Growth, Relegation or Ringfencing
By JP
January 21 2021
| What happens next in the Premiership Saga | ||
 |
||
In February 2019, the chair of the Rugby Football Union’s women’s performance management group, Deborah Griffin, made a presentation to the governing body’s council.Her paper asked the council, following a review of the Tyrrells Premier 15s, to approve a number of recommendations, all of which were passed – except one. The rejected recommendation? That “the league would be ring-fenced for a further three seasons”. It may not have been heralded as a watershed moment for the game at the time, but two years on the repercussions could yet be of major significance. We are likely to discover by next week if a similar proposal will be put before the RFU council next month, but this time it will be from the Premiership clubs hoping to scrap relegation this season. The move has been gathering momentum with a number of clubs, who are citing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the integrity of the league as a reason. ‘There has been a strong element who have wanted to pull up the drawbridge for years’With five of 18 games having already been cancelled because of positive tests, the concern is that a club could be relegated because of the decisions of the Premiership results resolution panel.Gloucester, who are bottom of the Premiership, having won just one game, trail Worcester, London Irish and Bath, all of whom have been awarded points for cancelled matches. Two points go to the team responsible for the cancellation and four to their opponents. The rationale behind halting relegation is that it would not be fair for a club to be relegated at the expense of one who have benefited from points from not playing games, particularly given the parlous financial state of the clubs because of the ban on crowds.One senior source insisted the move to end relegation was already a done deal. “It is going to happen. It is a question of how they deliver it and how they justify it,” he said. It is understood that advice has also been sought over the “protocol” that guided previous discussions on changes to league structures – that they had to take place before the start of any competition – and it has been found to be not legally enforceable. Without relegation this season, the expected promotion of Saracens from the Championship, which is not scheduled to start until March, would lead to the expansion of the Premiership to 13 clubs, at least for two seasons. While that number is awkward for the fixture schedule, it would ensure that all 13 shareholding clubs were in the top flight, and pave the way for “ring-fencing in all but name” according to another source, even if the plans are likely to include a play-off mechanism after a two or three-year hiatus. And yet the presumption that this is a matter purely for the executives at Premiership Rugby, the Championship and the RFU to decide upon overlooks the fact that any structural changes to leagues in England must be endorsed by the governing body’s council. And the RFU council, as it demonstrated two years ago, traditionally sees its role as custodian of promotion and relegation remaining at the heart of the game’s pyramid structure.“The council will never accept ending promotion and relegation,” a senior council source said. “The door has to be kept open. There has been a strong element in the Premiership who have wanted to pull up the drawbridge for years. They see this as their moment. They will use Covid as the excuse. The challenge for those who want to make the case for change on integrity grounds is threefold. First, the regulations for awarding points for Covid cancelled games were agreed before the start of the competition. Second, to do so on the grounds that the integrity of the league is being undermined because of the number of games that have been cancelled overlooks the fact that this was not seen as a problem last season, when relegation was not at stake because of the salary-cap sanctions imposed on Saracens. There was little integrity in the series of mismatches caused by the decision to play three midweek rounds as clubs were forced to field second-string sides and yet there was still a commitment to finish the campaign in full. Third factor is the influence of BT Sport, which has only just agreed a new three-year £110 million deal. The beauty of the Premiership is its narrative at the top and bottom of the table, which makes it more compelling for supporters and viewers alike. They are not likely to be keen to see the jeopardy of relegation removed. The solution? If clubs really are just worried about the unfairness of the number of cancelled games on league standings, one innovator suggested yesterday that they should introduce play-offs for the bottom four clubs, as happens at the top of the table. The bottom club would play the side finishing fourth from bottom, with the teams second and third from bottom meeting in the other. The two losers would then meet in a “final”, with the losers relegated.It would help negate the impact of the Covid cancellations, create interest for viewers, and potentially give the clubs extra gate revenues if crowds are allowed back by the end of the season. That probably sounds like a plan to me and one that might just fly. |
||
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021:01:31:11:34:02 by Faithful_City.
Quote:It is understood that advice has also been sought over the “protocol” that guided previous discussions on changes to league structures – that they had to take place before the start of any competition – and it has been found to be not legally enforceable.
Meaning rules and organisation can be changed at anytime!
I can't see the RFU accepting "a relegation pause"
However I can see BT Sport due to the growth in their viewing figures due to Covid and the fact that every game is covered meaning if you get BT sport you can also see every away game without travelling!
My thoughts will be increase to 13 then continued promotion/relegation, which will still give teams like Ealing and Penzance lots of heartache and considerable loss of money. The relegated team will still get almost £3million and champ sides 19ll get £150k.
Surely this is buying ring fencing.
Why not Ringfence 5 5 seasons and the Prem give the Championship the £3million each season a bursary of £250k
JP
Quote:When the Premiership abandoned the first-past-the-post system to determine the champions and replaced it with play-offs in 2002-03, the justification was that the league table was not necessarily a barometer of form because some clubs were more disrupted by international calls than others during the league campaign.
The overlap between domestic and international rugby in the autumn and during the Six Nations meant some clubs could be without players for more than a third of the season and then there were rest weeks to factor in. Play-offs, never mind that a league turned into a knockout tournament, were determined to be the better way to decide who was the best.
Staging a final proved to be commercially successful, regularly selling out Twickenham to become a fixture in the calendar. The play-off system is now embedded – but only at the top.
The same argument about operating with weakened squads applies at the other end of the table: Leicester would have finished bottom last season but for Saracens being deducted the equivalent of 21 bonus point victories having had to do without George Ford, Ben Youngs, Manu Tuilagi, Jonny May and Ellis Genge for large parts of the campaign.
Relegation is set to be suspended this season because of the disruption caused by Covid-19. Five matches have been cancelled after a number of positive tests at clubs, and Bath’s derby against Bristol next week is in doubt after all Bath players and staff were told to stay at home after an outbreak of the virus. Those who tested positive and their close contacts will have to isolate for a minimum of 10 days.
One solution would be to have the bottom four clubs take part in play-offs to determine who goes down, but there is no chance of anyone proposing that despite the yearning for the return of Saracens. If the other top-flight clubs had paused for breath last year before deciding to impose a punishment that guaranteed Saracens would be relegated rather than stagger the points deduction over three seasons, they would not now have to contrive the future.
Henry Slade scores for Exeter in last season’s Premiership final against Wasps. The play-off system has livened up the title race; could it work for relegation?
The collective wish is for the number of clubs in the Premiership to increase next season to 13, something that will require an extra four weekends. Will a season that used to run from the beginning of September until the end of May start at the same time but go on until the end of June?
Ten months at a time when player welfare is meant to be everyone’s priority seems counter-intuitive and with the salary cap being reduced next season it is not as if squads will increase in size. The idea is to then expand to 14 teams, as long as someone can be found to buy a shareholding in the top flight (yours for £20m or so), and have a ground that meets all the entry criteria. Other than Ealing Trailfinders, who is there in the market?
The Premiership should not be a private club. Owners often point out about the investment they have made in the game and that the risk of relegation is a deterrent to backers, yet they all made their money in the world of business where risk is an occupational hazard. Why should sport be different? Even football’s Premier League, a playground of the rich, waves goodbye to three clubs at the end of each season.
Premiership Rugby claims on its website “the decisions made by our boards are in the best interests of the professional game and the sport of rugby in England.” So how would pulling up the drawbridge on the Premiership, extorting a sum that is more than the annual turnover of some clubs, be in the best interests of English rugby?
Sport is about ambition and that would be denied to clubs in the Championship and below. Not that Premiership Rugby can act unilaterally: it needs the consent of the RFU which, each year has to approve the rules of the Premiership “to ensure that the competition is played under rules and regulations.”
Premiership Rugby is able to run its league because the RFU granted it permission: under World Rugby regulations, only unions have the authority to negotiate television and sponsorship deals unless they delegate it, which the RFU and the French Rugby Federation have done to their professional clubs while retaining a watching brief.
A ring-fenced Premiership would affect on the game below the top flight, an area the RFU is responsible for. The Championship has failed to serve any purpose other than to act as a holiday home for the relegated club from the top flight. It has been grossly under-financed, to the point where the majority of the clubs in it have no prospect of playing in the Premiership.
The notion that a 14th club would only gain admission if it stumped up £20m to be shared by the other clubs is appalling and contrasts with France where the second division is run by the same organisers as the Top 14 and properly funded. It is currently occupied by Perpignan, Biarritz and Colomiers, clubs that have reached European finals.(OK so why not let Premiership Rugby take control of the Championship)
It is a far healthier system and while there is a case for reconsidering relegation this season given the impact made by the pandemic, the RFU should refuse, at a time when a global calendar is being discussed, to entertain the idea of expansion – one that would benefit the few, not the many.
The 14th club would not have to stump up £20m! they just have to go through what Worcester, Exeter and The Froth had to endure for 7 seasons of gradually increased funding.
Interesting slant on professional sport and its funding "football’s Premier League, a playground of the rich"
JP
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021:01:22:10:15:35 by Faithful_City.
Quote:
Gloucester chief executive Lance Bradley has urged the Premiership Rugby to remove the relegation in the ongoing season of the Gallagher Premiership due to Covid-19 circumstances.
The clubs were forced to endure a tough time due to the pandemic coronavirus with players and staff had to undergo compulsory test every week while few clubs were unable to field a matchday squad due to a number of positive cases.
Gloucester lost their head coach Johan Ackermann, director of rugby David Humphreys and a number of key players and George Skivington was appointed in charge of the club.
The Cherry and Whites currently are languishing at the bottom with one win from six matches and Bradley feels it would be unfair for any of the club to face relegation at the end of the season after going through a lot of difficulties off field due to the Covid situation.
“Nobody could have foreseen quite how many games were going to be cancelled this season,” he told City A.M.
“The chance of a team, whoever it might be, getting relegated because they happen to stay fit and healthy – that just doesn’t feel right.
“The consequences of getting relegated and having another huge hit to your income straight after that would be catastrophic.
“And it would be catastrophic for pretty much any club in the league. That isn’t really what it’s about.
“We’re looking at how to develop the game and broaden its reach. Having one of the Premiership clubs go out of business is completely counter-intuitive to that.”
“We’re looking at how to develop the game and broaden its reach. Having one of the Premiership clubs go out of business is completely counter-intuitive to that.”
He has a point, who wants to invest in a dying industry?
JP