Why do the RFU give clubs money?

For them to be spotted at that age a lot of their natural talent has already been brought out by clubs (down to levels 6 or 7 in my area), the academies have a monopoly on those from certain cb's so they can't really be said to be doing massive amounts pre 18.

Last year the national u18 girls cup was decimated as in Aug the a new "performance college league" sprung into existence with girls playing in that on a Wednesday told not to play for clubs on the Sunday. The same year the girls age grades changed from 13,15,18 to 12,14,16,18 reducing u18 numbers by a 1/3. Most of the clubs usually making the regional finals struggled to even get a team out and the results list was just a list of HWO and AWO. To save a handful of players from overplaying the majority got far fewer games and lots dropped out of the sport. 

Now with the demise of the Prem clubs the rfu have had to pick up the DPP's and academies for at least LI & Wasps so let's see if having the rfu instead of prem clubs running the extra coaching allows players to keep playing with their mates and their mates keep playing.

As an interesting aside, unlike prev 3 year deals where all women's prem 15 teams had to run a "centre of Excellence" (u18 academy) Ealing have not been allowed one and the rfu is running one out of Oxford Harlequins using the staff of Oxford College which was the Wasps Ace college

You deliberately try to miss the point again, if a club wants to join the Premiership and their players want to play in the Premiership, they have to have access, ring fencing would deny that, exactly as it does now. No-where did I talk about players leaving their present club to join another club, again you jump to the wrong conclusion.

You clearly hate the Premiership and you clearly want nothing to do with it, we get that, but what you propose is not what everyone wants and you seem unable to see that, promotion and relegation makes for competition, remove that and as the boss of Jersey was quoted as saying "what's the point of winning the Championship".

That is an interesting view but one that not all will necessarily share. The pre-18 work by Academies is often dine by local coaches known to the players who work with the schools and colleges. Yes, there is some movement to 6th Form Colleges, sometimes AASE Colleges but that is often where rugby provision at U18 level is limited. I have yet to be convinced that Clubs can di better than Schools at Under 18 level. There may be one or two that stand out but my experience is that the quality of coaching and level of performance is higher in Schools than in Clubs. 

Implementing a player pathway at Club level is more ch about transitioning the player who doesn’t join an Academy and doesn’t go to University. They are the ones we need to keep in the game and they will often include the late developer. Im thinking here of Charlie Gossington who played as a Junior at Chipstead, joined Esher at age 18 in our Development squad and went in n to play over 100 matches at Level 2and 3 as well as being captain.

Do not get me on to the loss of players who don’t continue playing at Uni!

In reality that only happens for the lucky few.

So for the lads in our U13s it's Dave and me when he can't get away from work.

the facts are available at Companies House. The filed accounts I have reviewed for Premiership clubs show a bleak picture of clubs only being propped up by their owners.

I believe some of the semi-pro clubs towards the bottom of the Championship run within budget.

But without TV money, rugby can only ever be semi-professional.

With TV money, it can pay a journeyman wage.

What it cannot do is pay six, figure salaries to journeymen.

In F1, some are owned by brands, who roll it into the marketing budget. The four car brands Ferrari, Mercedes, Alpine and Aston Martin, plus Red Bull and Alpha Tauri.

Though Aston Martin, it may be a case of a rich owner supporting both the brand and the F1 team.

Haas made money from machine tools, but I don't to think he uses the racing to sell more.

Williams, McLaren and Sauberhave existed as independents for many years, often generating enough money from sponsorship to provide an income for the owner - though none are now owned by the founders. Williams and Sauber are owned by VC companies.