Just exactly what are the Championship promotion regulations? (p.s. NOT YOR OPINION OF RIGHTS AND WRONGS)

Please NOT OPINIONS - JUST THE REGULATIONS! - (I'll post a parallel 'opinions' article later.) https://www.606v2.com/t30073-just-exactly-what-are-the-championship-promotion-regulations-the-opinionated-post

I have been Googling to find definitive regulations to try to understand them but have only come across

http://www.rfu.com/TheGame/~/media/Files/2011/The_Game/Regulations/RFU_Regulation_13.ashx

And in that, imo, pertinent paragraphs:

13.1.5
13.1.6
13.2.7
13.9.4 Severability
If any provision in these RFU Regulations is found by any court or competent
authority to be illegal, void or unenforceable, such provisions shall be deemed
to be deleted and the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and
effect. Such provision must also be replaced by a provision which is valid and
enforceable and which gives effect to the spirit of the RFU Regulations.
13.10.5 If the Club or player (in respect of 13.10.3 above), or either party to the
complaint or dispute or any other person or Club (in respect of 13.10.4 above)
is dissatisfied with any ruling made under Regulations 13.10.3 or 13.10.4
above there shall be a right to request a review of the decision.
(a) In League Competitions, and all rounds prior to the Semi-Finals of the
Intermediate Cup, Senior Vase and Junior Vase a right to request a review
shall lie from the League Secretary or Cup administrator to the Organising
Committee;
13.10 Discipline & Dispute Resolution
---13.10.12 Dispute Resolution
.

What is missing the PRL rules
http://www.premiershiprugby.com/information/faq.php
Entry and ongoing criteria

Clubs wishing to play in the Premiership must fulfil a list of criteria set down by the Professional Game Board and agreed with the RFU Championship. This covers areas such as stadia, club administration and other key roles, community development programmes, ground tenure and ground moves, facilities, medical and safety, marketing, plans to increase attendances, adherence to the squad cap and playing and contractual commitments. The purpose of the minimum criteria is to set a standard for all clubs to operate by, which all will benefit from.

Professional Game Board
http://www.copthall-application.co.uk/Barnet%20Copthall/Appendix%20E%20-%20PGB%20Criteriax.pdf

1.9 ‘A’ criteria are mandatory criteria for which non compliance by a Club by 31 March
2011 or at any time thereafter will result in a sanction by the PGB with options
including, but not limited to:
• a requirement to remedy the Criteria failure within a specified timeframe
• a sanction in accordance with the principles of paragraph 1.13
• points deduction for the 2011/12 season
They might also result in a decision by the RFU not to promote a Club winning the
Championship to the Premiership for the 2011/12 season.

Ok I posted on the opinion post...now this with seriousness.

Its farcical. You will find every falcon has been excellent and admitted we should be down...and if only Bristol hadnt blown it...there would.have been no issues.

My problem is that LW knew the regulations were in place...so why not have their plans ready before the season...and now seem to be throwing their toys out the pram.

To be pulled on groundshare however when other pl teams do it...is harsh.

That's an opinion, GF. You posted correctly first time.

This Article is meant to clarify objectively the regulations as they stand.

Here are the facilities criteria: http://www.copthall-application.co.uk/Barnet%20Copthall/Appendix%20E%20-%20PGB%20Criteriax.pdf

Not sure where to acccess the rest of the requirements

I have no sympathy with LW they knew the rules.

These prawn sandwiches are delicious.

From what I have read its not an issue of ground share that is causing problems with the RFU its the match scheduling and priorities!

Whatever deal Wasps/LI/Sarries have in place with their associate host FC clubs it obviously satisfies the PRA and TV broadcasters that they can pick and choose the match times.
The deal with Oxford FC and LW presumably doesnt satesfy these organisations.

I also agree with GF - if London Welsh were intent on promotion then they should have sorted shop a long time ago.

It's all very well to say that but it's potentially a large financial commitment which most clubs could not afford without knowing they are going to be top flight. it's ridiculous to expect second tier teams to be able to foot a bill for this without support. Without TV funds, high crowd numbers etc where is the money to come from to develop stadia to the standard that the PRL expects?

Also if this is not the only criteria that LW have failed on what else is there? Nobody knows because the RFU have not published it.

mckay1402 wrote:It's all very well to say that but it's potentially a large financial commitment which most clubs could not afford without knowing they are going to be top flight. it's ridiculous to expect second tier teams to be able to foot a bill for this without support. Without TV funds, high crowd numbers etc where is the money to come from to develop stadia to the standard that the PRL expects?

Also if this is not the only criteria that LW have failed on what else is there? Nobody knows because the RFU have not published it.

McKay is there anything problematical in the OP title that is confusing the difference between fact and opinion?

Rules are rules, and they are there to be obeyed not to be used as something to fight against. I cannot be bothered with all the aspects of them as English rugby is no real concern of mine, but I smell a rat in all of this. If London Welsh new what the rules were before hand then surely they would have done all they could to fit this criteria unless the RFU have moved the goal posts to suit themselves, if on the other hand London Welsh have not met the criteria then this would be very embarrasing for them as they would loose the court battle, and they would look very stupid, I cannot believe that the owner of London Welsh has got where he has today by being stupid though, and if they win then it will be the RFU who will be embarresed and made to look stupid, either way there will not be any real winners in all this and the fact that it is even going to court makes the RFU look like a shambles, they must be basing themselves on the WRU as I thought it was only our union who made stupid decisions like putting Gavin Henson on a 40 ft tall poster on the Millenium stadium advertising the new Welsh jersey when he wasn't even in the side.

Portnoy wrote:

mckay1402 wrote:It's all very well to say that but it's potentially a large financial commitment which most clubs could not afford without knowing they are going to be top flight. it's ridiculous to expect second tier teams to be able to foot a bill for this without support. Without TV funds, high crowd numbers etc where is the money to come from to develop stadia to the standard that the PRL expects?

Also if this is not the only criteria that LW have failed on what else is there? Nobody knows because the RFU have not published it.

McKay is there anything problematical in the OP title that is confusing the difference between fact and opinion?

Not in the slightest. Everything in my comment was factual

As i recall, the Criteria were in the public domain about 4 or 5 years ago (but required quite a bit of searching), then they disappeared entirely until re-emerging as that appendix to the Copthall application, which are last season's criteria.
In the meantime, we had some snippets from Exeter's journey, such as the spacing between urinals, the width of the door to the medical room, and the upgrade of floodlights to fulfil Sky's demands for HD TV.

As far as i know, the 60-odd pages of the "Copthall Criteria" are all the requirements there are - what is missing is the differing interpretation of the criteria with respect to existing Prem Clubs, returning Prem Clubs (Woos, Bris, Leeds, etc) and the scum of the earth (everyone who's not in the cartel).

I'm a bit hazy on the details, but some ten or so years ago (it may have coincided with Roth's rejection). the Office of Fair Trading ruled against PRL's Primacy of Tenure criterion, with the result that PRL re-drafted that criterion, but apparently have continued to interpret it in the same way. OFT may be quite a productive avenue for LW to explore.

The criteria are those of PRL, whilst they are apparently administered by PGB (the Professional Game Board, which is joint PRL/RFU with a nominal RPA and, supposedly, First Division Rugby representation and whose sole purpose appears to be for RFU to rubber stamp PRL's diktats). PRL appear to have pulled a fast one, since it is the RFU board that has rejected LW's application - nuffink to do with me, Guv, says Mark McCafferty.

This is an interesting article from 2005:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/hugh-godwin-kassam-finds-money-cant-buy-a-way-in-6154211.html