RFU inherited this situation, they’re doing their best

IT IS disappointing to read criticism targeted at the present RFU regime, as epitomised by Nick Cain’s piece last week, failing to acknowledge the severe constraints imposed by matters not of their creation and largely beyond their control.

The Professional Game Agreement, signed in 2016 by people no longer involved at the RFU, with almost half its term still to run, ties Bill Sweeney and his team into an entirely unbalanced relationship with PRL, whereby they are committed to devoting a majority of their funding to top level clubs, with only very limited, contractually stipulated rights of input or veto on PRL decisions.

Implications that our governing body would wantonly further the interests of the elite at the expense of grassroots are outrageous.

Although crucial funding for community clubs’ facilities developments has been reduced, the levels of advisory support afforded by the RFU have been impressive during the pandemic – as have the fight put up for Government grant moneys for grassroots clubs and the help to clubs in developing girls/women’s rugby.

Anything that happens during the remaining validity of the PGA must be viewed against the background of the limited room for manoeuvre that it provides and the need for the games’ senior administrators to manage the resultant, unbalanced relationship with PRL.

The acid test will be how well the RFU is able to foster the wider game over the next 3/4 years within the constraints imposed by the PGA and, crucially, what happens when it ends.

John Allanson