Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

RFU issue 73-word reply to the latest Championship Rugby statement

(Photo by Catherine Ivill/The RFU Collection via Getty Images)

The RFU have issued a short reply to Wednesday’s Championship Rugby statement alleging that they have been threatened with relegation to the National League in England if they don’t comply with a franchise or a selection-based tier two competition beneath the Gallagher Premiership.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 11 Championship clubs called on the RFU board to set an urgent date to hear in full their amended proposals and it quickly prompted a reply from England Rugby HQ at Twickenham.

A statement read: “The RFU has been consulting with Championship clubs for over a year. We have researched and produced a commercial strategy and provided the clubs with confirmed funding at at least existing levels for 24/25 season and proposals for increased funding from 25/26 season.

Video Spacer

Joe Simmonds on his headspace at Exeter

Video Spacer

Joe Simmonds on his headspace at Exeter

“We will continue to consult with Championship clubs and very much hope that they choose to be part of what could become a more thriving and sustainable second professional tier.”

The 73-word riposte came after Championship clubs earlier outlined their frustrations in a media release that read: “We emphasised in our last statement our principled objections to a franchise or selection-based tier two.

Related

“Rather than seek to discuss these objections and others, the RFU has chosen to threaten us with effective relegation to the National Leagues for non-compliance, while ignoring the unresolved questions on governance, commercial strategy, promotion/relegation, player welfare and the player development pathway. We have offered alternative proposals on the way forward to the board without response.

“The current RFU plan to present any recommendation to council is extremely premature until such fundamental issues are addressed and consensus reached so that the game can move forward via agreement rather than ultimatum.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We would appeal to council not to approve any plans for tier two until our proposals are discussed in detail and there is full clarity on these fundamental issues.

“We have discussed this matter with Sport England because, without further clarity on funding and governance, it will be impossible to ensure that Championship clubs are able to repay their covid loans. We believe they share our concerns.

“We believe that no club can place value on a process involving expressions of interest when there is so little necessary detail.

“However, we can only act for ourselves: consequently the 11 current Championship clubs request that the board sets an urgent date to hear in full our amended proposals – proposals which share all of the RFU’s objectives, albeit reached via different routes which we consider achievable, pragmatic and full of vision for the future growth of the game.”

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 1 hour 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.

144 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING 'Tom has the potential to be better than a British and Irish Lion' 'Tom has the potential to be better than a British and Irish Lion'
Search