Franchising - what should it mean
By Paul Shaddick
February 25 2005
Well, it's that time of year again - we're into the last third of the season, the days are slowly getting longer, the birds are singing and the bulbs are springing forth. The coming spring also nowadays seems to lead to a profusion of rugby conspiracy theories sprouting in similar profusion to the daffodils.
The gist of the theories rarely changes - the big, rich, nasty ZP clubs want to keep their snouts in the trough at the expense of the decent, honest, hard-working Division One sides and operate what is effectively a cartel.
This year is slightly different, however, in that Saints' own chairman, Keith Barwell, has been quoted in the Daily Mail as proposing a 'franchise' system of 14 premier clubs, ring-fenced for five years, with no promotion or relegation. Could it work, is it fair, and who would benefit?
First of all, let me make one thing clear: all other things being equal, I am strongly in favour of the principle of promotion/relegation. But are all other things equal? Opponents of ring-fencing often accuse the existing premiership clubs of believing they have a God-given right to play in the top league, to dine at the top table, but that accusation assumes the leading clubs have risen to the top by accident, by pure chance, and they have not. The current members of the Zurich Premiership elite are there thanks to hard work by players, coaches and off-pitch staff, but mostly thanks to money.
There is no doubt that to be a successful club, a club needs to be a successful business. It needs to attract money in the shape of investors and customers, and it needs to spend that money wisely. Surely everyone involved with rugby union wants to see the sport continue to grow, to see English clubs competing strongly at the highest level of European competition, to see youngsters attracted to the game as either players or spectators, to watch their side perform in decent and safe surroundings.
As I see it, there is one significant problem with promotion/relegation between the premiership and the first division, and that is the gulf that exists between the two leagues. While some ND1 clubs have invested a great deal of money in improving facilities and attracting top quality players, most have not. If the game is to continue to grow, then the Zurich Premiership most work towards its membership having the best facilities and the best players, and that is why the RFU has a set of criteria which ND1 clubs must meet in order to gain promotion.
The reason confusion exists at this point in every season is that very few ND1 clubs actually meet those criteria. Of the three clubs currently looking likely to finish at the top of the first division only
As I mentioned earlier, it is no accident that the ZP clubs have all the money - they have that money because they have worked hard to raise it from investors, sponsors, supporters and non-rugby business. Unsurprisingly those clubs want to protect their financial positions, and relegation to ND1 would do the opposite, because of the disparity between the two leagues. Also, those existing clubs wanting to improve facilities, and requiring investment so to do, must offer investors some form reassurance that their money is not going to go straight down the pan if the side hits a bad run of form. To move the game forward, that gap between the divisions must be narrowed.
So how can that be done? According to newspaper reports, Keith Barwell has proposed a 'franchise' system of 14 ZP clubs which would be sealed for a period of five years. Let's first look at the 'F' word, the use of which is not doing any favours to those supporting the proposal. The word franchise conjures up thoughts of
Stopping promotion/relegation for five years would allow those 14 clubs to invest in up-to-date stadia, set up effective academies and to establish a stable financial base - but allowing clubs to do these things is not enough - they should be required to reach a certain standard within four of those five years, or be given notice to quit at the end of the five-year term. At the same time, the premiership clubs and the RFU must pledge significant investment in the National Division One clubs to enable them to work towards achieving the minimum criteria for premiership entry. At the end of the five-year term, any premiership clubs not reaching the appropriate standard should be relegated, and if there are no clubs which fail to meet the standard then the bottom two at the end of the fifth season should go down, with the top two from the first division coming up. The premiership would then enter another sealed five-year period.
Furthermore, the wage cap in both divisions should be abolished. If clubs are required to establish firm financial foundations, then there is no need for a cap to prevent clubs overspending on players and going bust. Obviously a 14-club league means four extra games per season, which raises the issue of player burn-out. This could easily be resolved by placing an absolute maximum on the number of 'elite' games any player may take part in over any calendar year, including league, European and domestic cup matches. This would force clubs to have larger squads and recruit relatively inexpensive English players to bolster numbers. The championship play-offs and wildcard should be scrapped, but the domestic cup retained. Obviously Zurich wants a big day out at season's end for various commercial reasons, so the top team in the premiership would play a game against the domestic cup winners, the prize being a shiny trophy and the number one seed for the Heineken Cup, with the loser getting the second spot and the remaining place given out according to league position.
But now the important bit. I'm sure plenty of people will have read the above and thought: 'Funny how these suggestions are coming from someone who supports the club which is most likely to benefit from abolishing relegation.' However, I don't think these changes should be brought in now, or even next season. I would propose that at the end of 2006/7 one team from ND1 should join the ZP, and likewise the following season, with no relegation. But those teams wanting to be eligible for promotion must meet the entry criteria by December 31 of each season, with the best-placed of the qualifying clubs making the step up. In the meantime, the rules stay as they are. This delay would give everyone in both leagues the time to prepare - those that aren't interested in joining the premiership can carry on as they are, those that are have the opportunity to raise cash and improve facilities.
Like it or not, rugby is now big business. Those dining at the top table have put their hands in their pockets and bought the tickets and the dinner suit - any first division sides wanting to join the party will have to do the same.