Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

'There will obviously be an occasion where there is disagreement'

RFU CEO Bill Sweeney (second from right) at Wednesday's unveiling of the new men’s professional game partnership (Photo via Premiership Rugby)

English rugby administrators have admitted they expect a limited number of controversies to arise during the 2024/25 season regarding the implementation of the new professional game partnership.

ADVERTISEMENT

The new eight-year plan governing the professional game in England, which allows for an elite playing squad of 50, was unveiled at Twickenham on Wednesday afternoon and it has given Test team head coach Steve Borthwick greater control over 25 of these elite players on an annual basis.

Borthwick will have the final say on all sports science and medical issues regarding those 25 players selected for enhanced elite player squad deals, but officials believe the inclusion of independent members on the new professional rugby board can limit any major controversies regarding the unavailable of players to their clubs to one or two instances per season.

Kicking off the post-partnership announcement media briefing at Twickenham, which has been newly rebranded as Allianz Stadium following a 10-year naming rights deal, RFU CEO Bill Sweeney explained: “For the enhanced EPS players, the 25, Steve has an oversight and a say over anything to do with S&C, anything to do with individual development programmes and he will work with the clubs to develop that going forward.

“There will obviously be an occasion where there is disagreement or an inability to come the final conclusion. That’s the whole purpose of the men’s professional rugby board bringing in an independent chair, so we take that to discussions there and we will resolve them.”

Related

Phil Winstanley, the Premiership Rugby director, stressed this potential area for club and country conflict under the new agreement was something that had been discussed long and hard with Conor O’Shea, the RFU’s director of rugby performance.

“Clearly this has been one of the areas Conor and I have spent a lot of time trying to get right because it is very easy as a concept but to actually put it into practice and deal with the what ifs is a little more difficult,” he began.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We have spent a lot of time with the directors of rugby, Conor with Steve, just talking through how this will work. Very simply speaking, Steve will have final say on S&C and medical issues for those players in the enhanced EPS. The directors of rugby will have final say on selection of those players and on S&C, selection, medical for the non-enhanced EPS.

“The question that we came to which we spent the most time on is how do we ensure that that decision making is reasonable and that is where, as Bill says, the PRB will come in and monitor that. It won’t necessarily but it could make a recommendation to change a decision or to change the process, but it won’t necessarily override that. It will just ensure that a decision that is made is a reasonable decision.

O’Shea, who was seated alongside Winstanley at the top-table briefing set-up, chipped in: “Like with anything, it is check and challenge which every system should have done through an independent which is a good thing.

“But we all come from it and that’s why it is so important the IDP process is started off as it is, player, club and country coaches all sitting in a room together all deciding the way forward because we all want the same thing – you want your best players on the pitch for your club and your country at the backend when it really counts.

ADVERTISEMENT

“That’s what it is all about. Will there be one or two (arguments)? Of course, that’s the nature of rugby and we have to make sure there is a check and challenge over that in the right way.”
Winstanley hoped that any acrimony regarding the power now bestowed to Borthwick would be limited to less than a handful of instances. “I hope when we get to this point next year that we are talking one or two cases.

“The reality is we have a proper IDP (individual development process) in place and Steve has been to six of the (10) clubs already overseeing the process. We should be addressing any S&C needs at that point in time. If there is anything fallen through the gaps we have got something slight wrong there.

Related

“Any long-term medical issues are medical issues, they get dealt with anyway and there will be a plan to what the season looks like in terms of when players are playing and that IDP will be reviewed on a regular basis, so we are really narrowing it down to some really fine, nuanced decisions to whether a player has a medical need and does he need to rest this week or can he do something next week?

“It’s that type of nuanced decision. I am hoping that if we get this right then there won’t be too many of those when we sit down next year and talk about this… What is so important is we have to have better communication and relationships between the England head coach and the directors of rugby, and Steve has put so much effort into this over the last few months and that is starting to play out in the success of this process.”

O’Shea now took over the floor again. “Where it does relate to having the aligned medical record system there will be aligned data so there are no surprises. Are there going to be two or three potentially at the end when we look back? Yes. That be reviewed, challenged, checked to make sure that someone isn’t acting outside, but everyone is in it at the start for the same reason and that is why the importance of the IDP alignment at the start of the season is fundamental to this.

“There is 50 in the senior EPS, 50 in the U20 EPS – and there is up to 25 (senior) who will be enhanced. What Steve and all the clubs are doing at the moment is there is an indication of when the selection is confirmed in October, but they are probably going outside of that 50 at the moment in discussions because there is going to be the start of the season when you knuckle it down.

“In terms of Steve, it will be final say on medical and conditioning on the 25 enhanced… but he ain’t going to pick 25 this year. He wants people to really aim and want to be in that group.”

Winstanley added: “The independence of the new PRB and the independent directors will put a different dynamic into those discussions because historically in the room it has been RFU, PRL and RPA and, by definition, people have got self-interest. This will be a different dynamic when we get in the room.”

Related

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

f
fl 2 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen."


That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.


"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

50 Go to comments
f
fl 39 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

50 Go to comments
f
fl 54 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

50 Go to comments
J
JW 57 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Generally disagree with what? The possibility that they would get whitewashed, or the idea they shouldn't gain access until they're good enough?


I think the first is a fairly irrelevant view, decide on the second and then worry about the first. Personally I'd have had them in a third lvl comp with all the bottom dwellers of the leagues. I liked the idea of those league clubs resting their best players, and so being able to lift their standards in the league, though, so not against the idea that T2 sides go straight into Challenge Cup, but that will be a higher level with smaller comps and I think a bit too much for them (not having followed any of their games/performances mind you).

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen.


The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime.

50 Go to comments
J
JW 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Well I was mainly referring to my thinking about the split, which was essentially each /3 rounded up, but reliant on WCs to add buffer.


You may have been going for just a 16 team league ranking cup?


But yes, those were just ideas for how to select WCs, all very arbitrary but I think more interesting in ways than just going down a list (say like fl's) of who is next in line. Indeed in my reply to you I hinted at say the 'URC' WC spot actually being given to the Ireland pool and taken away from the Welsh pool.


It's easy to think that is excluding, and making it even harder on, a poor performing country, but this is all in context of a 18 or 20 team comp where URC (at least to those teams in the URC) got 6 places, which Wales has one side lingering around, and you'd expect should make. Imagine the spice in that 6N game with Italy, or any other of the URC members though! Everyone talks about SA joining the 6N, so not sure it will be a problem, but it would be a fairly minor one imo.


But that's a structure of the leagues were instead of thinking how to get in at the top, I started from the bottom and thought that it best those teams doing qualify for anything. Then I thought the two comps should be identical in structure. So that's were an even split comes in with creating numbers, and the 'UEFA' model you suggest using in some manner, I thought could be used for the WC's (5 in my 20 team comp) instead of those ideas of mine you pointed out.


I see Jones has waded in like his normal self when it comes to SH teams. One thing I really like about his idea is the name change to the two competitions, to Cup and Shield. Oh, and home and away matches.

50 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian? Does the next Wallabies coach have to be an Australian?
Search