Remove control of England team from RFU...?

From December the 1st 2013.

Sin é wrote:Only controlling European Rugby ..... ???

Paul Ackford, London Times. wrote:A couple of weeks ago, I was in a cab with a senior executive of a Premiership club. It was late, drink had been taken and the talk turned to the state of European rugby politics, which, at that stage, appeared to be favouring the English clubs’ desire to exercise greater influence over the two European rugby tournaments.

“This is only the beginning,” the grandee said. “What if I were to tell you that some of us are looking at how we can run the whole of the professional game in England, including the national team. We reckon it would

Anyone got a subscription to the Times? It seems to be an interesting article!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3936188.ece

Sadly there's to much self interest involved to allow for any expectation of either a sensible review or the necessary progressive outcome......buggered!

I knew the PRL were getting a little bit to big for their boots, but this I did not see coming.

You mean remove the old farts and blokes with odd handshakes with people who want to grow the game? Madness.

Bathman_in_London wrote:You mean remove the old farts and blokes with odd handshakes with people who want to grow the game? Madness.

You could remove all that, but still keep the power with the unions.

Bathman_in_London wrote:You mean remove the old farts and blokes with odd handshakes with people who want to grow the game? Madness.

Remove the old farts who don't really care whether England win or lose, as long as it doesn't interfere with nap time, and replace them with a group of ruthless millionaires who don't really care whether England win or lose as long as it doesn't interfere with the bottom line or stop them from signing big names from the southern hemisphere.

ENGLAND - WORLD CHAMPIONS 2019

Those aren't the only 2 options though.

The days when the unions lose all control over professional rugby, will be the day when rugby union dies.

They could start by renaming it to the ENGLISH Rugby Football Union.

No RFU suits it. Like the Premiership and Open.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No RFU suits it. Like the Premiership and Open.

RFU implies its in charge of all rugby everywhere when its not even got control over itself

It only really implies it was named first and they didn't have to distinguish it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It only really implies it was named first and they didn't have to distinguish it.

Maybe now is the opportunity to do so then ?

No need and would cost too much.

Well it shows you that drink or no drink, back of a taxi cab or not ........... there is a grand plan in a locker somewhere that is still being serviced and developed bit by bit.  Each step is a process leading to another.  

Walking backwards to happiness?  "We hate Unions us Clubs" was all the talk two years ago.  But now it seems the ultimate ambition of PRL is to become one."
An Independent Structure United by a Common Purpose.

I wouldn't mind the PRL consuming RFU's name. I've always stated I believe PRL to be a Union.  In real terms they've consumed just about most of what is practically powerful in rugby union terms, what's the big deal now in a name?
One body in charge of International and club in England. A Union.

And it would single-handedly return the debate back to the one about Union influence over club.  We'd be back to the six automatic places for one Union in an European club event and only one automatic place for other Unions.

SecretFly wrote:Well it shows you that drink or no drink, back of a taxi cab or not ........... there is a grand plan in a locker somewhere that is still being serviced and developed bit by bit.  Each step is a process leading to another.  

Walking backwards to happiness?  "We hate Unions us Clubs" was all the talk two years ago.  But now it seems the ultimate ambition of PRL is to become one."
An Independent Structure United by a Common Purpose.  

I wouldn't mind the PRL consuming RFU's name.  I've always stated I believe PRL to be a Union.  In real terms they've consumed just about most of what is practically powerful in rugby union terms, what's the big deal now in a name?
One body in charge of International and club in England.  A Union.  

And it would single-handedly return the debate back to the one about Union influence over club.    We'd be back to the six automatic places for one Union in an European club event and only one automatic place for other Unions.

The issue being that a union has to have independent concern to profit. The RFU run a very financially stable model, far more so than the PRL, but they, like all the other international unions, also manage to contribute a huge amount of financing into areas that reap no profit but are the ground roots of the game.

The PRL has only ever shown motivation for profit, they already have far too much can influence to the detriment of rugby, I can not see them as a positive option for the future

Just because the unions have previously been in charge it doesn't mean it's the only way to do it. They were just the first set of self-serving, power-hungry suits to set up shop.

I'm not saying PRL are a perfect model, maesteg.  Far from it.

But I think any conclusion that established once more a formal link once again between the aspiration of English clubs and England International would be welcomed by me, as I think the myth that 'club' rugby has no allegiance to the Nation it is part of has been allowed run too long.  

Any organisation that assumes control of International and club under one roof would of course no longer be PRL anyway.  The structure would need to undergo a major change and undoubtedly whatever that new organisation was would be compelled to use Professional money from the Professional game to support grassroots rugby.

If you want control of everything, you must accept the obligations that come with it.  No grassroots rugby funding would mean a very iffy manufacturing line from childhood to fully professional rugby players.

A Union is a Union is a Union.  PRL would not avoid becoming one.

Cyril wrote:Just because the unions have previously been in charge it doesn't mean it's the only way to do it. They were just the first set of self-serving, power-hungry suits to set up shop.

Exactly so what's the big difference? Different ambitious greedy folks in different suits? So what? Any organisation that wants control of the 'Union' game in a Nation is a Union. They may want to be marketing smart and not use the term...but that is what they'll be. And that is what they'll be regarded as by any external Union that seeks to negotiate with them into the future.

A different collection of suits.

SecretFly wrote:

Exactly so what's the big difference?  Different ambitious greedy folks in different suits?  So what?  Any organisation that wants control of the 'Union' game in a Nation is a Union.  They may want to be marketing smart and not use the term...but that is what they'll be.  And that is what they'll be regarded as by any external Union that seeks to negotiate with them into the future.

A different collection of suits.

RFU is an industrial and provident society owned by over 2,000 member clubs,[3] representing over 2.5 million registered players.

The PRL is an organisation to help protect the wellies the clubs in the game.


Just because someone wears a suit it doesn't mean that they are the same as everyone else who wears a suit.

They'd have to become virtually a carbon copy of the current Union. Too many vested interests of a private nature would necessitate a distinction being made between the organisation authority of the 'England International' bit and the PRL 'club' bit.

I'm saying Unions are Unions because they are Unions. They are an evolution based on practice of trial and error. PRL can not stay the same and want control over International.... they'd quickly learn that in order for rugby to run smoothly from bottom to top... a group of 12 'owner' clubs could not function as dictators.

I'm saying evolution would happen necessarily.... so what would the point be in changing the name of the suits that control the game?

SecretFly wrote:They'd have to become virtually a carbon copy of the current Union.  Too many vested interests of a private nature would necessitate a distinction being made between the organisation authority of the 'England International' bit and the PRL 'club' bit.

I'm saying Unions are Unions because they are Unions.  They are an evolution based on practice of trial and error.  PRL can not stay the same and want control over International.... they'd quickly learn that in order for rugby to run smoothly from bottom to top... a group of 12 'owner' clubs could not function as dictators.

I'm saying evolution would happen necessarily.... so what would the point be in changing the name of the suits that control the game?  

What is interesting though is it is only England and France that have maintained this particular path. It looks irrevocable now too as both the FRR and RFU do not have the power to take on the LNR or PRL, and advocate as sensible control on the game.

I can't envisage the WR actually letting the RFU hand over control of the international team to a limited company. That said, when you see what the current English government are doing to the NHS I wouldn't be overly surprised if the RFU privatised the Englamd rugby team.

maestegmafia wrote:

SecretFly wrote:They'd have to become virtually a carbon copy of the current Union.  Too many vested interests of a private nature would necessitate a distinction being made between the organisation authority of the 'England International' bit and the PRL 'club' bit.

I'm saying Unions are Unions because they are Unions.  They are an evolution based on practice of trial and error.  PRL can not stay the same and want control over International.... they'd quickly learn that in order for rugby to run smoothly from bottom to top... a group of 12 'owner' clubs could not function as dictators.

I'm saying evolution would happen necessarily.... so what would the point be in changing the name of the suits that control the game?  

What is interesting though is it is only England and France that have maintained this particular path. It looks irrevocable now too as both the FRR and RFU do not have the power to take on the LNR or PRL, and advocate as sensible control on the game.

I can't envisage the WR actually letting the RFU hand over control of the international team to a limited company. That said, when you see what the current English government are doing to the NHS I wouldn't be overly surprised if the RFU privatised the Englamd rugby team.

Eh? Run that one by me again...

Cyril wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

SecretFly wrote:They'd have to become virtually a carbon copy of the current Union.  Too many vested interests of a private nature would necessitate a distinction being made between the organisation authority of the 'England International' bit and the PRL 'club' bit.

I'm saying Unions are Unions because they are Unions.  They are an evolution based on practice of trial and error.  PRL can not stay the same and want control over International.... they'd quickly learn that in order for rugby to run smoothly from bottom to top... a group of 12 'owner' clubs could not function as dictators.

I'm saying evolution would happen necessarily.... so what would the point be in changing the name of the suits that control the game?  

What is interesting though is it is only England and France that have maintained this particular path. It looks irrevocable now too as both the FRR and RFU do not have the power to take on the LNR or PRL, and advocate as sensible control on the game.

I can't envisage the WR actually letting the RFU hand over control of the international team to a limited company. That said, when you see what the current English government are doing to the NHS I wouldn't be overly surprised if the RFU privatised the Englamd rugby team.

Eh? Run that one by me again...

You should have worked out how maes works by now. if English he hates it, Welsh if he loves it

I don't think it was the Welsh or scots who put these idiots in government.

British government all the same.

maestegmafia wrote:I don't think it was the Welsh or scots who put these idiots in government.

Neither did the north of England...

Cumbrian wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I don't think it was the Welsh or scots who put these idiots in government.

Neither did the north of England...

good on you.


The point was more a joke at privatisation and selling off assets rather than politics, but they usual bunch want tar me with their trolling brush...!

Its not trolling to point out mistakes.