RugbyRebels

Long overdue.

I'd like some sort of development cup kept for international windows though. I'm not sure this addresses the need for young talent to have regular useful game time. If anything, dragging the championship higher up reduces what's on offer

Peat wrote:Long overdue.

I'd like some sort of development cup kept for international windows though. I'm not sure this addresses the need for young talent to have regular useful game time. If anything, dragging the championship higher up reduces what's on offer

I have grown to quite like the Anglo-Welsh in its new format as a development comp, but it is rendered a bit more annoying by sides occasionally taking the piss and putting out strong teams. Maybe a limit of only 4 over-24s in matchday squads would work.

Mind, if we're bringing the Champ higher up, then we'd want to get them involved in the Cup. If you had a comp with 8 pools of 4, then you could have the 20 Prem and Champ teams with 4, and 8 invitational sides from Welsh Prem, ND1 sides with ambitions of promotion, get the Scots and Irish involved, invite a German or a Georgian team for funsies, etc.

Puja

Digby wrote:What are the 10 teams in the AP people would want to keep? I've got Exeter, Sarries, Leicesters, Saints, Wuss, Glaws, Quins, Sale, Newcastle and Wasps

poor bait

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:What are the 10 teams in the AP people would want to keep? I've got Exeter, Sarries, Leicesters, Saints, Wuss, Glaws, Quins, Sale, Newcastle and Wasps

poor bait

Perhaps, it's also the teams I'd keep. Bath would come into the equation if they owned their own stadium, Irish likewise, and I'm not too fussed about Brizzle either when there's Glaws, Exeter and Wuss all included and actually Bath might fall afoul of there being so many SW teams, any which way I'd keep 2 out of 3 from Glaws, Bath and Wuss

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:What are the 10 teams in the AP people would want to keep? I've got Exeter, Sarries, Leicesters, Saints, Wuss, Glaws, Quins, Sale, Newcastle and Wasps

poor bait

Perhaps, it's also the teams I'd keep. Bath would come into the equation if they owned their own stadium, Irish likewise, and I'm not too fussed about Brizzle either when there's Glaws, Exeter and Wuss all included and actually Bath might fall afoul of there being so many SW teams, any which way I'd keep 2 out of 3 from Glaws, Bath and Wuss

ah. Whatevs. Seems perverse to rule out an authentic rugby union hotbed vs say Sale (long tradition of RU I suppose, but do they own their own ground?), and I say that as a Glaws lad who should have every parochial reason to have Bath disappear.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: poor bait

Perhaps, it's also the teams I'd keep. Bath would come into the equation if they owned their own stadium, Irish likewise, and I'm not too fussed about Brizzle either when there's Glaws, Exeter and Wuss all included and actually Bath might fall afoul of there being so many SW teams, any which way I'd keep 2 out of 3 from Glaws, Bath and Wuss

ah. Whatevs. Seems perverse to rule out an authentic rugby union hotbed vs say Sale (long tradition of RU I suppose, but do they own their own ground?), and I say that as a Glaws lad who should have every parochial reason to have Bath disappear.

I've said above somewhere if we'e ringfencing then a geographic spread seems warranted to me.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Perhaps, it's also the teams I'd keep. Bath would come into the equation if they owned their own stadium, Irish likewise, and I'm not too fussed about Brizzle either when there's Glaws, Exeter and Wuss all included and actually Bath might fall afoul of there being so many SW teams, any which way I'd keep 2 out of 3 from Glaws, Bath and Wuss

ah. Whatevs. Seems perverse to rule out an authentic rugby union hotbed vs say Sale (long tradition of RU I suppose, but do they own their own ground?), and I say that as a Glaws lad who should have every parochial reason to have Bath disappear.

I've said above somewhere if we'e ringfencing then a geographic spread seems warranted to me.

that was a codicil, almost an edit, really . And why, anyway?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: ah. Whatevs. Seems perverse to rule out an authentic rugby union hotbed vs say Sale (long tradition of RU I suppose, but do they own their own ground?), and I say that as a Glaws lad who should have every parochial reason to have Bath disappear.

I've said above somewhere if we'e ringfencing then a geographic spread seems warranted to me.

that was a codicil, almost an edit, really . And why, anyway?

Why have a geographic spread? Just feels the right way to go for what is a national game albeit far from the national game

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I've said above somewhere if we'e ringfencing then a geographic spread seems warranted to me.

that was a codicil, almost an edit, really . And why, anyway?

Why have a geographic spread? Just feels the right way to go for what is a national game albeit far from the national game

Ah, feels right.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: that was a codicil, almost an edit, really . And why, anyway?

Why have a geographic spread? Just feels the right way to go for what is a national game albeit far from the national game

Ah, feels right.

Also I above i'd prefer a merit based system, but that entails promotion and relegation

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Perhaps, it's also the teams I'd keep. Bath would come into the equation if they owned their own stadium, Irish likewise, and I'm not too fussed about Brizzle either when there's Glaws, Exeter and Wuss all included and actually Bath might fall afoul of there being so many SW teams, any which way I'd keep 2 out of 3 from Glaws, Bath and Wuss

ah. Whatevs. Seems perverse to rule out an authentic rugby union hotbed vs say Sale (long tradition of RU I suppose, but do they own their own ground?), and I say that as a Glaws lad who should have every parochial reason to have Bath disappear.

I've said above somewhere if we'e ringfencing then a geographic spread seems warranted to me.

The discussion is around ringfencing below the Champ, not at Premiership level. If you look at the 8 who would likely prove the best bet from the Champ, you actually get a pretty good geographical spread. Even more so, if you promote the likes of Darlington and maybe Cambridge above their levels.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: ah. Whatevs. Seems perverse to rule out an authentic rugby union hotbed vs say Sale (long tradition of RU I suppose, but do they own their own ground?), and I say that as a Glaws lad who should have every parochial reason to have Bath disappear.

I've said above somewhere if we'e ringfencing then a geographic spread seems warranted to me.

The discussion is around ringfencing below the Champ, not at Premiership level. If you look at the 8 who would likely prove the best bet from the Champ, you actually get a pretty good geographical spread. Even more so, if you promote the likes of Darlington and maybe Cambridge above their levels.

Puja

I think the discussion is around ringfencing the AP by first showing ringfencing can be used and shown to be a success, and whatever happens will be claimed as a success

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
I've said above somewhere if we'e ringfencing then a geographic spread seems warranted to me.

The discussion is around ringfencing below the Champ, not at Premiership level. If you look at the 8 who would likely prove the best bet from the Champ, you actually get a pretty good geographical spread. Even more so, if you promote the likes of Darlington and maybe Cambridge above their levels.

Puja

I think the discussion is around ringfencing the AP by first showing ringfencing can be used and shown to be a success, and whatever happens will be claimed as a success

Cynic!

I'm not sure you're right there though. The issue is that there are 14 "favoured" clubs and only 12 spaces in the Prem. I'm fairly certain that this whole extended season malarky was to end up creating space for a 14 team Prem, but the players actually seem to have reached a hard limit for how much they're willing to be f*cked around. So, maybe expand to 20 top teams in two divisions of 10 instead.

The other alternative is to wait till Leeds's Prem shares expire and London Irish just plain expire from not having a ground.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Why have a geographic spread? Just feels the right way to go for what is a national game albeit far from the national game

Ah, feels right.

Also I above i'd prefer a merit based system, but that entails promotion and relegation

but you apply your own meritocracy by specifying ground ownership or location as desired .

Depends what you want I guess- a demographic spread might also have merit!

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: Ah, feels right.

Also I above i'd prefer a merit based system, but that entails promotion and relegation

but you apply your own meritocracy by specifying ground ownership or location as desired .

Depends what you want I guess- a demographic spread might also have merit!

If it's merit based on sporting attainment I wouldn't have ground ownership amongst the minimum criteria, but if it was included as a minimum I wouldn't object to it either

Puja wrote:
The other alternative is to wait till Leeds's Prem shares expire and London Irish just plain expire from not having a ground.

Puja

I’m fairly certain Leeds sold their shares to Exeter. As always, I offer no evidence beyond what my concussion riddled brain thinks it once heard.

Puja wrote:

Peat wrote:Long overdue.

I'd like some sort of development cup kept for international windows though. I'm not sure this addresses the need for young talent to have regular useful game time. If anything, dragging the championship higher up reduces what's on offer

I have grown to quite like the Anglo-Welsh in its new format as a development comp, but it is rendered a bit more annoying by sides occasionally taking the piss and putting out strong teams. Maybe a limit of only 4 over-24s in matchday squads would work.

Mind, if we're bringing the Champ higher up, then we'd want to get them involved in the Cup. If you had a comp with 8 pools of 4, then you could have the 20 Prem and Champ teams with 4, and 8 invitational sides from Welsh Prem, ND1 sides with ambitions of promotion, get the Scots and Irish involved, invite a German or a Georgian team for funsies, etc.

Puja

I don't know about other clubs, but Wasps would struggle to find 19 under 24s, so it would be full of guest players. Maybe not such a bad thing - if Prem clubs were linked with Championship clubs it could be a good way to give exposure to players

Problem with that is, if we've got the championship clubs on roughly the same level as the Premiership clubs (which I think is the end goal of this and could happen pretty quick), linking wouldn't really work. And I'm not sure links to ND clubs is the answer.

Really there needs to be a proper A League but there's never been an appetite for it.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
The other alternative is to wait till Leeds's Prem shares expire and London Irish just plain expire from not having a ground.

Puja

Puja

I’m fairly certain Leeds sold their shares to Exeter. As always, I offer no evidence beyond what my concussion riddled brain thinks it once heard.

I believe they've sold some, but it's another couple of years before they lose the last ones. I'll offer the same disclaimer as you though.

Puja

Does something dark and sinister happen if you say his name three times?

Peat wrote:Problem with that is, if we've got the championship clubs on roughly the same level as the Premiership clubs (which I think is the end goal of this and could happen pretty quick), linking wouldn't really work. And I'm not sure links to ND clubs is the answer.

Really there needs to be a proper A League but there's never been an appetite for it.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’m fairly certain Leeds sold their shares to Exeter. As always, I offer no evidence beyond what my concussion riddled brain thinks it once heard.

I believe they've sold some, but it's another couple of years before they lose the last ones. I'll offer the same disclaimer as you though.

Puja

Does something dark and sinister happen if you say his name three times?

Crap - stupid mobile phone interface. I thought I had quoted Mells, but I obviously edited it by mistake. The above is how it should have read.

Pujapujapuja