Premiership rebrand => The Prem

[FKAS]

We all know the answer is to pull out of Europe. It’s become a joke anyway with the addition of Saffas and the format so sack that off and replace it with a proper cup competition. We could increase the prem back to 12 as well.

I’m not even sure it’s bringing in that much revenue- it’s all a bit cloak and daggers on that but I fancy increasing back to 12 clubs and having a proper cup comp would match the revenue anyway.

Would TNT really pay up for TV coverage of an extra few rounds plus the cup comp and cover the lost European TV revenue?

[Captainhaircut]

We all know the answer is to pull out of Europe. It’s become a joke anyway with the addition of Saffas and the format so sack that off and replace it with a proper cup competition. We could increase the prem back to 12 as well.

I’m not even sure it’s bringing in that much revenue- it’s all a bit cloak and daggers on that but I fancy increasing back to 12 clubs and having a proper cup comp would match the revenue anyway.

What's a proper cup competition in your mind?

Maybe run it as an out and out knockout competition? Possibly 12 prem clubs than the top 4 from the champ in previous season? Could play home and away legs if you wanted. Or have a group stage and then run home and away legs from the quarters. Not quite sure tbh but something where sides could play proper sides and winning it meant something like it did in the past.

[Mellsblue]

I think the easiest answer would be just to go back to the old Heineken Cup format for Europe.
I’m not sure the number of Prem clubs should go back up. I think the quality of matches has improved, I enjoyed the post 6N ‘sprint to the playoffs’ last season and no overlap with international windows is inarguably a positive.
Given its attritional nature, rugby really needs to head towards quality rather than quantity.

[Which Tyler]

My structural suggestion hasn't changed too much in 20-odd years since coming up with it.
Of course, it requires clubs to see each other as collaborators, not antagonists.

Europe: (NB, Africa is a different continent to Europe)
3 tournies, each of 4 pools of 4
4 Prem
5 URC
6 T14
+ Winner of the next level down.

3rd tier is the remaining Prem, URC & T14 + the likes of Georgia, Romania, Spain and Portugal.

I'd go with QF, SF & Final, but each tournie has a Cup and a Plate phase (no dropping down).
I'd play all pool matches in 1 block, December and January


England:
Prem of 10 teams, Champ of 14, reduced MSCs, both covered in 1 TV deal that includes 1 match from each on terrestrial each week.
Equally, both covered by the same title sponsor.
Automatic promotion & Relegation.
No SF for the Prem. Top 2 face off in the final, league points difference translates to scoreboard difference ahead of kick off.

Domestic cup involving all 24 teams - probably 4 pools of 6.
Prem club squads limited to players with fewer than say 20 (absolutely up for debate) starts (Prem, Euro & Test) in the previous season. Alternatively 18 of the 23 must be academy players/graduates for that club (again, lines in the sand are up for debate).
Domestic cup pool stages to be played during the 2 international windows (5 matches per window) then straight into SF and F (again with cup, plate, bowl, shield)

RFU get 1 training week ahead of AI and 1 ahead of the 6N, clubs play first round of that block of Dom Cup in that week.

I make this a 40 week season (1st Sat of Sept to 1st Sat of June).
Assuming AIs and 6N times are cast in stone:
8 Prem
5 Dom Cup & RFU time
2 Prem (dammit)
6 Euro
5 Dom Cup & RFU
2 Dom Cup KOs & RFU time
8 Prem
4 KOs for Prem & Euro

Presumably URC and T14 are happy enough playing through international windows, when we'd be playing Dom Cup.
I'd be okay with the old HC solution of filtering the QF at least into that post-6N block of club rugby.

Season.jpg

Theoretically, T14 fits perfectly into the same structure, playing straight through the international windows; including holding their final the week before the Euro final. Of course, they want the T14 final to be the climax of the season, but they've easy options of delaying the start of the season, or adding rest weeks in there, or both.
URC have 18 rounds, QF, SF & F - so an extra 2 weeks than us, which can be played when our boys are training with RFU, and we're 1st and 6th rounds of the Dom Cup. If they want to, of course.

IF (big if) we could then find 23 weekends (and enough players) in there from the 28 Prem & Euro weekends for a 23 team U21s (play everyone once) as well, that would be spiffing.

[Cameo]

That all makes sense to me (the URC format should change too, but that's for another thread).

The obvious one is Europe, under the old format, every game mattered, now half the matches are effectively forfeited by the away team.

Either the old format (flawed, but it seemed to work) or 16 teams in groups of four (with the four winners having home quarters against the four runners up) would be much better. I also wouldn't be against making the whole thing a straight knockout (would probably need 32 teams).

[Oakboy]

I think the easiest answer would be just to go back to the old Heineken Cup format for Europe.
I’m not sure the number of Prem clubs should go back up. I think the quality of matches has improved, I enjoyed the post 6N ‘sprint to the playoffs’ last season and no overlap with international windows is inarguably a positive.
Given its attritional nature, rugby really needs to head towards quality rather than quantity.

Your last sentence is key, IMO.

Fans want to see best XVs or development XVs in meaningful matches so designated for both sides (club or country). Any competition that compromises that must be suspect.

My personal take is as follows. 1. I have lost interest in the European stuff. 2. If agreement on player release for AIs is 3 matches (for all), make the 4th an 'A' fixture if finance is the only motivator. 3. Scrap the 6N gap weeks.

[Which Tyler]

They really REALLY don't want me to support English club rugby

Gallagher Prem: Plan for expanded, ring-fenced league from 2029
RFU, Prem Rugby and Champ Rugby working together to agree entry criteria and a mechanism for removing underperforming clubs from new franchised top flight


Bill Sweeney, the RFU chief executive, is supportive of the franchise plan for the Prem and he is on record as saying that promotion and relegation no longer works in its traditional form.
The Champ has been against the move, describing it recently as “anti-sport” because it removes aspiration and jeopardy. However, all three bodies are working towards find a solution.
The RFU council would need to approve a change to the structure of the English club game. A proposal will only be tabled once there is broad agreement, which could be as soon as next month’s council meeting.

[Oakboy]

WT, is it a pure no-no to promotion/relegation that bugs you? Exeter are the only club (I think) to have succeeded on that route since the game went professional. I would prefer p/r to remain but if that means a sustainable club structure cannot remain because funding is not available I would accept dropping p/r reluctantly.

[fivepointer]

If we had a stronger Championship and if the divide wasnt so great with the Prem then promotion/relegation would be viable.

As it stands we dont so moving to a franchise system makes perfect sense to me.

[Which Tyler]

WT, is it a pure no-no to promotion/relegation that bugs you?

Yes; as I've consistently said for 20-odd years.
Ring fencing is a line in the sand for me - with ringfencing, the sport loses its integrity.
The principle of meritocracy, of fair play, of actions having consequences has been ditched, and exchanged for the principle of "I'm alright Jack"

My interest has declined approximately in lockstep with promotion/relegation being ever more of a figleaf technicality.
They're now throwing the figleaf away, and with it, my last remaining enthusiasm.

Yes, the championship is weak, and clubs there aren't really in a position to challenge the premiership teams - which IMO is almost entirely the fault of PRL for having waged war against the championship for the last 20-odd years (RFu shouldering some blame for failing to protect and support the championship.

This is not a new discussion. This is not new information. This is not an inconsistent or incoherent position from me - it's one I've been clear on since we were all on ScrumV, before Hammy set up RR.

The difference in today's piece is that the RFU has waved the white flag, and given up on insisting on the existence of promotion/relegation - however theoretical.

No-one is obliged to agree with me.

[Oakboy]

WT, is it a pure no-no to promotion/relegation that bugs you?

Yes; as I've consistently said for 20-odd years.
Ring fencing is a line in the sand for me - with ringfencing, the sport loses its integrity.
The principle of meritocracy, of fair play, of actions having consequences has been ditched, and exchanged for the principle of "I'm alright Jack"

My interest has declined approximately in lockstep with promotion/relegation being ever more of a figleaf technicality.
They're now throwing the figleaf away, and with it, my last remaining enthusiasm.

Yes, the championship is weak, and clubs there aren't really in a position to challenge the premiership teams - which IMO is almost entirely the fault of PRL for having waged war against the championship for the last 20-odd years (RFu shouldering some blame for failing to protect and support the championship.

This is not a new discussion. This is not new information. This is not an inconsistent or incoherent position from me - it's one I've been clear on since we were all on ScrumV, before Hammy set up RR.

The difference in today's piece is that the RFU has waved the white flag, and given up on insisting on the existence of promotion/relegation - however theoretical.

No-one is obliged to agree with me.

I'd guess quite a few will agree with you and losing stalwarts such as yoursel must be a factor considered. Can you see no scope for compromise? Maybe reviews every 3/5 years or something?

I don't see promotion/relegation in quite the same way. Rugby is unique in its conversion from amateur to professional, I suppose. Adjusting has not come easily to many in officialdom. Losing Wasps, Worcester and LI was an indicator of crisis. Defining the full ramifications of that crisis is still floating perhaps.

[Puja]

WT, is it a pure no-no to promotion/relegation that bugs you?

Yes; as I've consistently said for 20-odd years.
Ring fencing is a line in the sand for me - with ringfencing, the sport loses its integrity.
The principle of meritocracy, of fair play, of actions having consequences has been ditched, and exchanged for the principle of "I'm alright Jack"

My interest has declined approximately in lockstep with promotion/relegation being ever more of a figleaf technicality.
They're now throwing the figleaf away, and with it, my last remaining enthusiasm.

Yes, the championship is weak, and clubs there aren't really in a position to challenge the premiership teams - which IMO is almost entirely the fault of PRL for having waged war against the championship for the last 20-odd years (RFu shouldering some blame for failing to protect and support the championship.

This is not a new discussion. This is not new information. This is not an inconsistent or incoherent position from me - it's one I've been clear on since we were all on ScrumV, before Hammy set up RR.

The difference in today's piece is that the RFU has waved the white flag, and given up on insisting on the existence of promotion/relegation - however theoretical.

No-one is obliged to agree with me.

I'd guess quite a few will agree with you and losing stalwarts such as yoursel must be a factor considered. Can you see no scope for compromise? Maybe reviews every 3/5 years or something?

I don't see promotion/relegation in quite the same way. Rugby is unique in its conversion from amateur to professional, I suppose. Adjusting has not come easily to many in officialdom. Losing Wasps, Worcester and LI was an indicator of crisis. Defining the full ramifications of that crisis is still floating perhaps.

I have slowly come across to a similar point of view - there are plenty of professional sports where relegation just isn't a consideration of the top level and the veneration of the "full pyramid" going right down to amateur is only really present in football and British/French rugby. The idea of "we're all playing the same sport and we're all in the same pyramid" works in football because of the FA Cup and the limited scoring that leaves even teams 4-5 levels down have a puncher's chance in a one-off, but rugby (professional rugby, at least) is not the same - quality will tell.

With that in mind, treating the professional level as a separate competition makes sense. It's not necessarily fair that these particular teams are the 10 that will make up that separate tier - if you had a blank slate and were picking ideal franchises for English rugby, it might not be these ones - but these are the ones that we have. I'd've preferred it if it was 2 divisions being separated from the rest of the game with movement inbetween those, but this is where we're starting from, sad though that is.

Puja

[Oakboy]

Maybe, rugby has a demographic that just won't settle with professionalism. The picnic basket/quality malt brigade in the Twickers car park will always keep those turnstiles clicking. The same metropolitan elite will cough up £40k for a Lions tour. Unfortunately, that does not transfer to properly financing 10/12 clubs etc. Amateur traditions skew the whole hierarchal scene at the same time as being the deep root of rugby union. Sorting out the mucking fuddle is way beyond me.