RFU - Super 10 or Stupid few?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Chat' started by persins, Jan 23, 2007.

  1. persins

    persins Member


    What are people's thoughts on the proposal from the RFU to introduce a new league of 10 Super Teams in place of the current Guinness Premiership?

    Personally, I think the proposal has some positives in that the players play fewer games but shows a complete disregard for a great deal of what makes the current arrangement exciting and enjoyable to be a part of.

    More incredible is the proposal to effectively destroy the most successful elements of the league by forcing the bigger clubs to either combine or accept a place in a weakened league?!

    I can't see this working without the backing of some of the bigger teams and it appears that the proposal is designed to go directly against the very few who could carry it through?!
  2. Chunky

    Chunky Active Member

    Anything that reduces the number of games our top players have to play must be considered a good thing.

    Already London Irish play some distance from their original home (Sunbury on Thames) now playing at Reading and Wasps playing away from (Sudbury) and also Saracens having been the first to move. There is also talk I believe of Bath leaving their home city.

    These moves were obvioulsy needed so that when professionalism started they could get larger crowds and draw in more money. Those clubs were perhaps the forerunners of a franchise type system.

    As the article states imagine telling Tigers 16,000 season ticket holders (some football clubs would love that size of fan base!) that they now have to travel to say Nottingham to watch a franchise!

    In Wales & Scotland I believe they have tried having area sides (please correct me if I am wrong) and these do not appear to have been successful.

    I can understand the franchise system working in large countries where vast distances have to be travelled so you do not have traditional local rivalries.

    The best way for me is to reduce the fixture list. If a club qualifies for the Heinekin Cup they should be exempt from their National Cup Competition as an example. Or revert back to the proper league system and abolish the play offs at the end of the season. As the landlords of Twickenham the RFU are the only real benefactors of these games.
  3. Pythagoras

    Pythagoras Active Member

    As long as they don't get rid of relegation. Can't get rid of teams like Leicester, its a rugby hot bed.
  4. 2nd man down

    2nd man down Moderator Staff Member

    I think ultimately achieve exactly what the football premiership has acheived, elitist, almost untouchable teams at the top who soak up all the available money, leaving only crumbs and dregs for the teams in the lower divisions making it almost impossible for them to get any higher than the 2nd tier. Only the odd few will sustain life up there like bolton in the Premiership. The rest will just yo yo up and down (West ham, Sunderland, West Brom, Charlton etc...)
  5. tinytimp

    tinytimp Member

    On the contrary, I can only speak for the Welsh set-up but it's been highly successful since the regional system was brought in. Briefly, the former Premiership sides were merged to create five Regional sides (with Cardiff and Llanelli remaining as single team regions, more due to geography than anything else), to then play in the Celtic League. The Celtic Warriors unfortunately disappeared but the other four regions are still going strong (especially the Llanelli Scarlets I have to add!).

    The extra sponsorship etc. coming in from this system then goes to help the smaller (Premiership) feeder clubs, whose players can then graduate to the main regional team. Bigger, more profesional, teams like these are much better equipped to play on a larger scale.

    I don't know if this is the Welsh in me speaking, but I'd worry that the English Premiership would go over the top, they all seem to be too money orientated and I wouldn't be surprised if this would be to the detriment of the 'smaller' teams.
  6. Chunky

    Chunky Active Member

    Thanks for the explaination tinytimp. Not an expert on Welsh rugby so was not sure how it was working.

    I agree that there is a danger the rich could get richer in England. The game in England seems to be being pulled in too many different directions by people all out to get the biggest slice of the money available.
  7. tinytimp

    tinytimp Member

    Ooh I'm useful for a change! :clap:
  8. Rapier

    Rapier Supporting Member

    It would be a bad thing for rugby and particularly the England team. Fewer teams means fewer places for players to play at the highest level, before International call up. Clubs will still pay the big bucks to foreign imports, leaving a smaller squad base to pick from for the national team.
  9. There was talk 12 years ago when Super League was in its infancy that most teams would have to merge to form so-called "super teams" - Halifax and Bradford, Castleford and Wakefield, Widnes and Warrington, etc. Time has proven to show that, because all the teams vetoed the idea, attendances are up week on week, year on year, skill factors are rising and we are able to get the best players in from Down Under.
    The idea to merge certain union clubs should be thrown out post-haste. These clubs have traditions and values that can't be ignored - many of them are breeding grounds for the next generation of internationals. If you merge clubs, you reduce the number of teams, therefore players.
    When Halifax RUFC first got promoted to National 3 North, the idea was that all 5 other clubs in Halifax should play as Halifax teams. Each of these other 5 clubs had 3 or 4 teams, not inluding youth set-ups. That is approximately 15-20 teams of at least 15 players (225 players minimum). Now bearing that in mind, only the best 60 would be able to make up 3 teams - where would the other 150+ players play?

    Not quite the same as Leicester, Bath, Wasps. etc, but you get my drift.


Share This Page