posted Apr 11, 2007

Bren_10 Yes, I understand fully the pride associated with the Munster jersey and the other Irish Provinces - lived in Limerick for 4 years went to many HC but not many Celtic League games at Thomond for the reason stated -

What I find frustrating is that many Celtic rugby fans don't understand our point - there has been a Leicester Football Club (that is the name of the company) since 1880. Northampton similar. Yet the RFU published options that included just wiping all that history and pride away and creating a regional franchise. Thomas and Baron state that is not their intention - then why leak it to the Times.

Central control of players is also unacceptable - someone from the the RFU telling Pat Howard what team he can pick no way. The clubs have more to lose from poor player welfare than England and the players themselves acknowledge that the clubs look after them better than the national set-up.

All the clubs want is a GUARANTEE this will not be imposed on them. It really is as simple as that.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 11, 2007

hi drc007, even if the Pumas were to join the Tri-Nations ,and make four it would still be smaller than our competition, and to me that is not enough of a reason to include them in that one. Besides the whole object it is make the NH game ,the dominant force and innovator in the game and within that for England to dominate the NH. Let us lead the way and guide the rest of the world and let the SH for once play catch up..I don't want to make things easy for them .
Meltontiger , agree with your comments on franchise of rugby, at the time I was convinced it was a Jones wind up , but as said earlier, I am beginning to feel there might be an element of truth in it.
LEK the consultancy firm hired to compose the "Way Forward " document ,are merger and acquisition specialists, why else would you employ a company like that.
Also according to Paul Ackford of the Guardian there are a choices on this 7 of which contain a variation of central contracts, and only three which make any sense, that is therefore loaded and imposing a will of the RFU and ultimately not a choice.
However at this point i would say that whilst i see clubs as a priority and both sides need to give. I do not like the fact that the RFU have to drop the necessity of Sevens and a Saxon Squad as an aid to the development of the XV's and as a result of this clubs not having to release players. That to me is also wrong and is not good for the enhancement of the game. ( please search one of my posts on Sevens rugby and view Mike Friday document).
There needs to be more co-operation from the two sides, and I would like to see more consultation between the national coach and club coaches on styles of play. A national coach should be able to approach a club and request a player is tried in a position. It works for Henry and he gets the respect from the clubs in Super 14.
On selection of players for the national squad ,to avoid players been picked on reputation and not form.
A list should be compiled of all the stats in GP or where ever other English players are playing. The list is then handed to the national coach and he picks from that, taking into account the players who would also play to the style of game that he required.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 11, 2007

Sorry that should have read 8 choices ,and out of those 8 ,7 are for central contracts.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 11, 2007

Cantychris: Err but the Masters Golf is part of the PGA tour...PGA - Professional Golfers Association - clue's in the name!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 16, 2007

The RFU don't appear to see the fact that the current structure is beneficial to the Celtic teams with no pressure on Magners League games so there is no real need to front up each game but they can use the HC to rev up for the internationals.

The England players are constantly being pulled from one event to the other because every game is VITAL.


There has been an unwritten rule this season not to pick Worcester/Saints players during the six nations.

However, were the RFU to allow more GP clubs into the HC AND to increase the size of the GP to say 16 then not every game would be so vital and the England players - the majority anyway - would not be pulled into constant relegation dogfights in the GP.

Does the RFU not understand?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 16, 2007

The RFU don't appear to see the fact that the current structure is beneficial the Celtic teams with no pressure on Magners League games so there is no real need to front up each game but they can use the HC to rev up for the internationals.

The England players are constantly being pulled from event to the other because every game is VITAL.


There has been an unwritten rule this season not to pick Worcester/Saints players during the six nations.

However, were the RFU to allow more GP clubs into the HC AND to increase the size of the GP to say 16 then not very game would be so vital and the England players - the majority anyway - would not be pulled into constant relegation dogfights in the GP.

Does the RFU not understand?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 17, 2007

Melton: Your vision of a European Cup underpinned by a strong independent domestic league, free of interference by the RFU as you put it, really brings into focus the current problem.
It is not a vision shared by everyone. And it is a picture of rugby in England emulating soccer, except without the same fan base...driven by money.
And I can tell you now, that if it pans out that way, it will end up in 20 years as a marginalised sport, like Rugby League's Super League.
Rugby Union, however strong the domestic leagues, is entirely dependent on international cross-border competition, including in England and France. And if the clubs take control in England, as they are telling us they will, then the England team will become perennial under-achievers, as they are in soccer.
Already the impact of club power is affecting the wider game in this part of the world. Scotland are starting to fall by the wayside, and I suspect Italy will become further sidelined if the HC goes.
Wales is teetering on the brink.
And Ireland, who have a strong base, will be left out in the cold. Its an astonishing, dogmatic, intransigent attitude by the English clubs that seems hell-bent, to me, on the ruination of rugby union as we know it.
Barwell may be right in saying that clubs will be in the ascendancy in ten years time, but rugby union in England will be in decline, and end up like county cricket, with a passionate but limited fan base, and surrounded by the rest of the world playing the game at a higher level.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 17, 2007

The clubs are not interested in international rugby.

Simply in the competitions they are involved in.

That is common sense.

So there should not be any conflict as long as the season is structured properly.

The players are contracted to the clubs - their affiliation is with the clubs as they start and end there.

The only solution is the RFU will back down as they won't get the player release they seek.

The players will end up striking if this goes on much longer and you might see English players pulling out of the Lions as well owing to fixture congestion and impossible politics and odds in getting a viable Lions team - was Orange man really that good and warranted selection for the Lions???

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 17, 2007

If the clubs are only interested in the competitions they are involved in, as you suggest, then they have no right making the demands they do.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 18, 2007

Hiprocrisy of it all.

Syd Millar talks of the IRB and the unions solely having the game at heart!!!

That is why he chaired a confidential, which is against the IRB constitution, horse-trading session to ensure that the 2011 World Cup went to New Zealand rather than Japan.

Clearly an altruistic decision and nothing to do with New Zealand playing games in Ireland, Scotland and Wales as a result since that decision in 2003.

Also, the world cup going to France had nothing to do with WC games being held in Wales and Scotland and originally Ireland.

We understand the wonderful patronage of the grandee unions, and are ever so grateful and humble.

Not consulting the players as far as player release is a breach of human rights anyway. If the RFU had ensured that Martin Johnson could only play for Leicester when Clive Woodward said so he would probably have refused to play himself or gone to the Court of Human Rights. But the RFU which has had a barbaric attitude to human rights for over 100 years - i.e. blocking peoople from playing union even if they played amateur rugby league - has a wealth of understanding on this.

Preventing the clubs in having an interest in competitions they are involved in is a restraint of trade.

The French government told the French Rugby Union this 10 years ago!!!

Who is behaving unreasonably then?

add comment | complain about this comment