Brian Moore in Telegraph
Printed From: National League Rugby Discussion Forum
Category: League Rugby - www.leaguerugby.co.uk
Forum Name: Clubhouse chat
Forum Description: For rugby related posts that fit nowhere else.. When you're ready Sandra.
URL: http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=19409
Printed Date: 02 May 2025 at 15:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Brian Moore in Telegraph
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Subject: Brian Moore in Telegraph
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2022 at 20:11
|
https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2022/10/07/worcester-blame-game-proves-need-financial-transparency-premiership/" rel="nofollow - The demise of Worcester Warriors and Wasps has https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2022/10/16/dave-walder-wasps-spending-superstar-names-had-caught/" rel="nofollow - opened up the possibility of long overdue reform at the top of English rugby. The Rugby Football Union should seize this chance to extend reform to the grassroots game and secure rugby’s long-term future. This is not a new theme for this column, but the issues are fundamental, and the sustainability of the sport is at stake. What is rugby union in England? What should it be? What role should it fulfil? At its most basic level it can, and should, remain a game for all shapes and sizes and for all genders the academy systems of the Premiership clubs. It is a criminal waste of money that could and should be spent in far better ways. Why not make promotion between Levels 3- 5 dependent on clubs also having fully developed junior and women’s sections? RFU research has shown that some of the money put into Level 3-5 is only given for the glory of rising up a few leagues and bolstering the ego of, for example, a local business owner. That money would be lost under this revision, but it is money that distorts the leagues and forces clubs to spend to compete. The game would be better without it. If money is to come to the junior game, and it is needed, let it pay for better facilities, more teams, more coaches and boys, girls, and women’s sections. I am at a complete loss to see why the https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2022/10/15/exclusive-rfu-backs-10-team-premiership-solution-club-games/" rel="nofollow - RFU does not feel it can order the game thus. It is the governing body and can organise it in any way it likes at the non-professional level. Other bodies, like the RFL and ECB, have strictly demarcated the professional, semi-professional and amateur levels of their games. There is no reason why the RFU cannot do the same. What bedevils this discussion is a handful, and it is just a handful, of clubs who do not find it difficult to raise their level’s annual threshold to pay players. They ask why their ambition should be curtailed. The answer is this – you can be ambitious. You can rise up the leagues, but you do it in the way prescribed, which does not disadvantage others and enhances rugby as a whole, not just your singular cause. If you disagree with what is proposed, you have to explain why it is wrong and what alternative structure you advocate; one that looks at the game as a whole and its long-term viability. Just as there have been high profile casualties at the top of the game, there have been many more at every other level and they are as much to be mourned. It is time for the RFU to be bold. ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Replies:
Posted By: Rabbie Burns
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2022 at 20:24
|
Em, can someone tell me what payments are made in level 3-5 can’t think of any ------------- So many Christians not enough Lions |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2022 at 20:32
|
I strongly agree that the RFU should not give any money to any club that pays players, and should charge such club the full market rate for officials. It should also ensure that all such clubs have a certificate of insurance covering the season in place by the end of August, along with having paid all monies outstanding to HMRC and having a fully paid contract with a kit manufacturer. Failure on any point should lead to expulsion from the ECC. Payment of players in levels 3 to 5 is the mote in rugby's eye. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2022 at 20:47
|
It’s obviously a long time since Brian Moore talked to anyone from a Level 3-5 Club. The only money my Club got from the RFU this season is from the Travel assistance Fund and we received 25% of what we received last year, despite the extra travel at National 1. We would also love to have a girls’ or women’s section and we would if other Clubs didn’t nick our players when we build a good group. We are trying again but need a strong personality to lead it and fight off other Clubs. No problem with boys’ rugby! The argument about paying players is an interesting one. We get nowhere near the salary cap and won’t break it because of the money we would lose from hosting CB activities. I do understand that some Clubs with no CB money do spend more than the salary cap, that is their choice. We have lost players this season to other Clubs because they pay more and we refuse to compete. At the moment that is coming back to bite us!
|
Posted By: Redted
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2022 at 21:26
|
So Esher, rich club in London, full of 2nd home owners etc got 25% of what they got last season. Redruth who are in a deprived area and travel more than any club in the National leagues except perhaps Plymouth got nothing, yes zero. Apparently we did not meet the criteria. When we asked where we fell down on the criteria we got no response at all, no answer whatsoever from the RFU. Perhaps we were short of a sports presenter in our submission. Typical RFU supporting their favoured London sides.
|
Posted By: gerg_861
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2022 at 21:34
As an Ealing supporter, I dispute that the RFU favours London clubs as we aim for a 3rd straight top of table finish with no guarantee of promotion.
|
Redted wrote:Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 22 Oct 2022 at 22:48
|
We also know plenty of players at level 3 go onto be good enough to not just play professionally, but to pull on international jerseys. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: FHLH
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2022 at 02:57
Redted's point was that Esher received travel funding and Redruth didn't. Perhaps clarity on criteria for that would be useful.
------------- "My father told me big men fall just as quick as little ones, if you put a sword through their hearts." |
Posted By: Sedge Tiger
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2022 at 08:39
What a shockingly Ill informed article. Very embarrassing for Mr Moore All the best ST ------------- Give him one with handles on |
Posted By: Sid James
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2022 at 09:41
|
The criminal waste of money tgat Moore is referring to is the money spent by ego based sponsors. Business men spending huge amounts to gain short term success and, in doing so, artificially inflating the local market in players wages.
This part is relevent and worth considering : It is a criminal waste of money that could and should be spent in far better ways. Why not make promotion between Levels 3- 5 dependent on clubs also having fully developed junior and women’s sections? RFU research has shown that some of the money put into Level 3-5 is only given for the glory of rising up a few leagues and bolstering the ego of, for example, a local business owner. That money would be lost under this revision, but it is money that distorts the leagues and forces clubs to spend to compete. The game would be better without it. If money is to come to the junior game, and it is needed, let it pay for better facilities, more teams, more coaches and boys, girls, and women’s sections.It is a criminal waste of money that could and should be spent in far better ways. Why not make promotion between Levels 3- 5 dependent on clubs also having fully developed junior and women’s sections? RFU research has shown that some of the money put into Level 3-5 is only given for the glory of rising up a few leagues and bolstering the ego of, for example, a local business owner. That money would be lost under this revision, but it is money that distorts the leagues and forces clubs to spend to compete. The game would be better without it. If money is to come to the junior game, and it is needed, let it pay for better facilities, more teams, more coaches and boys, girls, and women’s sections. ------------- All Knwoing All Seeing |
Posted By: Hopping Mad
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2022 at 11:05
|
Looks to me like Moore has identified the modus operandi of the cartel of clubs that have led the NCA (or National League Rugby whatever it’s now called) to where we are now & specifically a number of clubs represented on this thread to whom the local businessman ego approach is clearly accurate. My question to those so obsessed with protecting this cartel of 8-10 clubs who wield the most influence within the NCA, is what is it you actually think you are achieving or aspire to achieve? The game is teetering on collapse but some of you (and therefore your clubs) seem oblivious to what’s really going on. Many of you have resisted regionalisation at Levels 3 - 5 on the basis it lowers competition but the overall picture is one of demise. Some of you may be financially ok for now whilst built on the money of the local businessmen that Moore points out will always walk when their time is up. The lack of financial control within the sport is frightening but not understood. Protecting your little castle now won’t save you from the Tsunami of no one (in comparative terms) playing the sport non professionally in the years ahead. Too many NCA figures, cartel clubs etc have aligned themselves to the professional game and your being found out to have backed the wrong horse.
|
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2022 at 14:00
I quite agree - when I read Moore's article I thought he was talking through his ar*e (said as much to a friend yesterday at rugby). It is good to know others agree with me, I would also say, he should have been highlighting the professional side of the game where teams spend way over their income on Player wages. I favour the French approach where teams have to prove their ability to complete the season before it starts. I would like to see playing/coaching budgets limited to a percentage of income with no marquee player exemptions. Should this mean England internationals moving abroad, then so be it - change the policy of only picking English based players for England (most other nations do not impose similar restrictions) Failure to address the largesse in the Premiership is likely to see further teams go the way of Worcester and Wasps. ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Hopping Mad
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2022 at 14:15
|
Talking through his hazelnut because no one likes to hear the truth perhaps? To be frank, certain clubs that I refer to as the cartel are the ones who’ve paid out the most cumulatively over the years believing that eventually the game would bail them out. They saw the only reward for doing so (ie making the championship and the promise of some central funding) disappear & rather than look at why & where now, are doing what they’ve done each time the topic of change has been up for debate. That’s double down & reject common sense. Only clubs that have generally changed their views are the ones who’ve seen the rug pulled and suddenly a sense of rationality hits. Many unfortunately remain deluded.
|
Posted By: Raider999
Date Posted: 23 Oct 2022 at 16:22
My point was that it is the top level, living well beyond their means. Yes clubs at lower levels have gone bust - however on the whole they are ones who have relied on 1 income source whilst trying to attract players from higher level clubs. Having watched the Worthing v OAs game, players at levels 3 and 4 earn every penny they are paid, the sheer physicality of the game mean they are putting their bodies on the line for a relatively small amount of money. (Level 4 - budget £125k divided by a squad of 30 to 35 isn't a lot when one considers it is normally 2 training nights a week and most of Saturday for the match) ------------- RAID ON |
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2022 at 10:54
The sports presenter wasn't involved in the application -this season or last. I did them both myself.
|
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2022 at 10:59
And many Clubs, mine included, pay a match fee not a salary. We have, like others introduced match fees for 2nd XV appearances as well.
|
Posted By: Hopping Mad
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2022 at 20:30
|
Match fees/salary..all taxable income. So paying 2nd teamers. Why on earth would you do that? It’s happened elsewhere & effectively brought an end to competitive 2nd team rugby as clubs just hoover up even more players from other clubs, just as Moore is pointing out. This is a sad mentality. If you’re abiding by the rules then contracting players prevents them being poached so why distort 2nd team rugby by making it a pay for play environment? |
Posted By: Rabbie Burns
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2022 at 21:47
|
HM, unfortunately this is becoming the norm in London, Contracts are not worth the paper they are written on and cannot really be enforced ------------- So many Christians not enough Lions |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2022 at 22:15
|
And here we have the old division. The Southern clubs wanting to offer their poor players some meagre compensation for the time they take off work, while the Northern clubs want to keep the game strictly amateur as their members are rich enough not to need it. You can tell I took history at school, not geography. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Kimbo
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2022 at 22:24
We're certainly living in Broken Time, whether in the north or south. ------------- Our Club |
Posted By: Hopping Mad
Date Posted: 24 Oct 2022 at 23:29
|
Have to disagree that they are worthless. The RFU certainly don’t see it that way. Been many occasions where clubs/players have tried to break contracts only to be told they are enforceable if RFU standard contracts being used. If clubs/players don’t understand the rules (and many take no responsibility to understand things like material benefit & what constitutes undeclared income) then sanctions should apply. RFU only need make an example of 3-4 clubs and the behaviour would be challenged. Moore’s comments being reinforced by the submissions in this thread alone. Pay 2nd teamers & 3rd teamers will want paying next..? This causes resentment in clubs and speeds up why some then stop playing. Why should I pay membership/subs to play 3rd team if 2nd teamers get paid. Seen it with my own eyes.
|
Posted By: islander
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 08:44
|
BM returned to this issue in yesterday's paper: "It seems last week’s column, which recommended banning the payment of players at all but the top two tiers of rugby, caused anger and upset amongst level 3–5 clubs. Good, they should be upset, because the present system is profligate and not in the best interests of English rugby as a whole. It needs reforming for the game to survive in the present and prosper in the long term. Here is a statistic for those clubs – over the past three years playing numbers in England have fallen 12 per cent. While part of that is due to Covid, the downward trend in the men’s game had already started before 2019. It was only the increased number of women and girls playing that kept this out of the headlines. How is the game to reverse this trend? This is the question that needs to be answered and unfortunately the stock, lazy, response from lots of rugby fans is to say – ‘the RFU must act’. I agree; that is why I recommended they take steps to stop tens of millions of pounds being wasted at levels 3-5 of rugby, money that also distorts lower leagues by poaching their players. English rugby supporters should reappraise their standard view that the Rugby Football Union is a body that wastes money on 57 old farts, and reneges on its duties to the wider game. The RFU makes mistakes and can always do better, but the notion that it does not care is untrue. In particular, they are not flush with spare money after a £120m shortfall during the pandemic. ‘Get the game into schools!’ This is said so often that you might think it was a revelatory concept and was simply a question of asking. It is a vital part of growing participation numbers, but it is not straight forward. A network of regional rugby development officers used to be in place but could not be sustained, and this poses more problems. I recently chatted to three schools about introducing rugby. The responses brought home how simple is the aim and how complicated the action. The first school said that they used to have a pitch, but local developers were allowed to buy it, provided they built a sports hall. That qualifies under government regulations as a sports facility, but you cannot play full rugby in it. The second school said they did have a pitch, but it was a football pitch, and they could not afford goalposts, padding, flags and to remark the pitch regularly. The third response was one which also applied to the previous two conversations. The PE teacher said that he oversaw football, which was a straightforward game and could be played on nearly any surface. When kids made a mistake, the other side simply got the ball and played. In rugby he, rightly, said that scrums and lineouts were technical skills, and he would need coaching badges to avoid being sued if anything went wrong. He would also need a refereeing qualification because rugby had complicated laws and finally, he would also need to be fully conversant with concussion protocols and other safety and safeguarding issues. 'Rugby is one of many sports trying to get into schools' The situation is worsened by the fact that since Michael Gove removed the ring-fencing of money demarcated for school sports, there has been a decline in competitive inter-school matches. What rugby fans must understand is that rugby is only one of the sports trying to get into schools. At the state junior school attended by my youngest children, Fulham FC’s foundation helps organise their sport. Nearly every league football club provides this service and football has far more money and is more popular. The focus of getting rugby into schools must focus on touch and tag rugby, which do not require specialist coaching or refereeing and can be played nearly anywhere. Local clubs then need to contact the converted children who want to play the full version of rugby, but who does that and who pays for any costs? Most Premiership and Championship clubs try to compete with community sections, with specific schools’ programmes. Some junior clubs do this; more do not. Every one of the 128 clubs at levels 3-5, if they are playing players, could afford similar initiatives. If players want to earn extra money, pay them for being involved in those programmes, not simply turning out. Clubs might say that their players do not have the time to do this, as they have jobs. In which case, why are you paying them in the first place? Be in no doubt, rugby needs immediate remedial action to prevent long term decline. I have identified a practical way this can be partially addressed. If you disagree, tell me what your solution is – and it cannot just be a call to the RFU to ‘DO SOMETHING.’" |
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 12:37
|
Thanks, Islander, very helpful! I agree with much of what Brian says, other posters know that I am supportive of the RFU who do a good job with the resources they have available which are limited by the PGA agreed in 2016 which was poorly written. My Club is fully aware of the reduction in adult male participation. In the 1960s we ran 13 teams every Saturday on our 5 pitches. About 7 years ago a misguided DoR had cut that to just a 1st XV, together with a Veterans team. Over the last 7 years we have built that to 3 teams and are expecting to be able to putout a fourth team for midweek floodlit matches. As a Club we host a large Touch Rugby section and a successful Walking Rugby group which plays competitively. We have young players from Under 4 (they learn rugby before reading!) up to Under18, all without any link to a major Independent School. We have a Community Sports Officer (a current 1st XV player) who is running programmes in 17 Primary Schools and 3 Secondary Schools. We have hosted a Schools Tournament for local Primary and Secondary Schools, as well as one annual Tournament for Independent Schools. One key element for all of this is the income we generate from 1st XV matches. The payments to the players are covered by specific sponsorship and match-day income, excluding Bar income. The latter and all of the letting, events, etc. pays for all of the other non-1st XV work. Much of that income would not arise if we did not have a 1st XV which people wanted to watch. Yes, we pay a match fee to players in the 1st and 2nd XV because of the time commitment they make to the Club which includes two/three nights' each week training, several long-distance matches (no overnights this season to save money) and regular coaching commitments with our Mini and Junior teams. Our one failure is a women's XV. We established a women's team and Harlequins took them off us to be their 3rd XV. We organised sessions in a local School and the Club closest to that School then came in and recruited them to be their girls' team. All because we don't have a woman in the Club who can drive the women's game in the way we can drive the men's. Within 10 miles of our Club are upwards of 25 other Rugby Clubs. We compete with Richmond, Rosslyn Park, Barnes and now Dorking for senior players and with Vandals, Cobham, Chobham, Cranleighans, Reedonians, and others for Mini and Junior players. We have tried to build alliances but few of those more junior Clubs are interested in that approach. Every Club wants to be successful in their own right and not as part of any alliance. WE recognise the need for rugby to change, that is why we do what we do but unless we can find a way other than payment of rewarding the 1st XV players who put so much time into entertaining us, that will need to continue as a central part of how we succeed.
|
Posted By: FHLH
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 12:55
|
Any review must take into Levels 1 to 5 - 1 & 2 cannot be excluded - who encourages rugby if not in schools - junior "community" clubs. We'll take what you've got and give nothing back. More to follow........
------------- "My father told me big men fall just as quick as little ones, if you put a sword through their hearts." |
Posted By: workerbee
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 13:00
|
I agree with Brian Moore as regards to players payments; however, we all know that before the Professional game was introduced in 1996 players were getting payments unofficially. The RFU introduced salary caps from Level 3 down but did not make any sanctions on clubs that ignored them that were meaningful, loss of grants, loss of international tickets, loss of travel expenses which is no longer valid as no clubs get travel expenses now any way. Clubs at level 3 and below have to submit their accounts to the League each year if they want to retain these "benefits". However, many do not as they are playing more than the salary cap. Why not introduce the same sanctions as they do in the premiership and deduct points from clubs who do breach the salary caps at every level, some level 7 clubs are playing more than level 4 clubs. A 35-point deduction on a club would soon bring them into line. Obviously, this will require additional staff to manage it, but it would eventually bring back some sanity in the community game.
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 13:25
|
I do not believe Brian has played rugby at the standard of current National 1. This is not the old amateur game, it has moved on to another level since rugby went open. The England side from 1995 would be whistled off the pitch for tcurranty and run ragged by the sides at the top of National 1. And despite playing in the "amateur" era, I am sure Brian did not play for free. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Thatbloke
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 13:52
| When the game went professional in 1995 it went professional full stop. You cannot then legislate to say its OK for 10,15,20 whatever that number may be clubs to be professional but it's unacceptable for the rest. The other scenario is that every club is different requiring varying management strategies to ensure it survives whilst attempting to be successful. If you vote in clowns to run your club or sell out to a sugar-daddy (who might also be a clown) then you get what you deserve and I have little sympathy. Levels 3 and below get virtually no funding whatsoever so how will banning payment of players create more money to keep the "chosen few" alive and kicking - complete nonsense! |
Posted By: Hopping Mad
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 14:01
|
You are joking aren’t you? If they were playing now they’d still be top end players. When likes of Moore played for Richmond in L2 in early days of pro rugby they were head & shoulders above semi pro. Yes standard may have improved but it’s not akin to top end pro rugby in an era. This delusional mindset has to come to an end. Paying 2nd team players is just beyond moronic. So you might lose some players? Is that enough to hold a gun to the head of the sports future? Some of you and your clubs are living in a detached reality. Playing numbers in regional leagues below 1st team are down anything from 15-50% this season. You’re indirectly contributing to this with your brain dead approach.
|
Posted By: rugbychris
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 14:27
| And then we have the ridiculous situation of these paid 2nd xv teams playing league matches against teams in level 8. My club are losing players in droves as no one wants to give up their Saturdays to get a complete drubbing. What's the point? |
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 15:23
|
Kent does seem to be unusual in the number of strong second XVs in its league. With Sevenoaks and Canterbury from national 2E and Sidcup and Westcombe park from Regional 1SE all having 2nd Xvs at the sharp end of level 2. Currently 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th. It does look like you are having a tough old season, you may need to rebuild in Kent 3 next season. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: tigerburnie
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 15:43
I can see a lot of sense in this argument.
|
Posted By: tigerburnie
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 15:53
Rugby was played in schools, but most of the schools I went to sold off their sports fields to housing developers because they needed the money to keep open. School staff stopped doing weekend classes during pay disputes, so no staff available to be in charge of the childrens teams any more.
|
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 16:00
I agree in the main. The game is 'open' and it is legal to pay players. It would be hard to stop them - logistically (for want of a better word) and probably legally. What the RFU have tried to do is recognise that and allow clubs to pay but using their own monies and not from RFU income which should be best directed to the development of the game in the long term. There should be no arguing this is the right approach. If an outright ban on players was imposed expect a return to brown envelopes in boots. The trouble is that payment to the top level sets an expectation of a wage structure and that then filters down the pyramid. If you over pay at the top, that overpayment structure trickles down and players at every level down is probably overpaid. As Moore says if you are going to pay players then that should be linked to developing future players via schools etc and not just for a few hours training and playing once a week. Again a laudable stance but hard to achieve, especially if trying to take the game into schools for reasons previously explored on this thread. There is no simple answer but it is an issue that needs discussing. The payment of second XV players is, in my mind, pure stupidity.
------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |
Posted By: Camp Freddie
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 16:01
|
Tell that to the Competitions department at the RFU who came up with the idea of allowing lower XVs in to the ECC. There was a vote for all clubs. Thankfully in Lancashire we voted against it. ------------- The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom. |
Posted By: rugbychris
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 17:23
|
It's an interesting article. I think he gets it right on a number of levels. As a club we spend a considerable amount of money on providing 11 secondary schools with first class coaching through London Irish. We do this because none of the schools play rugby. Largely because they have no facilities to do so. 1000 kids and half an astro. To build a sustainable Club we need local boys and girls to be introduced to the game and want to continue their development with us. As a club in inner-London we get plenty of new players weekly. But they mostly move around with work and you can't plan a future around them. Hence our need for the local population to learn about rugby and see it as recreational alternative to football or basketball. The alternative of course is to use this money to pay players to represent the club. |
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 25 Oct 2022 at 17:35
Not in our case. Our 2nd XV plays in the Zoo League. We wanted our 3rd XV at Level 8 but Surrey didn’t agree so they play in Surrey Premiership.
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 11:37
|
Cambridge also run a community outreach programme. Where we can, we tap into funding sources, such as private schools but also local prisons wanting to pay us to come in and run courses to help rehabilitate offenders, which means we can employ some of the players at least part-time. We find that having a successful first XV brings more people into the club, which means we have a larger mini and juniors section and therefore can spread the capital costs over more members. And for the last five years at least, we have managed to stay just on the right side of breaking even. We have a mortgage to pay on the new changing rooms, but aside from that are solvent. Like Esher, it is our third team that plays at level 8, and they pay subs. But every club is different, and has to find its own way of working. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: marigold
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 12:19
| Camquin whilst I agree that all clubs have to find their way of working I struggle with 2nd teams of clubs at level 3 , was recently 4, paying match fees to 2nd XV players. Being paid to play for a team that according to the RFU website has won only one game this season I am concerned what message this is giving to these obviously not great/probably quite young players. Will they only now play rugby if they are paid? Whatever happened to working hard and improving to get an opportunity in the 1st XV ? If they would rather go to a club at a lower level- if not paid- well that is probably the level of their ambition/ability at which they should be playing. On the subject of subs my mates son has just had to pay his membership at Richmond which all players at the club , whichever team they are in, have to pay. |
Posted By: Thatbloke
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 13:52
|
Well strictly speaking if you aren't a "member" of a club you are playing for, paid or unpaid, then you aren't covered by the RFU insurance against serious injury. Not sure how strictly that rule is applied but I wouldn't like to be putting in a substantial claim for any player who had been paralysed who hadn't paid to become a member of my club. Most insurance companies will do their best to wriggle out of making any payments if they can avoid doing so and their first question would most certainly be, "Can you provide proof that Player X is a paid up member of your club? eg Sub credit to a club bank a/c
|
Posted By: WEvans
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 15:02
You do realise that Esher Rugby Club is neither in Esher nor London don't you? Maybe it was this lack of accuracy that scuppered your application?
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 16:02
|
Marigold, I have no idea what match fees, if any, we pay the 2nd XV. We have very few matches for them this season. In previous year's our second team has gone to Plymouth and to Jersey. That is a lot of commitment. I believe the standard RFU employment contract includes a clause making the player a member of the club.
------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Thatbloke
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 16:32
| I'm not sure that's correct Camquin but I'll go back and check through the various RFU contracts. And, of course, the majority of players are unpaid and therefore it is essential that they pay the going rate to become members so that there is no ambiguity in the unfortunate event of serious injury |
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 17:20
 |
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 17:22
Correct. All of our[players have membership contracts, even if they don't have to pay. All are covered by RFU Insurance.
|
Posted By: Bunkermentality
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 18:03
|
RFU insurance for players is not linked to membership but applies to any affiliated club. Some membership secretaries peddle the myth that RFU insurance is linked to membership. This is not correct. Extract from policy "Any player of an Insured Club or Constituent Body or School or Referee Society"
|
Posted By: Redted
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 19:15
Well inside the M25, that’s London enough for me. The fact they don’t play in the town they are named after is their concern not mine. Perhaps only rich clubs who pay their 2nd XV or have contacts in the RFU got funding.
|
Posted By: Halliford
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2022 at 19:49
|
Redted is as usual getting carried away with his rhetoric. The original point I was making was that our travel distances increased by 20% in National 1 but our funding fell by 70%. BTW It would be really helpful if people posting on here were required to show their Club allegiance.
|
Posted By: WEvans
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2022 at 16:18
I suspect your accusations are as accurate as your sense of direction. Still at least you found the chip shop judging by the large on on your shoulder!
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2022 at 16:42
|
I thought I would watch Brian Moore play. I found the 1988 England Wales match. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K9p2-PQjIE" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K9p2-PQjIE So England have a couple of policemen, a couple of servicemen and at least two medical students. Jonathon Webb is now a specialist knee surgeon, repairing knees ruined by rugby. Kevin Simms is a GP. Scrums form up quickly, but the front row is still a mess. However, the ref is quick to penalize pulling down, though it is only a free kick. Line outs are a lottery, this is before jumping blocks and lifting - so nobody gets off the ground. Neither hooker seems to be able to hit a barn door. Mainly because they throw one-handed with the ball mainly pointing along the touch line, rather than along the line of touch. Also, the lines seem to be set very close together, there is no clear gap. This means they are more like an under 15 line out than anything else. This does mean that kicking a free kick to touch is worthwhile, you might not get the throw, but you still have a 50/50 chance of gaining the ball. And of course, no kicking tees, so Wales win a kickable penalty that most fly halves would but send it wide. I was surprised how stop start it was, there were a lot of handling errors. Although tackles are low so there are more offloads, it seems there is a law that after the third pass they will knock on. The ball regularly squirms out of a ruck, probably because the
tackler takes his hands to protect his head. This leads to scruffy
ball. This means neither side could string phases together. So apart from the pace, which is hard to judge, it looks much more like lower XV rugby. Though a lot of that is due to the changes in the laws. I have to admit that when there was still no score at half-time, I lost the will to live and gave up. Apparently, Wales would score two tries in the second half, ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: tigerburnie
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2022 at 17:28
Now if you'd been a forward, you would appreciate that sort of game a lot more, the lineout in particular was a genuine contest, now you are not allowed to touch the player. Scrums were so much better too, hookers should be prosecuted under the trade description act these days, how the hell can you compete for a ball when the scrummie throws in straight(or to be more accurate NOT straight) into the second row. There seems to be a desire these days to convert rugby union into rugby league, if you don't like lineouts or scrums go to Wembley not Twickenham.
|
Posted By: Camquin
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2022 at 18:08
|
I was neither fast enough to be a back, nor strong enough to be a forward. ------------- Sweeney Delenda Est |
Posted By: Richard Lowther
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2022 at 19:03
Which reminds me of a joke I tell based upon a true story. First training session under a new coach. He asks if I'm a back or forward. I reply neither I'm a sub! ------------- Moderator http://www.leaguerugby.co.uk" rel="nofollow - National League Rugby Message Boards Remember Wakefield RFC |