Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: inatthebreakdown (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 15:41

[www.rugbypass.com]

World's worst kept secret now apparently official?

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Rinkadink (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 15:48

Hate this idea, make it 14 with current system of bottom relegated and top of championship promoted. Leaves the door open for ambition and grows the game.

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Peter D (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 15:53

Quote:
Rinkadink
Hate this idea, make it 14 with current system of bottom relegated and top of championship promoted. Leaves the door open for ambition and grows the game.

Agreed. Ambition for clubs below Prem level must be respected. 14 teams will also allow clubs to grow. Any proposals should also include better funding of the Championship (the league, not necessarily the individual clubs, although they should be able to benefit from increased funding - not like last time when Greene King sponsored the league which merely meant that they paid the RFU funding.)

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Jimeno (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 16:10

Ringfencing is not in the proposal.



¡Vamos los osos!
http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/file/s100.htm?102,file=7153

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: inatthebreakdown (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 16:12

Quote:
Jimeno
Ringfencing is not in the proposal.

In all but name. How often will the top placed Championship team beat the bottom placed Prem team, over two legs?

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Rinkadink (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 16:19

Quote:
inatthebreakdown
Quote:
Jimeno
Ringfencing is not in the proposal.

In all but name. How often will the top placed Championship team beat the bottom placed Prem team, over two legs?

Not only that it is no way to plan for a premiership season or a championship season, it's unfair on both teams. Not to mention we know what can happen with play offs more than anyone, the best team over a season is far from guaranteed a win.

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Platwell House (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 16:22

Once Newcastle are up from a financial sense there is not many who can compete in the top flight.

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Rinkadink (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 16:22

The 14th team offers a buffer that premiership owners are seeking, if they cannot place higher than a team promoted from the championship in a 14 team league then they deserve to find their level for however long it takes to rebuild. Gives more league games to get results (less down to chance or poor refereeing decisions), plus do away with premiership cup which results in less games overall aka player welfare. Added bonus of more consistent and meaningful season for supporters.

The funding for the 14th team seems a good price for that buffer, plus increased monies from two additional meaningful home matches.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27/06/2019 16:26 by Rinkadink.

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Rich. (IP Logged)
Date: 27 June, 2019 16:30

Mind you Premier Cup is generally a number of A team fixtures

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Sit_Down (IP Logged)
Date: 28 June, 2019 14:00

I actually think this is the right thing to do. Extend to 13, then if the team that finishes top of the Championship can beat the bottom Prem team, so be it.

Now that the ridiculous Championship Playoffs are gone, I don't see anything other than the relegated side finishing top every year, which makes the Championship a mockery. Newcastle still have a strong side and I don't see Ealing beating them. I also don't think Ealing with their poor 1200 average attendance are worthy of being a Prem side - but I respect it has to be based on onfield merits.

So the proposed system works for me. I don't think the game is big enough to support more than 13 professional teams. We are not and will never be, as big as Soccer.

Regardless of what any of us think, player welfare has to be part of the equation. This format would allow players rest in season. It might not always make for as great a spectacle, but that has to be good for players. I'd also argue that a number of games were poor to watch last year because the players looked tired.

I'm not sure there is a perfect solution, but this feels like the best.

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Rich. (IP Logged)
Date: 28 June, 2019 19:42

Yes I agree it makes more sense at this point in time but they need to build in a review in, say, 3 or 4 years time to see whether certain sides have made enough progress to make them consider other alternatives

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: AGS (IP Logged)
Date: 01 July, 2019 20:58

Given the way that Hartpury were able to stuff their team with premiership players to stave-off relegation, I wonder if the rfu and premiership have considered the possibility of similar approaches to assist with promotion?

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Rich. (IP Logged)
Date: 01 July, 2019 21:10

Quote:
AGS
Given the way that Hartpury were able to stuff their team with premiership players to stave-off relegation, I wonder if the rfu and premiership have considered the possibility of similar approaches to assist with promotion?

I don't know the answer or details of which players they got from Gloucester but who were they and were they not legitimate dual registered players?

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: SimonG19 (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2019 11:34

Quote:
Rich.
Quote:
AGS
Given the way that Hartpury were able to stuff their team with premiership players to stave-off relegation, I wonder if the rfu and premiership have considered the possibility of similar approaches to assist with promotion?

I don't know the answer or details of which players they got from Gloucester but who were they and were they not legitimate dual registered players?

In at least one game they fielded eleven Premiership registered players from Gloucester, Bristol and Bath. It was all perfectly legal albeit totally against the spirit of rugby.

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: Rich. (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2019 11:54

I guess it may depends Simon - if, say, a player played half of Hartpury's league matches together with 3 A team matches and a Prem cup game for the Prem side, then that seems fair; and effectively they could be said to be a Hartpury player but with an arrangement which gave them development at a higher level.

At the moment I have no idea who the players are and how many games they played for whoever so it may be that all or almost all of the players hardly played for Hartpury at all.

I guess the key question for me is if they were only allowed to play for one club then which team would they have played for?

Re: Ringfencing proposal to be discussed
Posted by: SimonG19 (IP Logged)
Date: 02 July, 2019 12:26

My understanding is that most if not all the players were "bussed in" at the end of the season in a bid to escape relegation and they hadn't played for Hartpury prior to that.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net