EPS Watch / Player Form Thread

[Mellsblue]

I believe the Champ clubs are now happy with the proposal as long as it is for a max of five years and, of course, they are well compensated.

[Puja]

I believe the Champ clubs are now happy with the proposal as long as it is for a max of five years and, of course, they are well compensated.

Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.

The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.

Puja

[Digby]

The RFU shouldn't allow ringfencing without some quid pro quo - it's the only lever they still have on the clubs.

Puja

It's not the only lever, but they will elevate the role of those clubs singled out for a protected status

[Mellsblue]

I believe the Champ clubs are now happy with the proposal as long as it is for a max of five years and, of course, they are well compensated.

Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.

The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.

Puja

Fully agree on the first para.

The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.

[Puja]

I believe the Champ clubs are now happy with the proposal as long as it is for a max of five years and, of course, they are well compensated.

Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.

The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.

Puja

Fully agree on the first para.

The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.

Do they make significant amounts of money from home games (Bristol aside)? Surely any losses from attendances would be more than covered by the RFU money needing to be split fewer directions? And if the RFU are willing to throw money at them to get ringfencing, they'd be able to throw money to make 8 of them fully pro. A concentration of quality and an improvement in funding and importance would likely lead to higher attendances and TV money as well. Better still if we had two leagues of 10 and thus more big names were there.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.

The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.

Puja

Fully agree on the first para.

The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.

Do they make significant amounts of money from home games (Bristol aside)? Surely any losses from attendances would be more than covered by the RFU money needing to be split fewer directions? And if the RFU are willing to throw money at them to get ringfencing, they'd be able to throw money to make 8 of them fully pro. A concentration of quality and an improvement in funding and importance would likely lead to higher attendances and TV money as well. Better still if we had two leagues of 10 and thus more big names were there.

Puja

The bigger clubs do. Bristol, as you say, do, as do Bedford. I’d imagine Doncaster and Leeds both do. Probably Nottingham, too. The margins at that level are small in cash terms. Bedford aim to lose £80k per year, that’s two games worth of ticket sales. So, if they lose four games a year they’re tripling their loses - that’s before you take into account bar taking, club shop, hospitality (such as it is at Goldington Rd) and sponsorship income. Also, there aren’t many other income streams at Champ level. Even those that do own their ground don’t have the ancillary facilities to make money on non-match days.
There is always the possibility to have a cup comp between the second tier and the top tier’s AWC sides to add in games.
Regardless, for long term stability, and to end the chasm between the Prem and the Champ, match days in the second tier would need to be profit making at some point.

[Puja]

Fully agree on the first para.

The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.

Do they make significant amounts of money from home games (Bristol aside)? Surely any losses from attendances would be more than covered by the RFU money needing to be split fewer directions? And if the RFU are willing to throw money at them to get ringfencing, they'd be able to throw money to make 8 of them fully pro. A concentration of quality and an improvement in funding and importance would likely lead to higher attendances and TV money as well. Better still if we had two leagues of 10 and thus more big names were there.

Puja

The bigger clubs do. Bristol, as you say, do, as do Bedford. I’d imagine Doncaster and Leeds both do. Probably Nottingham, too. The margins at that level are small in cash terms. Bedford aim to lose £80k per year, that’s two games worth of ticket sales. So, if they lose four games a year they’re tripling their loses - that’s before you take into account bar taking, club shop, hospitality (such as it is at Goldington Rd) and sponsorship income. Also, there aren’t many other income streams at Champ level. Even those that do own their ground don’t have the ancillary facilities to make money on non-match days.
There is always the possibility to have a cup comp between the second tier and the top tier’s AWC sides to add in games.
Regardless, for long term stability, and to end the chasm between the Prem and the Champ, match days in the second tier would need to be profit making at some point.

They wouldn't be losing 4 games per year, only 2 home ones. But I take your point.

If I were in charge, I'd want the AWC to be expanded to be across all international weekends, and to include the Championship sides. That would seem to be the big opportunity for profit and also for Champ sides to test their mettle against the side up (albeit weakened teams).

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Do they make significant amounts of money from home games (Bristol aside)? Surely any losses from attendances would be more than covered by the RFU money needing to be split fewer directions? And if the RFU are willing to throw money at them to get ringfencing, they'd be able to throw money to make 8 of them fully pro. A concentration of quality and an improvement in funding and importance would likely lead to higher attendances and TV money as well. Better still if we had two leagues of 10 and thus more big names were there.

Puja

The bigger clubs do. Bristol, as you say, do, as do Bedford. I’d imagine Doncaster and Leeds both do. Probably Nottingham, too. The margins at that level are small in cash terms. Bedford aim to lose £80k per year, that’s two games worth of ticket sales. So, if they lose four games a year they’re tripling their loses - that’s before you take into account bar taking, club shop, hospitality (such as it is at Goldington Rd) and sponsorship income. Also, there aren’t many other income streams at Champ level. Even those that do own their ground don’t have the ancillary facilities to make money on non-match days.
There is always the possibility to have a cup comp between the second tier and the top tier’s AWC sides to add in games.
Regardless, for long term stability, and to end the chasm between the Prem and the Champ, match days in the second tier would need to be profit making at some point.

They wouldn't be losing 4 games per year, only 2 home ones. But I take your point.

If I were in charge, I'd want the AWC to be expanded to be across all international weekends, and to include the Championship sides. That would seem to be the big opportunity for profit and also for Champ sides to test their mettle against the side up (albeit weakened teams).

Puja

Sorry, was going on your 8 fully pro teams rather than your preferred 10 and 10. Mainly as it backed up my point of view better!!

Wholly agree with your second para. The B&I Cup is coming to an end this year. As unloved as it is by some, it does have plenty of positives and will need replacing.

[Beasties]

Sam Jones retirement has been officially announced sadly. Massive shame for the guy, injured when on the verge of getting a decent run of games for Eng. Great servant for Wasps, Dai had some very kind words to say about him with good reason. Gutted we won't see him play again. Good luck for the future Sam.

[Banquo]

Sam Jones retirement has been officially announced sadly. Massive shame for the guy, injured when on the verge of getting a decent run of games for Eng. Great servant for Wasps, Dai had some very kind words to say about him with good reason. Gutted we won't see him play again. Good luck for the future Sam.

Indeed- and I hope he got the appropriate compensation from insurance/and/or RFU.

[Which Tyler]

The RFU shouldn't allow ringfencing without some quid pro quo - it's the only lever they still have on the clubs.

Agreed, if you absolutely HAVE to ring fence, it should be below the champ, not Prem; albeit with fewer teams in those 2.

Oh aye, I can totally see the Premiership clubs lifting the bar after 5 years, when they've all got plump and comfortable, to relegate one of their own and let in a team that's been piving on starvation measures for 5 years. That's definitely not something they'd renege on.

The answer seems obvious - reduce the Championship and ring-fence below that to get a good quality second league so that relegation isn't falling off a cliff anymore. I'd prefer two leagues of 10, but a 12 and 8 would work if we must.

Oops, hadn't seen the thread had spread to a new page again - beaten to it this time

[Which Tyler]

The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.

Which is why my proposal drops the champ to 10 teams, but higher quality games (4 out at the bottom of the Champ, 2 added from the Prem) with additional involvement in a domestic cup, including matches against the Prem clubs, and with any TV deal being spread around all 20 clubs, increased promotion/relegation by an extra play-off spot.

For then champ, they'd get more sell-out games, TV appearance for extra advertising to sell (and promotion), and TV cash., And the chance for for example, Bedford to play against Leicester or Northampton in the domestic cup.

IIRC Puja agrees with my suggestion on this when I detail it

[Mikey Brown]

What a shame for him.

I’m trying to voice my thoughts over how Maro may feel about it, without it sounding like I’m actually blaming him at all. Same for Eddie, for that matter, given the nature of the injury.

It was that same leg injury that did it right?

[Puja]

IIRC Puja agrees with my suggestion on this when I detail it

We sit here, banging on our same drum, o'er an o'er... It's a great idea, but unfortunately no-one in power gives two figs for it.

What a shame for him.

I’m trying to voice my thoughts over how Maro may feel about it, without it sounding like I’m actually blaming him at all. Same for Eddie, for that matter, given the nature of the injury.

It was that same leg injury that did it right?

It was indeed. Hopefully Maro's talked to Jones and got forgiveness, as well as talking to a professional, and is able to move forward.

I was in a game a couple of seasons ago where I and another guy cleared someone out of a ruck and his pelvis broke, right by my ear. I have problems with my memory, but for some reason I have no issues remembering that sound.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The Champ clubs lose money as it is. I’m not sure losing games will make them more sustainable, not unless they get some decent TV money.

Which is why my proposal drops the champ to 10 teams, but higher quality games (4 out at the bottom of the Champ, 2 added from the Prem) with additional involvement in a domestic cup, including matches against the Prem clubs, and with any TV deal being spread around all 20 clubs, increased promotion/relegation by an extra play-off spot.

For then champ, they'd get more sell-out games, TV appearance for extra advertising to sell (and promotion), and TV cash., And the chance for for example, Bedford to play against Leicester or Northampton in the domestic cup.

IIRC Puja agrees with my suggestion on this when I detail it

I’m not sure games against Wuss and Irish, without their test players, would make up for the two lost matches. You’d have to double the crowds in both games just to keep the status quo. Even if they could attract double the numbers, and that doesn’t happen at present at Bedford when playing whichever big club is in the Champ, most clubs don’t have facilities to accommodate them anyway.
I can’t see any increased TV monies (or any money at all as Sky currently don’t pay a penny) for Champ games because Wuss and/or Irish are involved, and the same goes for a Cup comp with Prem B teams v Champ sides.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see it happen but I don’t think it’s the route to a self-funded professional second tier. I’m not really sure there is one.

[Which Tyler]

You presumably haven't read my suggestion recently.
There would be more matches, not fewer (I think, not sure how many the B&I offers).
The big teams you would play would be the likes of Leicester or Exeter, not just Wuss/LI, and the TV dealmwould pay real money as it would be 1 deal for both division, with guaranteed coverage and cash split 20 ways.

I'm sure I've written it up since we've been on this board, I'll see if I can find it for you.
BRB

[Mellsblue]

I thought the whole point of the last few posts was to reduce games.

[Stom]

I thought the whole point of the last few posts was to reduce games.

Reduce premiership games...

[Stom]

I thought the whole point of the last few posts was to reduce games.

Reduce premiership games...

[Which Tyler]

This is the latest that wrote my spiel, but I can't find it on RR since we moved boards (I'm sure I have, but I can't find it).

The plan is to reduce games played for the players, not necessarily for the clubs, to increase quality of the leagues, increase development opportunities for the Prem and giant-slaying for the Champ, whilst increasing variety of opponents faced.

As ever, i just think people are thinking about this all wrong.

It's far too late for franchise rugby in England, that horse bolted a long time ago. It's also entirely unnecessary.

What we need IMO is fewer, higher quality matches at the top, with a more pyramidal structure at the top of the game, concentrating the talent a bit more, and preferably, decreasing the number of overseas mercenaries (thought that's not too bad these last few years).


IMO, decrease the Prem to 10 teams, 5 get EPRC places.

Probably shrink the champ to 10 (we can sustain a good 20 fully pro clubs IMO, even if they need some charity initially)

Increase promo/rele to the Championship to 1 automatic and another play off.

Ring-fence the top two leagues (with specific criteria to eject underperformers or include ambitious semi-pro.s)

MSCs for both leagues, but looser than the current, but with additional requirements for admin etc. Same salary cap for both.

TV deal is for both leagues as one deal (ideally 2 Prem and 1 Champ match per weekend).

RFU academies for all.

Expand the AWC, by adding the champ teams. 6 pools of 4, orthodox fixture list; knock-out stages to include cup, plate and shield, so that everyone gets KO experience*. Players only eligible if they played less than X minutes in the previous season (Prem clubs only).

This gives us 6 pool + 3 KO weekends to fit into the 10 week international window. We've bought that by reducing the league by 4 weekends and helped player welfare with that game time limit for the domestic cup - I'd also have a maximum number of minutes for every player anyway.


Clubs go from 22+2, 6+3, 4+2 (32-39) matches to 18+2, 6+3, 6+3* (31-38) matches, so the loss of 1 home game, higher quality in the league, greater variety of opposition, especially for the less experienced players, higher quality Championship, with a chance of giant slaying in the cup, and a guarantee that everyone gets a QF*.

Increasing the quality of the champ, along with inclusion in the TV deal (and the direct cash and subsequent sponsorship and growth opportunities), increased promotion opportunities, giant-slaying options, and that ring-fence means that this shouldn't be too much a case of turkeys voting for Christmas.


For the champ teams, without European rugby, you could argue that they'd be lacking match numbers, despite the higher quality and TV deal. You could also argue that this is better for player welfare, allows them to rest ahead of their giant-slaying opportunities, and allow for smaller squads.
If too few, we'd need to look at something presumably similar to the B&I cup (but the above is more than the current Champ without the cup).
Alternatively, increase the Champ to 14 (just the 2 dropping down being added), which barely improves the Champ; but would mean throwing the Welsh out of the domestic cup (oh well, nevermind). I vacilate on this each time I think about it, and I guess it would ultimately depend on how many champ clubs want to go fully pro and have (reduced) MSCs applied.

Of course, you could get a situation where, too many champ clubs would choose not to go fully pro; in which case I'd argue for the RFU getting involved and "assisting" 1-3 clubs in union-poor areas, say Carlisle, Blackburn or Canterbury

ETA in an ideal world, I'd actually reduce the Prem to 8 with 12 in the Champ, but I think that 10&10 stands half a chance at actually passing.

[Mellsblue]

This is the latest that wrote my spiel, but I can't find it on RR since we moved boards (I'm sure I have, but I can't find it).

The plan is to reduce games played for the players, not necessarily for the clubs, to increase quality of the leagues, increase development opportunities for the Prem and giant-slaying for the Champ, whilst increasing variety of opponents faced.

As ever, i just think people are thinking about this all wrong.

It's far too late for franchise rugby in England, that horse bolted a long time ago. It's also entirely unnecessary.

What we need IMO is fewer, higher quality matches at the top, with a more pyramidal structure at the top of the game, concentrating the talent a bit more, and preferably, decreasing the number of overseas mercenaries (thought that's not too bad these last few years).


IMO, decrease the Prem to 10 teams, 5 get EPRC places.

Probably shrink the champ to 10 (we can sustain a good 20 fully pro clubs IMO, even if they need some charity initially)

Increase promo/rele to the Championship to 1 automatic and another play off.

Ring-fence the top two leagues (with specific criteria to eject underperformers or include ambitious semi-pro.s)

MSCs for both leagues, but looser than the current, but with additional requirements for admin etc. Same salary cap for both.

TV deal is for both leagues as one deal (ideally 2 Prem and 1 Champ match per weekend).

RFU academies for all.

Expand the AWC, by adding the champ teams. 6 pools of 4, orthodox fixture list; knock-out stages to include cup, plate and shield, so that everyone gets KO experience*. Players only eligible if they played less than X minutes in the previous season (Prem clubs only).

This gives us 6 pool + 3 KO weekends to fit into the 10 week international window. We've bought that by reducing the league by 4 weekends and helped player welfare with that game time limit for the domestic cup - I'd also have a maximum number of minutes for every player anyway.


Clubs go from 22+2, 6+3, 4+2 (32-39) matches to 18+2, 6+3, 6+3* (31-38) matches, so the loss of 1 home game, higher quality in the league, greater variety of opposition, especially for the less experienced players, higher quality Championship, with a chance of giant slaying in the cup, and a guarantee that everyone gets a QF*.

Increasing the quality of the champ, along with inclusion in the TV deal (and the direct cash and subsequent sponsorship and growth opportunities), increased promotion opportunities, giant-slaying options, and that ring-fence means that this shouldn't be too much a case of turkeys voting for Christmas.


For the champ teams, without European rugby, you could argue that they'd be lacking match numbers, despite the higher quality and TV deal. You could also argue that this is better for player welfare, allows them to rest ahead of their giant-slaying opportunities, and allow for smaller squads.
If too few, we'd need to look at something presumably similar to the B&I cup (but the above is more than the current Champ without the cup).
Alternatively, increase the Champ to 14 (just the 2 dropping down being added), which barely improves the Champ; but would mean throwing the Welsh out of the domestic cup (oh well, nevermind). I vacilate on this each time I think about it, and I guess it would ultimately depend on how many champ clubs want to go fully pro and have (reduced) MSCs applied.

Of course, you could get a situation where, too many champ clubs would choose not to go fully pro; in which case I'd argue for the RFU getting involved and "assisting" 1-3 clubs in union-poor areas, say Carlisle, Blackburn or Canterbury

ETA in an ideal world, I'd actually reduce the Prem to 8 with 12 in the Champ, but I think that 10&10 stands half a chance at actually passing.

From the Champ perspective you've lost two league matches and retained the same number of knockout matches, albeit with one guaranteed extra game.
When you say Bedford could play Leicester or Exeter you mean they could play their AWC 'B' team. As I said to Puja, Bedford's attendances don't particularly increase for games against the club who is having their season out of the top flight, so I don't see Quin's 'B' driving up attendances sufficiently.
I can't see TV companies and sponsors wanting to throw money at either the new cup comp or the two tier league - the AWC can't even find a title sponsor, the TV companies aren't really bothered about the Challenge Cup let alone a domestic second tier cup or league and even the Six Nations is struggling for sponsorship money. To make the domestic cup attractive to TV and sponsors you'd need to involve the big name players which defeats the point of cutting the top tier to reduce games. Replacing Rotherham, Richmond, Hartpury and LS with LI and Wuss, without their test players, won't interest the TV companies as they aren't really interested in LI and Wuss now going by the games BT broadcast.
I don't think you can build a sustainable league on TV and sponsorship money. Steady and reliable income from match days and ancillary facilities are the foundations to build on. Sadly, very few clubs in the champ have the land letalone the money to build such infrastructure.

[Mellsblue]

I thought the whole point of the last few posts was to reduce games.

Reduce premiership games...

As above, if the cup comp is to be commercially viable you'd need it to feature the EPS players which defeats the point of reducing the Premiership games.

[Which Tyler]

1.From the Champ perspective you've lost two league matches and retained the same number of knockout matches, albeit with one guaranteed extra game.
2. When you say Bedford could play Leicester or Exeter you mean they could play their AWC 'B' team. As I said to Puja, Bedford's attendances don't particularly increase for games against the club who is having their season out of the top flight, so I don't see Quin's 'B' driving up attendances sufficiently.
3. I can't see TV companies and sponsors wanting to throw money at either the new cup comp or the two tier league - the AWC can't even find a title sponsor, the TV companies aren't really bothered about the Challenge Cup let alone a domestic second tier cup or league and even the Six Nations is struggling for sponsorship money. To make the domestic cup attractive to TV and sponsors you'd need to involve the big name players which defeats the point of cutting the top tier to reduce games.
4. Replacing Rotherham, Richmond, Hartpury and LS with LI and Wuss, without their test players, won't interest the TV companies as they aren't really interested in LI and Wuss now going by the games BT broadcast.
5. I don't think you can build a sustainable league on TV and sponsorship money. Steady and reliable income from match days and ancillary facilities are the foundations to build on. Sadly, very few clubs in the champ have the land letalone the money to build such infrastructure.

1. Adressed in the post; you lose 2 and gain 1; whilst potentially gaining 4-6. However, you gain in that those matches are against better opposition, or at the very least, against bigger name clubs, which draws crowds; you gain TV coverage to promote your brand, and you gain TV coverage to sell to sponsors. There's also the option of 12 or 14 teams in the Champ - which is 0 or +2 home matches, not -2 all the way.
2. Then you're doing something wrong; the prem clubs still draw 10k+ spectators to see each others AWC teams
3. If they want the Prem they HAVE to have the champ. it's a single package, they don't get to pick and chose, and they don't get to not-show the championship matches
4. So LI and Wuss without their test players (AKA Te'o) aren't bigger draws than the might of Rotherham? Then you're doing something wrong. Again with the TV argument - it's 1 deal 1 TV contract, 1 title sponsor.
5. Which is the entirety of the argument in favour of ring fencing. Better matches and better promotion really should equate to better crowds. Better crowds, better sponsorship and better TV money absolutely will increase the funds available to spend on infrastructure (absent outright fraud, or possibly LWelsh levels of incompetence). Nobodies expecting miracles; or overnight success here; nobodies saying that we'll suddenly have 20 clubs ready to take on the best that France or Ireland can throw at us by year 3. However an extra £250k a year is better than not having an extra £250k a year.

So rejecting this, means that you're rejecting free money, a free academy structure and free administrative support... because... TV companies aren't interested in the current structure so why bother changing it?

Other than "I don't like change", and the loss of 1 match a year; what's actually wrong with the suggestion from the Champ perspective? Bearing in mind that no-one from the Champ would be forced to sign on. I would like to know, so that I can try to address these going forwards - let's face it, this proposal has been over a decade in the making, and I would like to improve it each time I re-write the thing.

[Mellsblue]

There is no evidence that Prem b teams or Wuss/LI will pull bigger crowds, quite the opposite as Bedford’s crowds are pretty equal across the season, bar Christmas period matches and ladies day, regardless of oppo.
TV and sponsors aren’t interested in second tier comps as the challenge cup, AWC and Champ packages show. If mutterings from BT Sport are to be believed they’re not even that impressed with value for money from the Prem. Saying you’ll sell Prem and Champ as a package doesn’t mean you’ll have as much money per team. The broadcasters are only interested in the top teams.
You keep saying the Champ teams are doing something wrong as Prem teams gets circa 10k to AWC matches but that’s below league averages. That proves my point that to increase gates you need the top players. Quins with a backline containing Lang, Sloan and Chisholm ain’t going to get them piling through the turnstiles.
Ps Wuss and LI have more test players than just Te’o.
What’s wrong is that I don’t see your plan being financially viable. All you’ve based your plan on is replacing the Champ bottom four with the Prem bottom two and the Celtic B teams with the Prem B teams and hoping that attendances, sponsorship and TV deals expand dramatically when all evidence is against that. As I keep saying, I’d love a sustainable, professional second tier but replacing the Champ bottom four with the Prem bottom two and the Celtic B teams with the Prem B teams isn’t suddenly going to increase the income streams to such an extent that a league where the majority of players are part time and most clubs have crowds in the hundreds will suddenly become fully professionally, with stadia to accommodate all these thousands of new fans desperate to watch Fergus Mulchrone.
Also, who are paying for these free academies? Is the RFU just meant to add 50% to its investment when none of the top 8 Champ teams would cover a new geographical area, other than Jersey and I’m guessing the RFU aren’t that bothered about spending millions to tap into the 5,000 kids I’d guess live there.

[Which Tyler]

Wow, there's no evidence that something that's never happened could ever happen. When's the last time Bedford, or Nottingham, or Pirates, or whoever else played a Premiership team? If you can't bring bigger crowds to bigger matches, then absolutely something is being done wrong.

Doesn't matter if they're interested, it's one deal, take it or leave it.
Who said anything about getting the same payment per club by increasing the spread?

Last time I looked, there was no real drop off in crowds for the AWC, but either way, not my point. Equally, who said anything about Prem B teams (other than yourself) the Prem clubs certainly don't really somthan in the existing AWC; it's a mix of firsts, seconds, and academy.

Thank you for the comments on viability. But why would matches against better opposition, appearances on TV, TV money and RFU investment all add up to less money? The maths just doesn't seem to work. Please help me understand.
The current Prem TV deal is something like >£160M for 4 years. So if that deal didn't change by a single penny, but got spread around 20 clubs instead of 12, that alone would be £2M that you don't currently have. The extra exposure means you can sell more, or more expensive advertising/sponsorship by definition (reaching a larger audience does that), but even if it doesn't, and there's £0.00 extra cash coming in because Wuss or Leicester really aren't a bigger draw than Rotherham or Connaught B, then that's still £2M per season. Add in that the Champ clubs would claim a share of the £30M a year the RFU hand over to the Prem (and PRL have already set a very strong and repeated precedent for smoothing this payment). All in all, if nothing changes (IF), and if things are another equally (a much bigger if, but 2:1 would seem more likely) then Bedford, and the rest of the Champ (who take up the offer) have an extra £3.5M a year than they currently have.
That's £2k for every fan attending the 1 match a year that may or may not be lost (taking Champ average attendance of 1,777 for last season).
My proposal absolutely increases the finances available for the Championship, so you'll need to explain the lack of financial viability better.
If your argument is that BT are so upset about the money they throw at the Prem, despite increasing it, that they'd insist on paying significantly less in order to buy more, then again, please explain.

The academies? The RFU - hence "RFU academies for all". The increase would be from 14 to 20, so an increase of 6, or 30% not 50% in some areas there a lot of academies in a small area, generally these are areas with lots of rugby players though, so not too big an issue. If some Champ could s don't want to Jon (they're still not forced) I also suggested the RFU help out clubs like Carlisle, Canterbury or Blackburn, negating this point). As for the millions, I don't think the academies cost milion TBH, though I may be wrong; I'm pretty sure it pales into insignificance compared to the £30M a year they already hand out to the Prem.

Finally, if your argument is that club A wouldn't want to be fully professional, wouldn't want the security of ring fencing and wouldn't want co petent administrators, then simply don't accept the offer. I'd rather the teams were based on quality, as dictated by league position, but I'm well aware that not all 12 would want to be part of the 8, hopefully only 4 or so would reject the offer (and Hartbury might not be allowed to), but if more, then we have the backup of Carlisle, Blackburn, Canterbury etc