The Rugby Paper

We need a fairer deal for all levels

- JEFF PROBYN

ICANNOT believe that there is any way an agreement between the Championsh­ip, Premiershi­p and the Rugby Football Union can possibly be reached unless it also incorporat­es the rest of the game below. It seems that more and more money is being earmarked for the Premiershi­p and the elite players than realistica­lly the Union can give while still maintainin­g adequate funding for the vast majority of the game.

If the RFU now make an additional financial agreement with the Championsh­ip clubs it would only need a small blip in the revenue stream to create a financial crisis for the grassroots game.

The grassroots have unfairly suffered from the financial pressures that profession­alism have inflicted on the game and with control of the RFU now split between the Profession­al Game Board and the council representa­tive who, when it comes to financing the game, are subservien­t to the PGB.

This has manifested itself in the way funding is moved from the grassroots game in order to maintain funds for the Premiershi­p with the early agreements that funding would be at a 50/50 level, with half of the available funds going to the profession­al game and half to the grassroots.

This swiftly changed when the RFU had a reduction in revenues but were legally obliged to maintain its payments to the profession­al game and so were forced to divert money from the grassroots.

The implicatio­ns of this has been a drop in the number of players in the game by a considerab­le amount, with a number of clubs closing.

When I first started at grassroots level (or junior club rugby as it used to be called), each club ran between four and six adult teams, now they run one or two with the occasional club managing to field three if they can get a game.

Even the profession­al game is subject to the similar limitation­s, fielding just one team and an occasional academy game.

With the current ringfence of the Premiershi­p still firmly in place, it’s already impacting the financial investment­s for the rest of the game. Even though not broadcast in the media like when a Premiershi­p club has troubles, it was proven by the backers of Jersey Reds pulling the plug after realising the current situation doesn’t appear to be changing in the near future.

However, the idea of a play-off between the bottom Premiershi­p club and the top Championsh­ip club instead of automatic relegation and promotion seems to be gathering momentum with those clubs at least. That said, it has a number of issues that will need to be resolved before it becomes a viable solution.

First, what is to stop a team in the bottom of the relegation zone in the Premiershi­p from resting its best players in preparatio­n for the play-off ? In contrast, the Championsh­ip teams will have to play their best players at every game to ensure they reach and maintain a position at the top of their league to make the play-off.

Then there is the extra money the Premiershi­p clubs receive, even when relegated, which is far in excess of what the Championsh­ip clubs normally have to survive on. This gives relegated clubs a better if unfair chance of retaining its players and returning to the Premiershi­p.

If the RFU wants the Championsh­ip to become more investable it must first remove much of the minimum standards criteria (MSC), simply because it is this which overtly reduces the levels of investment in the Championsh­ip. It is also worth considerin­g that many of the Premiershi­p clubs never met the standards when they were put in place and have developed their stadiums while in the Premiershi­p. Building or extending a stadium is a huge investment and once the build or extension is complete it increases the maintenanc­e and running costs.

With currently little or no guarantee of promotion, even if you met the MSC, why would any club with limited financial resources increase its debts and costs for an under used facility?

Even the majority of the clubs currently in the Premiershi­p seldom have sell-out crowds on a regular basis, which explains the huge debts plaguing the game.

Take my old team Wasps for an example. Had they not moved to Coventry with the massive costs of the stadium and its running costs and not being able to generate sufficient growth in support to fill the stadium, they may well have still been able to survive if not prosper a little.

It would be preferable for the Premiershi­p to take away the minimum standards criteria and then allowed clubs free access to the

Premiershi­p based on results on the field, allowing any successful clubs the time to improve their stadiums once settled in and growing its fan base.

At the end of the day, profession­al rugby is a business like any other and can only grow through supply and demand. Expanding a business when there is no increase in demand will always land you in a financial mess. By allowing clubs to have time to increase the demand for space for more fans would allow them to increase capacity in line with demand.

The best solution for the game would be the RFU returning to a fair funding deal for the whole of the game and not just the profession­al game.

“Had my old team Wasps not moved to Coventry, they may have been able to survive”

 ?? ??
 ?? PICTURES: Getty Images ?? Sad end: Move to Coventry didn’t go well for Wasps
PICTURES: Getty Images Sad end: Move to Coventry didn’t go well for Wasps

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom