Bris Overpowered in EDF, but no one that bovvered


By Ian Todd
October 8 2006

Gloucester win in the EDF Energy Cup running in eight tries against an inexperienced Bristol line-up at Kingsholm to earn a bonus point. Both sides made six changes to their line-ups for the encounter but Gloucester opted for greater experience and won 63-25. But why does no one care that much?

Glos EDF Pictures

I didn’t go up to Kingsholm for this match because, as I’ve said before, I cannot rustle up much enthusiasm for this competition. Sadly, I didn’t get any volunteers to prepare a match report either (so here’s a link to Sporting Life's report). Moreover, judging from the crowd figures, not many were that interested in turning up at the ground. However, Chris Nash has kindly provided some more excellent photos.

© Chris Nash
Why, though, such a lack of interest from the home support? After all it was a local derby against old rivals who had, surprisingly, beaten them in the league last season. I believe it is down to the poorly thought-out structure of the competition, linked to its place in the season. Next week we return to Guinness Premiership action with a home game against Quins. The week after that we have European action in the unsponsored Challenge Cup against Bucuresti, then it is more Anglo-Welsh rivalry, although in the ECC, then four rounds of the Premiership and finally the last pool match of the EDF Anglo-Welsh Pointlessness (© Big Dave, although stolen by me from someone on the Wasps message board in fact!). Of course we then return to ECC action with two games against Bayonne followed by an away league match against Leicester before finishing the year with our ‘home’ league match against B**h!

© Chris Nash

Is it any wonder that traditional sporting rivalries are diluted when they are slotted into an already poorly structured league season? The pools mean that we always have the same English teams (unless B**h are relegated of course!) combined with a different Welsh opponent. This certainly doesn’t make for an exciting cup competition in its early stages. It is no real substitute for the potential ‘giant-killing’ that the old cup gave us: Rotherham and Bees victorious over ‘higher’ opposition in recent seasons alone. It also means that that the lower English league clubs miss out on the potential revenue generated by drawing the more prestigious English clubs in the later rounds.

Clearly the organisation of the season is unsatisfactory. Equally clearly the RFU have indicated a willingness to abandon the concept of promotion and relegation in order to pursue its ‘strategy’ concerning central contracts for players, the development of the England team and the agreement of an international playing season. Somehow the idea of ringfencing the Premiership has now become linked to the goal of improved England performances. Previously, ringfencing was supposed to safeguard the investment in facilities, infrastructure and players that the clubs (read ‘owners’) had made. In fact all this did was to demonstrate that funding of the professional and semi-professional game was almost entirely concentrated on the Premiership and that it should be extended into National Leagues to ensure that there was a healthier playing structure beneath the Premiership and that relegation did not necessarily mean financial oblivion (as nicely demonstrated, in different ways, by Quins and Bristol).

© Chris Nash
Exactly how the abandonment of promotion and relegation to and from the Premiership will lead to an improved standard of performance by the national team is nowhere explained. Apparently the absence of pressure on teams caused by the spectre of relegation will lead by some magical process to an open and free flowing style of rugby that will sweep all before it. This ignores the obvious fact that England won the World Cup playing a very pragmatic style of rugby, even though they had played a much more open and supposedly entertaining style in the two seasons before the World Cup. Remind me, did we have promotion and relegation from the top division in England during that period?

In reality, the idea of ringfencing as it is currently envisioned is a negotiating ploy of the RFU’s intended to tempt the club owners into agreeing to those things the RFU has decided it wants: central contracts, agreed release times and a different structure to the season. Now, I have no fundamental objection to these objectives. Indeed I think I’ve shown above that the current season structure is a bit of mess. But can these objectives be achieved without getting rid of promotion and relegation?

In other businesses, for professional sport is a business, investment decisions are made all the time. The potential risks and benefits are analysed, but sometimes errors are made and financial or other losses are incurred. Indeed sometimes the consequences are so great that the business itself fails. These businesses, whilst they may well seek to mitigate the adverse consequences of getting their decisions wrong, do not go bleating to their regulator or to their competitors saying:

“We invested in a big new piece of infrastructure (e.g. a stadium) but unfortunately our product (e.g. our team’s performance) was utter rubbish and so we are going bust (e.g. consigned to the appalling netherworld of National League 1 with no sponsorship or income where we will surely languish for ever). Please prevent this happening, we deserve to stay in business (e.g. stay in the Premiership) because we have made so much investment which no other businesses outside our nice little cartel have made.”

© Chris Nash
This clearly ignores the efforts that those outside the cartel have made. Within the world of rugby in England Exeter, Coventry and Plymouth have all made investments in their grounds and facilities. Do they and their supporters not deserve the chance of competing at the highest level? I’ve deliberately used the word ‘cartel’ above. A cartel can be defined as a group of formally independent companies whose goal it is to fix prices, to limit supply and to limit competition. It’s that last bit which is significant; getting rid of promotion and relegation actually would limit competition and do nothing to help the RFU achieve its real aims.

How then could the season be structured? Well, let’s get rid of the ECC. It cannot even attract a sponsor or any media coverage, so free up some time there. EDF have very benevolently put some money into the Anglo-Welsh Pointlessness. They’ve been rewarded by some good coverage by the BBC but some very half-hearted support from some of the teams taking part. How to make it more meaningful is the question. I’d suggest something along the lines of the old cup where the junior sides can take part and have a go at the big boys. The eventual national winners could then get to take on their counterparts from the other nation: a true cross-border winner-take-all cup final. Make sure it is played in well defined blocks, not a couple of games away from the league here then another one there.

And as for the Heineken Cup I say make a radical departure and put out English regional sides with the clubs feeding into them and getting some funding depending on how they contribute. That way you can retain the competitive element for the clubs with their competitions actually having some sporting meaning. It also means that clubs still have an incentive to produce and retain top players, and also to invest in infrastructure and the wider development of the game. It might also mean that players didn’t have to leave so-called junior clubs to further their representative ambitions. Someone like Dan Ward-Smith could stay at Plymouth, but still get picked by the South and South West Division Western Counties Wessex Storming Warriors and play in the Heineken Cup, with his club being compensated for producing that player. Anyone remember how Wade Dooley continued to play for Preston Grasshoppers throughout his England career? You could even ensure that the players in the regional outfits were qualified for England instead of being superannuated southern hemispherical types.

© Chris Nash

At the same time move the Six Nations to the end of the season and play all the games in one block instead of splitting it up and attempting to play league games during it. So you end up with a league competition and a concurrent knock-out cup leading to an Anglo-Welsh Cup Final. The clubs competing in the league get to contribute to the Heineken Cup regional squads who play in their delineated block of games with the HC Final being the climax of the non-international season, before moving into the Six Nations. The England squad is selected (largely) from the regional teams who are part of a properly organised coaching structure, players get to play for their appropriately compensated clubs and also benefit from a suitably organised and structured playing season. This addresses the RFU’s concern about player release, gives an incentive to the clubs to produce England qualified players and to continue to invest in the game, gives some meaning to a currently unloved competition and allows the principle of promotion and relegation to be retained.

For my next trick I shall go on to solve the Middle-East Crisis…

I stand back and await being shot down in flames.

© Chris Nash