We need ring-fence now more than ever

RING-FENCING might well, as Gary Reynolds claims in last week’s TRP, make the Premiership product worse and lose fans for their clubs, but should that worry the majority of clubs that, like Rams and my own club, Bishop’s Stortford, are community clubs, carrying responsibility for the health of the game’s grassroots?

I would argue that the answer is a clear “no”.

First, Gary’s opposition to ring-fencing is premised on closing off the top tier “in perpetuity” and I cannot recall a single proposal that did not provide for some kind of periodically open door for a club that could demonstrate their ability to hold their own in playing, facilities and financial terms.

The majority of Level 2 clubs have neither the means, nor the appetite for the challenges of Premiership rugby, which is why the gulf between the top two tiers is so huge and why, incidentally, the RFU’s decision to cut funding to Level 2 sides is absolutely correct.

This will release some funds that can, in line with Bill Sweeney’s commitment to support the community game, be much better spent in helping grassroots clubs to replace often outdated and inadequate basic facilities.

A second, very important effect of ring-fencing would be to have a dampening effect on player payments throughout the game, once again freeing up funds for investment by community clubs in facilities.

Third, a “semi-permeable” ring-fencing might provide the RFU with a useful bargaining counter in their negotiations with PRL over arrangements to replace the unduly generous Professional Game Agreement.

This has given Level 1 clubs the lion’s share of RFU funds with, arguably insufficient benefits for the game – as evidenced by the growing number of overseas players being imported by the clubs, while still resisting the release of players for additional internationals to allow Twickenham to make good more of the financial ravages of Covid-19. Once again, funds could, potentially be released for the community game.

It may stick in the craw of many, formally to enshrine in this way the de facto stranglehold that PRL have on the game, but would we really be worse off and, in practice, what can be done about a situation based heavily on long term contracts?