Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Ealing silent on decision that they are ineligible for promotion

Ealing's Vallis Way stadium (Photo by Alex Davidson/Getty Images)

Ealing Trailfinders have yet to issue a public response to Monday’s confirmation by the RFU that the Championship leaders will not be promoted to the Gallagher Premiership if the end the 2022/23 campaign as champions. The London club are currently leading the second tier league by a point but their stadium has failed the minimum standards criteria for clubs looking to take the leap into the big league.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rather than propose to play at a stadium with the necessary 10,001 capacity, Ealing nominated Vallis Way as their preferred ground but the stadium was deemed to be of insufficient standard to host Premiership rugby.

It means that Ealing won’t be promoted if they are crowned Championship champions for the second successive season. Doncaster, the only other second tier club to put its name forward for the minimum standards criteria assessment, had its Castle Park ground approved to stage top-flight matches.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

However, the Knights are currently in fifth position in the Championship, 23 points behind leaders Ealing with 14 rounds of matches played.

A statement read: “The RFU board has ratified the recommendation of the professional game board on the minimum standards criteria assessments for Ealing Trailfinders and Doncaster Knights, the two Championship clubs that applied to be assessed. The outcome is as follows:

Related

  • Ealing Trailfinders were not able to evidence the necessary licensed capacity, supported by a safety certificate or planning permission to achieve a capacity of over 10,000. Ealing Trailfinders are therefore not eligible for promotion to the Premiership at the end of season 2022/23.
  • Doncaster Knights have satisfied the minimum standards criteria and are eligible for promotion to the Premiership at the end of season 2022/23. Castle Park has a licensed capacity of over 5,000, with planning permission to extend beyond 10,000. The club has also provided detailed information regarding the safety assurance process to be undertaken by their local authority.

“Minimum standards criteria are in place to ensure Premiership Rugby clubs and promoted clubs have suitable facilities to protect player safety and welfare, provide financial sustainability and to deliver a good quality, safe environment for spectators. Each club and its nominated ground undergo an annual independent audit to assess compliance with the minimum standards criteria.

“The minimum standards criteria were revised in 2022 around the minimum capacity of grounds, to allow additional time for a club to build up to a capacity of 10,001… Ealing Trailfinders could have nominated an alternative ground at which to play should they be promoted but elected to nominate Vallis Way as their principal home ground.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Professional game board chair Phil de Glanville, said: “The decision to support Championship club promotion, with a phased approach to ground development, was taken to support the transition to the Premiership and to allow more time to achieve the 10,001 capacity criteria.

“The RFU and all members of the professional game board would like to thank the Premiership and Championship clubs for the work being undertaken on finding ways to ensure the second tier of professional rugby in England can become more self-sustaining.”

It was in April last year when Ealing learned they would have to remain in the Championship for the 2022/23 season despite winning the 2021/22 title.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

2 Comments
A
Alex 676 days ago

So as I've understood it, the plan is to have 2 divisions of 10 teams each with pro/rel between them for tiers 1 & 2 of England's domestic rugby.

I love this idea. I'd prefer pro/rel. Here's my issue though. Of all of these clubs, if only 1 or 2 are eligible to come up, what's the point? Best case scenario you have a yo-yo situation with that club just coming up and going back down, worst case you go years at a time with no movement until the 1 eligible club happens to catch a good season.

So I'd propose an alternative, keeping in mind they want to cut back on number of matches to avoid clashes with international rugby, and due to player safety & fitness.

Twelve clubs, the current 11 plus the reborn Wasps, ring fenced. Split into a North Group & South Group. Similar to URC, you play a double round robin in your group (10 matches) and intergroup clubs once (6 matches). Top 2 in each group make the playoffs. North 1 v South 2, South 1 v North 2. You cut the number of matches pretty dramatically, but keep in mind it sounds like Champions Cup is going to switch to 6 group stage rounds up from 4. So you're still ending up with 22 total matches bare minimum.

Again, I'd prefer pro/rel. At the same time though, URC & Super Rugby both do fine without it, with only 16 league matches, up to 5 points up for grabs, Champions Cup & playoff spots on the line, you're still going to avoid a dead rubber for most the season, maybe you get 1 the very final round or two at worst. Bottom line if England can't sustain more than 12 (at best) elite clubs, then they can't sustain that. There's no point in setting unrealistic promotion standards just to pretend you have pro/rel, when in reality those standards are regularly missed.

H
Howard 676 days ago

Same thing happened to my club. Its the RFU’s way of ringfencing the ‘elite’ clubs !!!

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

G
GrahamVF 31 minutes ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

"has SA actually EVER helped to develop another union to maturity like NZ has with Japan," yes - Argentina. You obviously don't know the history of Argentinian rugby. SA were touring there on long development tours in the 1950's

We continued the Junior Bok tours to the Argentine through to the early 70's

My coach at Grey High was Giepie Wentzel who toured Argentine as a fly half. He told me about how every Argentinian rugby club has pictures of Van Heerden and Danie Craven on prominent display. Yes we have developed a nation far more than NZ has done for Japan. And BTW Sa players were playing and coaching in Japan long before the Kiwis arrived. Fourie du Preez and many others were playing there 15 years ago.


"Isaac Van Heerden's reputation as an innovative coach had spread to Argentina, and he was invited to Buenos Aires to help the Pumas prepare for their first visit to South Africa in 1965.[1][2] Despite Argentina faring badly in this tour,[2] it was the start of a long and happy relationship between Van Heerden and the Pumas. Izak van Heerden took leave from his teaching post in Durban, relocated to Argentina, learnt fluent Spanish, and would revolutionise Argentine play in the late 1960s, laying the way open for great players such as Hugo Porta.[1][2] Van Heerden virtually invented the "tight loose" form of play, an area in which the Argentines would come to excel, and which would become a hallmark of their playing style. The Pumas repaid the initial debt, by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park, and emerged as one of the better modern rugby nations, thanks largely to the talents of this Durban schoolmaster.[1]"


After the promise made by Junior Springbok manager JF Louw at the end of a 12-game tour to Argentina in 1959 – ‘I will do everything to ensure we invite you to tour our country’ – there were concerns about the strength of Argentinian rugby. South African Rugby Board president Danie Craven sent coach Izak van Heerden to help the Pumas prepare and they repaid the favour by beating the Junior Springboks at Ellis Park.

152 Go to comments
J
JW 6 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

152 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Leinster player ratings vs Connacht | 2024/25 URC Leinster player ratings vs Connacht | 2024/25 URC
Search