The logical process of Jeff clubs

As it requires at least three quality players in each position to maintain league aspirations, (one International, one side, one injured), it makes sense to stuff clubs with overseas players who don't get affected by IWs.

Alternatively logic dictates that you abandon English players and academies for club self-interest. Like the footy Premiership.

i would have put this on the club page

caoimhincentre wrote:i would have put this on the club page

I wouldn't have bothered putting it anywhere

caoimhincentre wrote:i would have put this on the club page

I did put it on the club page

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:i would have put this on the club page

I wouldn't have bothered putting it anywhere

+1

Oh, and Leicester are the best.... of course!

Kiwireddevil wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:i would have put this on the club page

I did put it on the club page

thanks a million.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Oh, and Leicester are the best.... of course!

Glad to see you coming over to our way of thinking

I'm not so sure Portnoy.

My own team Munster has:

Senior Squad: 48 players
Irish Qualified: 43 players
Not Irish Qualified: 5 players

Then on top of that we have our academy to call upon if necessary.

Thanks Kiwi. When I started, the Article was going to be about England's go-to clubs under SL etc. but it merged into thoughtful logic.

Portnoy wrote:Thanks Kiwi. When I started, the Article was going to be about England's go-to clubs under SL etc. but it merged into thoughtful logic.

great to know the thought process.

red_stag wrote:I'm not so sure Portnoy.

My own team Munster has:

Senior Squad: 48 players
Irish Qualified: 43 players
Not Irish Qualified: 5 players

Then on top of that we have our academy to call upon if necessary.

Are Munster replacing Newcastle in the Jeff next season Staggy?

....and yet the two most successful sides in England in the last decade have had English internationals at the core of their squads.

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:I'm not so sure Portnoy.

My own team Munster has:

Senior Squad: 48 players
Irish Qualified: 43 players
Not Irish Qualified: 5 players

Then on top of that we have our academy to call upon if necessary.

Are Munster replacing Newcastle in the Jeff next season Staggy?

Thats completely out of the blue. whats your thinking behind this comment

Portnoy,

My point is that if Munster can achieve a 48 man squad with 93.75% Irish qualified players so can Tigers or Quins or Saints or whoever.

If your players are not coming through is a bad development system.

caoimhincentre wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:I'm not so sure Portnoy.

My own team Munster has:

Senior Squad: 48 players
Irish Qualified: 43 players
Not Irish Qualified: 5 players

Then on top of that we have our academy to call upon if necessary.

Are Munster replacing Newcastle in the Jeff next season Staggy?

Thats completely out of the blue. whats your thinking behind this comment

Just read the article title said cao.

Portnoy wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:I'm not so sure Portnoy.

My own team Munster has:

Senior Squad: 48 players
Irish Qualified: 43 players
Not Irish Qualified: 5 players

Then on top of that we have our academy to call upon if necessary.

Are Munster replacing Newcastle in the Jeff next season Staggy?

Thats completely out of the blue. whats your thinking behind this comment

Just read the article title said cao.

it is good point made by stag. just because it is based on a team not in the jeff does not mean that you should dismiss it like you should have Por

red_stag wrote:Portnoy,

My point is that if Munster can achieve a 48 man squad with 93.75% Irish qualified players so can Tigers or Quins or Saints or whoever.

If your players are not coming through is a bad development system.

But as we know Staggy, Franchise and leagues are as oranges and lemons. Similar but not the same.

Seeing as there are 12 teams in the Jeff and what 60 EPS and Saxons players (is it that many?) then the logical thing would be to try and spread the drain of the internation call ups across them all. That way teams would only lose 5 players during the international windows (in an ideal world that is). Seeing as the players who are not involved in the match day 22 (or 23 as it will be) tend to get released back to their clubs then the drain is reduced further (3 or 4 players per club).

Not too many clubs are fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on your view point) enough to have two or more players of English international level in specialist postions (LH, TH, Hooker, SH, FH), and positions like centre/wing/fullback, second row/back row should realistically be capable of covering for a few games in a position that is not their prefered slot. So providing that there are enough quality players in the specialist positions in the squad and enough utility forwards/backs (I would class Hook, Gitau, Ryan Jones etc as utility) then the squad does not ralistically need to be so big.

Portnoy, I'm not sure they are as different as you might think.

red_stag wrote:Portnoy, I'm not sure they are as different as you might think.

Well maybe I'd chose to disagree Staggy. The IRFU is analogous to a Nationalised industry and the RFU/PRL/Jeff more like near-uncontrolled capitalism.

Lets set aside the comparisons and contrasts and metaphors Portnoy.

Im calling it out - thats an excuse.

There are 12 teams in England each with about 45 players. There were 42 players named in the English touring squad to South Africa.

There is no reason that becuase the national team takes at most 42 of the 540 senior players that England has to throw in the towel.

The English U20 team has been in 3 of the last 5 Junior RWCs. There is young talent there. However it is merely easy to say that due to some mumbo jumbo uncontrolled corporate captialist blah blah blah that the English cant compete unless they abandon their English players.

It needs a professional club working in sync with the community, clubs and schools nearby who are willing to invest in their local players and willing to take a chance on them.

It's a thread about the Jeff and the disadvantage clubs face should they provide internationals to England caoimhincentre. Stagg compared the situation to Munster which is not relevent as Munster are paid good money by the IRFU and helped to keep their top Irish players through central contracts. In a sense their Union secure their squad resources and so their Union gets a say in the number of NIQ players (which it has insisted the Provinces reduce).

That is very different to the AP clubs who only get a limited amount of cash when a player is called up to the England squad and with the current rules through the EPS any player in it will miss a third of the season.

ScarletSpiderman, remember European based players (Italian and French) are also liable for callups and so may miss chunks of the season as well. There is a reason journeymen from SA, NZ and Aus are popular. Experienced, generally reliable and won't disappear off on international duty.

lets get down to the bare bones of here.

Portney is just looking to complain that leicester are providing so many players to England, and so drop points in the IW

Sam,

Your system is a little different. Therefore just lower the target a little. Instead of 90% English guys aim for 80% English guys.

Munster or Leinster or Ulster who all have 93%+ Irish qualified why couldn't you have 80% English guys.

Why the drastic tone of the article. I don't think thats difficult to keep 4 of every 5 players at your club English. Certainly of the 36 players listed in the Harlequins team there are 80% English.

Thanks for clarifying Sam. So what it essentially is, is a thread that Portnoy, and others should they so choose, can fall back on should Tigers fail to win the AP again next season. It will be there in black and white that Portnoy has already told us how unfair it all is that Tigers provide loads of players to England which handicaps them and they can't spend over the salary cap which handi..........





























zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz




























.... oops, sorry, nodded off there.

Surely these Tigers guys can just refuse to play for England

I would love to know if there is a corolation with england call ups and place finishing in the league. See Quinns who had been through it with England in the tight 6N games so helped them in the business end of the league. I am sure they would have struggled without it

So say a march 6N to that end of that season.

I would much rather have the tigers international players for 75% of the season then the availble non national players for the full season.

England produces u20s to the same standard roughly as NZ, when your underage development programs show fruit as they are starting to do people will complain there are not enough teams to fit them in.

If you compare the u20s this year (ok not their best but hard to great teams in their group) playing 50% of the time in the Prem compared to 5 or ten years ago.

England went through a lean period of english rugby players not just international with the onset of professionalism. That has changed.

My munster is suffering simillarly with our great period which is why we have so few late 20s players

Also no fluke that Irelands 6Ns were the same year as the unachivers (leinster) finally seeing out a HC

Or Wasp and Tigers with England's power to win anywhere

Or scotland finally beleiving in themselves though that has to be confirmed over the next year.

Italy also have improved as their clubs have improved.

Wales as every remains a puzzle as they have everything but nothing adds up. One day it all will

So the more players that get called up the more you'll win. You should be begging for tigers to be the england team

formerly known as Sam wrote:ScarletSpiderman, remember European based players (Italian and French) are also liable for callups and so may miss chunks of the season as well. There is a reason journeymen from SA, NZ and Aus are popular. Experienced, generally reliable and won't disappear off on international duty.

The logical answer there is not to bring in French and Italian players. After all with the exception of one or two players I can't think of too many Italians who are that far ahead of a player who is almost up to EPS/Saxons level. Also how many of the Fench and Italian players get called up? I thought that the (bar Castro) the Italian squad were all in either the Rabo or the Top14. And I can't think of any French players who are in the French squad and not playing in France.

SS there was a few French players coming over a few years back, it changed after Dupuy and Kayser started getting recongition whilst playing for Tigers. AP clubs became more wary of signing French players and the French clubs have been keener to hang on to their own since. The AP have signed less Italian players as well since they started entering the AIs as well as the 6Ns. Having said that Sarries have just invested in a young international prop from Arioni.

So the more players that get called up the more you'll win. You should be begging for tigers to be the england team

Or the more you win the more likely you are to get called up...

I'm struggling to think of the last time a Tigers player was improved by an international call up, that's not just England that's any nation.

We could very easily get 80% English players in the clubs. But the standard would drop and the cost go up (if there was some enforced percentage quota then the 'value' of EQ players would rise). At the monent the best players to include in your squad are good/promising young players, journeymen from the SH (don't get called up and are cheap, ideally 1 or 2 caps so they can't get residency, but not enough to claim 'international player' wages), decent players from countries with few internationals (PI, etc) and lastly English journeymen, decent but not international quality. Once your good/promising young players become internationals yoou might need to bail on them. Given the smoothing of the EPS playments the very worst players to have at the top English players, they expect high salaries and are gone for half the season without any real compensation to bolster the squad (and their full wages count in the cap).

If the PRL and the RFU were really keen on increasing the number of EQPs in the AP then the RFU should increase what it pays in exchange for the EPS rights and include a payment for the England under 20 callups. The PRL should then change the salary cap to £3.5m with players to have come through the clubs academy (3 seasons spent at the club prior to their 21st bday) only have half their wages count towards the cap with all RFU linked incentive payments (match day quota, under 20 and EPS) used to extend the cap.

I'd also like to see players aged 21 or under exempt from the salary cap as long as their wages were under say £75k per season (so excluding the uber talents like Manu). That way clubs would be encouraged to use the 21 and under players as the squad depth.

I think the current 'EPS' deal includes payment for EPS, Saxon and U20 release. The bonus money for the EPS call ups should be outside of the salary cap. These players are not available for the clubs for significant chucks and therefore the clubs need more players to compensate. At the moment we effectively have a lower salary cap for teams with more EPS players. On top of the fact the actual funding is split evenly.

On top of the fact the actual funding is split evenly.

Not it isn't, well unless things have changed and I missed it. The payments are smoothed. Everyone gets something but the clubs that provide more players get more. Even the likes of Worcester get some money from the RFU for the EPS, however, they don't get as much as Exeter who provide one player and Exeter don't get as much as Tigers who provide several. It means the revenue benefits all but is also representitive.

Right-o. I thought they were completely smoothed out, rather than partially. Cheers.

I thought the same until Juggler corrected me at length on the old 606. He was generally a fountain of knowledge.

Aye he was. Over on Rugby Rebels now I hear.

HammerofThunor wrote:We could very easily get 80% English players in the clubs. But the standard would drop and the cost go up (if there was some enforced percentage quota then the 'value' of EQ players would rise). At the monent the best players to include in your squad are good/promising young players, journeymen from the SH (don't get called up and are cheap, ideally 1 or 2 caps so they can't get residency, but not enough to claim 'international player' wages), decent players from countries with few internationals (PI, etc) and lastly English journeymen, decent but not international quality. Once your good/promising young players become internationals yoou might need to bail on them. Given the smoothing of the EPS playments the very worst players to have at the top English players, they expect high salaries and are gone for half the season without any real compensation to bolster the squad (and their full wages count in the cap).

I'm not sure I agree entirely with this. Certainly, there's a need to have solid squad players who won't be away on international duty. But there are at least two ways to go about it. You've described one. The other is to back the coaching team's ability to find and develop talent and to form a strong squad ethos.

I have always admired Leicester for their ability over the decades to lose a player to retirement, injury or international duty and have an unheralded kid emerge from the academy or the squad to replace them. Where they've had PI and Kolpack players, they have tended to become part of the club ethos for a long time. Likewise, Leicester are reputed to pay less than other clubs because of the long term value to a player's career for playing there.

The trouble with that approach is that it takes time and it needs constant attention to the long-term make-up of the squad. It needs an ethos where players know that their position is not safe and that if someone is playing better in their position, they'll lose the shirt. It needs young players to believe that they will get their chance and get recognised. It needs a carefully calibrated salary policy to hang on to the right players, a certain ruthlessness in who you choose to let go, and a lot of science (plus a dollop of faith) in getting your players ready to step up.

But I believe it can be done and it's really the only way to ensure long term success. It's what Quins have been building to over the last 8 years and I think they are probably 2 years from having the system fully mature (i.e. a core group of 28-30 year olds with International or Saxons experience, a group of 24-26 year olds who with Premiership experience and who are challenging to get into the EPS and a generation of academy players fighting to get into the first team - this season I feel the first group over-performed and the next generation aren't quite ready). It's not easy, but we'll see over the next few years if it can be done and be sustained.

As those Quins kids become 'better', internationally recognised, etc, they can demand higher wages. There are plenty of places they can go and get them. If the cap stays the same and your players want more money (not inflation related) then somethings got to give. With the financial incentives in place for English players, their value is even higher, but the salary cap doesn't account for this (small increase from next year but it's only for guys 5 years out of the academy I think).

Grow your own works for a few years but unless you keep on churning them out (and therefore have to keep refreshing your squad) it won't last, unless all those players are relative average and won't be attracting much attention.

I think Leicester have bigger concerns. Essentially the reason they are playing to full houses right now is because they have been a dominating force through a majority period. If Leicester stopped winning throphies and fell down the pecking order how long would it be before attendance dropped. Not good for a club looking to expand to 30K crowds.

At any rate the current model just seems to have clubs cuting costs to try to maximize their playing budgets. The real issue with the salary cap is that teams shouldnt look to spend more than a set percentage on salaries (similar to the French formula). Its no wonder why teams are not developing their grounds and resources if all the money is spent on the playing budget.

Welshmushroom, 4 AP clubs are looking to add to their grounds. Tigers are slowly building up to 30k in a financially responsible manner, Sarries are building in Barnett (a nice 10k ground with good public transport links) and Northampton Saints are trying to get planning permission to extend Franklins Gardens. Exeter Chiefs are continuing the modernisation of Sandy Park and are looking at extending the seating.

Add into that Sale moving to Salford to a brand new state of the art rugby stadium and Bath in a continual legal wrangle with the council over redoing the wreck. That's over half the AP looking at improved or improving their stadia in the short to medium term.

As for the Tigers support, that is born on the back of a massive community network established in the amatuer days and carried forward to present day. Young rugby players in touch and sevens tournaments this summer will be meeting Tigers squad players just like I did when I was playing for Loughborough Town in the early 90s. The Tigers 'maul' van is at various festivals over the summer with rugby guests promoting rugby skills and of course the Tigers. The corporate 7s events and Leicester Varisty games held at Welford Rd as well as close ties to both universities and the local hostpital continue to strengthen the bond between club and community. With season tickets creaping up to sell out (sell out = 14,000). Those attendances won't drop to dangerous levels within the next decade and probably not in my life time.

In fairness Sam Leicester havent always played infront of 14K season ticket sellouts.

I see the Regions in Wales doing similar promotions. There is no direct corrilation between the things you have mentioned. If this is the case most clubs would be playing in front of 16K crowds. The reality is that when teams are successful fans go to watch them.

Do you thing financially Leicester are so secure with attendances and finance that running a 30k seater stadium would not be a financial burden if they say dropped in to National League one after a bad season (granted its unlikely Leicester would get relegated).

Also half the moves you pointed out above are in to premises that they do not own or are council held. In otherwords they are totally subject to monster leaseholds similar to the unbelievable rates the Blues where paying for CSS. Rugby cant afford that.

My point was surely better investment in training facilities and surrounding youth teams will reward clubs better than the "spend everything on survival" mentality.

HammerofThunor wrote:As those Quins kids become 'better', internationally recognised, etc, they can demand higher wages. There are plenty of places they can go and get them. If the cap stays the same and your players want more money (not inflation related) then somethings got to give. With the financial incentives in place for English players, their value is even higher, but the salary cap doesn't account for this (small increase from next year but it's only for guys 5 years out of the academy I think).

Grow your own works for a few years but unless you keep on churning them out (and therefore have to keep refreshing your squad) it won't last, unless all those players are relative average and won't be attracting much attention.

I recognise that, and so do the Quins management and DoR. It's not easy, but I think it's a question of three things. One is creating an environment where players don't want to leave; this is already in place to some extent - I know of at least two players who were offered huge payrises to leave and turned them down. The second is carefully managing how salaries increase; a couple of years back, five players - including Robshaw, Monye and Strettle - were up for renewal at the same time and all had made a big step up in seniority. Quins put competitive offers on the table, but made it clear that they could only afford 4 of the 5. Last one over the line would have the offer withdrawn. We lost Strettle but we could more easily afford to lose a winger than players in the other positions. The third thing is succession planning. Since the relegation season we've seen at least one very talented player move from the academy to the first team each year, and it's getting to the point where 2 per year is becoming the norm. This year we had Smith, Stegmann, Buchanan, Wallace and Matthews all take big steps up, plus we found Hopper in the Championship. We won't do that every year, but bringing through a steady stream of talent and being careful about who they hang onto will make a big difference.

The real trick, I guess, is to have as many players as possible contending for a Saxons place without too many getting in... ;-)

Just after I said that I click on the Tigers website to find:
http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/14244.php
http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/14242.php

Also half the moves you pointed out above are in to premises that they do not own or are council held. In otherwords they are totally subject to monster leaseholds similar to the unbelievable rates the Blues where paying for CSS. Rugby cant afford that.

Only the Sale move is based on rent being paid. Sarries are buying and building their own ground, with the Saints, Chiefs and Bath owning their own grounds but having to get council agreement to build. Tigers already have agreement and are due to build a hotel, flats and multi-storey car park behind the Crumbie (the car park alone is worth £1m a year to the club from the lease). Tigers will structure their build time around the growing attendances. If attendances start to fall they'll stop building. That is unlikely though as attendances have been steadily growing since the start of professionalism, even last season with the miserable start and RWC Tigers were getting great attendances and with nearly every game broadcast on either Sky or ESPN they still averaged over 20k (including the LV Cup drag factor).

Sure attendances will go up when you're successful but a team can always increase the base level of support without winning everything every year.

Portnoy it's the whole club vs country conundrum. Never an easy answer and very tough to get the right balance.

Welshmushroom attendances is not necessarily linked to results. Saracens show this perfectly.

Leicester fans will obviously have high expectations but as Sam says their fan base has been built up over a long time.

Of course results are important but the complete package has to be good too.

Tigers scored the most amount of tries in the AP this season and generally rack up a lot of bonus points. That really helps.

Poorfour wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:As those Quins kids become 'better', internationally recognised, etc, they can demand higher wages. There are plenty of places they can go and get them. If the cap stays the same and your players want more money (not inflation related) then somethings got to give. With the financial incentives in place for English players, their value is even higher, but the salary cap doesn't account for this (small increase from next year but it's only for guys 5 years out of the academy I think).

Grow your own works for a few years but unless you keep on churning them out (and therefore have to keep refreshing your squad) it won't last, unless all those players are relative average and won't be attracting much attention.

I recognise that, and so do the Quins management and DoR. It's not easy, but I think it's a question of three things. One is creating an environment where players don't want to leave; this is already in place to some extent - I know of at least two players who were offered huge payrises to leave and turned them down. The second is carefully managing how salaries increase; a couple of years back, five players - including Robshaw, Monye and Strettle - were up for renewal at the same time and all had made a big step up in seniority. Quins put competitive offers on the table, but made it clear that they could only afford 4 of the 5. Last one over the line would have the offer withdrawn. We lost Strettle but we could more easily afford to lose a winger than players in the other positions. The third thing is succession planning. Since the relegation season we've seen at least one very talented player move from the academy to the first team each year, and it's getting to the point where 2 per year is becoming the norm. This year we had Smith, Stegmann, Buchanan, Wallace and Matthews all take big steps up, plus we found Hopper in the Championship. We won't do that every year, but bringing through a steady stream of talent and being careful about who they hang onto will make a big difference.

The real trick, I guess, is to have as many players as possible contending for a Saxons place without too many getting in... ;-)

Quins do seem to be doing the right things.

Regarding stadium developement. Having Quins done their relatively recently? And aren't they looking a developing further. Worcester's ground is relatively new and pretty decent and Kingsholm was developed and there are further plans to develop. So basically it's Wasps and Irish. Irish are in a decent stadium but they don't own it. Wasps are...well, even they've suggested building their own ground (all be it in the same area they're in now). Newcastle are always going to struggle for resources but the stadium is up to the now defunct criteria.