlash coming. Who knows. Perhaps there needs to be an ‘optics’ metric in the next set of targets, alongside a redundancies target.
If we’re worried about the community game and The Champ then perhaps we should cut the funding for the loss making Roses (insert tongue in cheek emoji here). I appreciate I’m using your own devils advocate argument against you! Priorities have to be decided upon. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I see both sides.

Same. Just felt like the poor bloke needed defending. He can’t do it himself from the ivory holiday home he’s just bought!

On a slight tangent, I find the salary comparison, as with the stadium naming, a bit of apples and pairs. There’s not a comparable job in the country. Off the top of my head, the LTA perhaps but that’s it. I’m happy to pay an extra 10p on a bit of England branded kit, tickets etc if that means they can employee the best of the best. Not arguing that’s what Sweeney is.

Its a fair point- as said above, his salary has been compared with equivalent at LTA, MCC, UKA etc. But you are right, not quite like for like...they ARE custodians, and we are all members and stakeholders in the RFU. but there is a huge commercial enterprise that they also run that funds a lot of the game.

[Mellsblue]

I see both sides.

Same. Just felt like the poor bloke needed defending. He can’t do it himself from the ivory holiday home he’s just bought!

On a slight tangent, I find the salary comparison, as with the stadium naming, a bit of apples and pairs. There’s not a comparable job in the country. Off the top of my head, the LTA perhaps but that’s it. I’m happy to pay an extra 10p on a bit of England branded kit, tickets etc if that means they can employee the best of the best. Not arguing that’s what Sweeney is.

Its a fair point- as said above, his salary has been compared with equivalent at LTA, MCC, UKA etc. But you are right, not quite like for like...they ARE custodians, and we are all members and stakeholders in the RFU. but there is a huge commercial enterprise that they also run that funds a lot of the game.

I can’t think of another body that runs:
A huge stadium that funds the entire game.
An elite men’s team (back to 1.5/2 this season)
An elite women’s team.
A pro women’s league (albeit not from this season).
A semi pro men’s league (albeit very badly, even negligently).
Governs and helps fund a myriad of community teams, most of whom have their own club house, floodlights and multiple pitches.
An academy, plus part funding 10 club academies.
A relationship with the dysfunctional Premier Rugby.

[Banquo]

Same. Just felt like the poor bloke needed defending. He can’t do it himself from the ivory holiday home he’s just bought!

On a slight tangent, I find the salary comparison, as with the stadium naming, a bit of apples and pairs. There’s not a comparable job in the country. Off the top of my head, the LTA perhaps but that’s it. I’m happy to pay an extra 10p on a bit of England branded kit, tickets etc if that means they can employee the best of the best. Not arguing that’s what Sweeney is.

Its a fair point- as said above, his salary has been compared with equivalent at LTA, MCC, UKA etc. But you are right, not quite like for like...they ARE custodians, and we are all members and stakeholders in the RFU. but there is a huge commercial enterprise that they also run that funds a lot of the game.

I can’t think of another body that runs:
A huge stadium that funds the entire game.
An elite men’s team (back to 1.5/2 this season)
An elite women’s team.
A pro women’s league (albeit not from this season).
A semi pro men’s league (albeit very badly, even negligently).
Governs and helps fund a myriad of community teams, most of whom have their own club house, floodlights and multiple pitches.
An academy, plus part funding 10 club academies.
A relationship with the dysfunctional Premier Rugby.

me either

[Banquo]

Lots of moves afoot to get a vote of no confidence/make Ilube's position untenable, though the real target is the CEO and other board members.

[Mellsblue]

Wayne Barnes weighs in:

[Banquo]

Wayne Barnes weighs in:

https://x.com/waynebarnesref/status/186 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

He’s a bit compromised tbh.

[Stom]

Its a fair point- as said above, his salary has been compared with equivalent at LTA, MCC, UKA etc. But you are right, not quite like for like...they ARE custodians, and we are all members and stakeholders in the RFU. but there is a huge commercial enterprise that they also run that funds a lot of the game.

I can’t think of another body that runs:
A huge stadium that funds the entire game.
An elite men’s team (back to 1.5/2 this season)
An elite women’s team.
A pro women’s league (albeit not from this season).
A semi pro men’s league (albeit very badly, even negligently).
Governs and helps fund a myriad of community teams, most of whom have their own club house, floodlights and multiple pitches.
An academy, plus part funding 10 club academies.
A relationship with the dysfunctional Premier Rugby.

me either

I reckon you could compare with the BBC…

For whom the highest paid executive got £527,000…

Not sure the RFU are getting value, but agree it’s not Sweeney fault.

[jngf]

I can’t think of another body that runs:
A huge stadium that funds the entire game.
An elite men’s team (back to 1.5/2 this season)
An elite women’s team.
A pro women’s league (albeit not from this season).
A semi pro men’s league (albeit very badly, even negligently).
Governs and helps fund a myriad of community teams, most of whom have their own club house, floodlights and multiple pitches.
An academy, plus part funding 10 club academies.
A relationship with the dysfunctional Premier Rugby.

me either

I reckon you could compare with the BBC…

For whom the highest paid executive got £527,000…

Not sure the RFU are getting value, but agree it’s not Sweeney fault.

BBC is to all intents and purposes a branch of the Civil Service or at the very least an arms length government body - can understand them needing to pay a lot for talent but why are so many BBC middle management bureaucrats on 6 figure salaries ? in same way RFU does not need to pay so highly for the middle managers as opposed to top player and coaching talent.

[Mellsblue]

I can’t think of another body that runs:
A huge stadium that funds the entire game.
An elite men’s team (back to 1.5/2 this season)
An elite women’s team.
A pro women’s league (albeit not from this season).
A semi pro men’s league (albeit very badly, even negligently).
Governs and helps fund a myriad of community teams, most of whom have their own club house, floodlights and multiple pitches.
An academy, plus part funding 10 club academies.
A relationship with the dysfunctional Premier Rugby.

me either

I reckon you could compare with the BBC…

How so?

[Stom]

me either

I reckon you could compare with the BBC…

How so?

Have to run a number of different arms, plus juggle financing for them, plus income from the overseas arm.

[Banquo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union ... vrp790ekyo

Loads of angst.

[Oakboy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union ... vrp790ekyo

Loads of angst.

I cant get my head around it. It seems fundamental that chairman and CEO need to be an efficient leadership pairing. Above all they need to be seen to be demonstrating that they understand all points of view so that financial fair play is perceived. Regardless of the background to any of it, clubs folding and HQ staff being made redundant is out of line (in perception) with them and others being paid bonuses.

Just for that lack of common sense in approach and profile, their days must be numbered even if they are good at their jobs.

[Puja]

Mind, he could be doing a worse job. Just found this snippet in an article complaining about the Champions Cup:

As reported elsewhere, it is understood that TNT Sports offered £14 million for the European competition, but EPCR rejected that and attempts to secure a bigger deal failed. EPCR was then forced to accept an offer for about half as much from Premier Sports.

So yeah, there are worse executives available!

Puja

[FKAS]

Mind, he could be doing a worse job. Just found this snippet in an article complaining about the Champions Cup:

As reported elsewhere, it is understood that TNT Sports offered £14 million for the European competition, but EPCR rejected that and attempts to secure a bigger deal failed. EPCR was then forced to accept an offer for about half as much from Premier Sports.

So yeah, there are worse executives available!

Puja

Jeez, just what rugby needed right now was less money.

[Mr Mwenda]

I am a bit unsure where to put this thought but I've been mulling it over for a while. I am wondering if we witnessing the end of the greatest era of rugby union? I watched the 2003 world cup final with my son last month (he wanted to see legends of yore) and it was amazing how slow and simple it was, backs attacking in one line etc.

Presumably the ensuing 20 years of ridiculous innovation and development cost a few bob, with a specific coach for every single moment of the game. But if the money's running out, will we see regression? It seems impossible to continue to invest so heavily in the elite game as clubs and unions go bust. Presumably there will be concomitant impacts at the top. Maybe I'm overly negative but I wonder if we will start to see regression in quality at some point. Perhaps England are just trailblazers again in that regard.

Obviously there are ways to be more effective with the resources one has, and also there are competing imperatives that complicate things.

(As an aside, when did the culture of everyone getting bonuses become a thing in sports management? As an academic, the idea of such a thing always surprises me).

[Oakboy]

I am a bit unsure where to put this thought but I've been mulling it over for a while. I am wondering if we witnessing the end of the greatest era of rugby union? I watched the 2003 world cup final with my son last month (he wanted to see legends of yore) and it was amazing how slow and simple it was, backs attacking in one line etc.

Presumably the ensuing 20 years of ridiculous innovation and development cost a few bob, with a specific coach for every single moment of the game. But if the money's running out, will we see regression? It seems impossible to continue to invest so heavily in the elite game as clubs and unions go bust. Presumably there will be concomitant impacts at the top. Maybe I'm overly negative but I wonder if we will start to see regression in quality at some point. Perhaps England are just trailblazers again in that regard.

Obviously there are ways to be more effective with the resources one has, and also there are competing imperatives that complicate things.

(As an aside, when did the culture of everyone getting bonuses become a thing in sports management? As an academic, the idea of such a thing always surprises me).

Combining your point with the thread theme, makes me suggest that regression has already happened in English rugby as a whole. A rich union like ours has slipped in terms of the on-field standard of the national team (compared with others) and the general health of our game down through the tiers. Simplistically, our team has slipped from top place to also-rans as the standard of play has improved. Our club set-up has dropped off the pace too with the salary cap restrictions (compare the Bristol bench with Leinster's).

Was it a fluke that a top group of players happened in 2003? Or, have other countries upped the standard to the demise of our comparative chances? How did we have European winning clubs followed by bankruptcies? How could Exeter get promoted and rise to the very top, yet now we have no promotion/relegation?

Then, your question arises. Can we catch up or will the rest of rugby come back to us with a universal drop in standards? I don't see declining standards from France, SA or NZ any time soon. Ireland has a rational, affordable mix of province and country.

We have not adapted and competed on-field or off yet the RFU paid elite bonuses. Failure has been rewarded - oddly. Might the end of term report have read, 'Could do better with more effort and imagination.' It was a C+ standard at best yet gold stars were handed out.

[Mr Mwenda]

Regarding France, SA, Ireland and NZ. I suspect that circa 2003 few could foresee the decline in English rugby.

I do wonder how hunky dory things really are in those countries. NZ people I encounter appear increasingly interested in rugby league and super rugby's glory days seem to have passed. France may just be experiencing a golden generation before lapsing back into purely focusing on the top14. Their women's team is regressing I think. I genuinely have no idea why the SA production line has become so good and reliable. Perhaps pumping school boys with steroids is a way to drive standards at the developmental level . At some point presumably the idea that SA clubs can play in another continent will finally be rejected and then one wonders what they shall do. Ireland abandoned their women's team for a while and their squad is full of fossils. While their model is obviously enviable, I suspect that at some point putting all the eggs in the Leinster basket may backfire.

Having said all that, each of those countries has clearly managed to keep the plates spinning better than England. I just wonder if they are just delaying the inevitable. Let's hope not.