Newcastle will be in the Jeff next year

The RFU have confirmed that London Welsh have failed in their bid to get a suitable ground for the Jeff if they were to win the play off

Well done Newcastle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/18175903

The big losers here are Bristol.

Total clusterflluck this promotion/playoff business.


Just hope the Pirates give LW a Jolly Rodgering to put it all beyond doubt.

It is a joke, but why should the bottom team in the Jeff get relegated when its not necessary the top team in the Championship that gets promoted!

lets go back to the old system where by the top team goes up if there ground meets the criteria, please!

It will be interesting to see what the backlash from London Welsh is going to be - reckon its going to get ugly before it gets any prettier!

Well im happy obviosuly...

But im not stupid or ignorant enough to know that Bristol should.be up...and the playoffs need scrapping

Falcons will.be a different proposition this season...

It will be interesting to see what the backlash from London Welsh is going to be - reckon its going to get ugly before it gets any prettier!.

Totally agree - just hope the Pirates romp home and put this issue beyond doubt.

I think its a shame for the LW players (if they are to go on an beat the Pirates), but a lot of the goings on behind the scenes just make me wonder how concrete the LW development plan is.

I mean to say - Oxford - it's just like the Falcons upping sticks and going to play in Carlisle!


(Which actually I think might be a good idea for the odd game)

It will be interesting to see what the backlash from London Welsh is going to be - reckon its going to get ugly before it gets any prettier!

I'd hope they'd let it rest until after the playoffs and then bring if up again if they won. Seem foolish to get angry about something that might happen.

I don't like the situation, it's not good for the sport. I am, however, slightly pleased we will be keeping a northern club as opposed to gaining another London based club.

"Falcons will. be a different proposition this season..."

I know, and I haven't seen anything from Bath to suggest that we won't be involved in another tight season, where are the big signings?

Although we did finish above Glaws.

The play off system in the Championship is a joke, Even if a team does win the championship play offs and meets the criteria for promotion they have lost a significant amount of time to make signings before preseason training starts

HERSH wrote: where are the big signings?

havent they been the problem for the last 2 years?

The championship playoffs are one of the biggest sources of incomes for those clubs who dont play many games in a season that bring in a significant income. Without them the top clubs wouldnt be able to make the investments required to get in a state where theyd even be thinking about promotion anyway

The playoffs will exist next year - but much more streamlined.

Bottom championship team rel;egated, top 4 have play-offs similar to Premiership.

Shortfall in games will be made up by increasing number of B&I Cup matches.

HERSH wrote:"Falcons will. be a different proposition this season..."

I know, and I haven't seen anything from Bath to suggest that we won't be involved in another tight season, where are the big signings?

Although we did finish above Glaws.

I thought the big signings were meant to be the likes of Attwood,Donald,Louw,Fearns etc.

HERSH wrote:

Although we did finish above Glaws.

How the bl00dy hell that happened I'll never know?! We just need to play every week and we'd have a 90% win record!

On a seperate note, whilst the fact no team is to be promoted is farcical, I have to admit there is an element of me that is pleased. The fact LW were going to have to move away from their core supporters to achieve Jeff rugby was probably even more farcical. THe whole system needs to be looked at. Why don't the RFU put squeaky on the job, I'm sure they can spare a tea boy?

So what clubs in the Championship meet the criteria today?

HERSH wrote:So what clubs in the Championship meet the criteria today?

I think it is only Bristol & Leeds. I think Nottingham may, as I'm sure the chap who owns them also owns Notts County so they can get round the whole tenancy issue.

Just Bristol and Leeds I think. The RFU will have to release funds for stadium improvements imho, They'll be no way to grow the game under the current setup if only 14 sides can make the top tier.

Bristol and Leeds I think.
Could be interesting for London Irish with Reading spending a season in the (Soccer) Premiership, how will the primacy of tenure deal work when there's a prospect of Sky and ESPN wanting to show games involving both ? I suppose on the other hand you could save money by scheduling a game for each day of the weekend and keeping the TV equipment at the ground to be used twice ?

Does anyone know how far Goldington Road is from being acceptable? I thought Bedford had used it in the Premiership before?

mawhis wrote:Just Bristol and Leeds I think. The RFU will have to release funds for stadium improvements imho, They'll be no way to grow the game under the current setup if only 14 sides can make the top tier.

Don't teams like the Pirates make slowly slowly steps with regards to meeting the criteria? Bit like Exeter did/have with the way they developed.

That's not an option for every club though. London Welsh's ground, Old Deer Park, is crown land as I understand it, so they can't get permission to develop.

This is an effing disgrace.

It's obviously set up to benefit English team in Europe.

How can the rest of us compete where the threat of relegation is not there....

English teams are not on a level playing field bla bla bla bla....

Sound familiar?

It should be Bristol, we all know that apart from the showers of -.-. at the RFU

where the threat of relegation is not there

Of course it's there - this little saga is all about a certain individual stamping his feet and having a tantrum.

All of the requirements and regulations were known from the start and LW don't match the criteria.

Good luck to them anyway, anything that gives the Old Farts a jolt is always welcome, but once LW get up there and get pummelled from everybody and their dog, I hope he feels satisfied with a job well done.

Only good thing is that most of the LW few thousand supporters will miss the bloodlettings as they definetly can't play from their original ground, so most likely be a fair distance away.

HERSH wrote:So what clubs in the Championship meet the criteria today?

A more apposite question would be which clubs in the Premiership meet the criteria today?

I wonder how many clubs in the prem would pass the standards required in the audit in order to let them play if they had to go through it?

If Brizzle learnt how to manage their season properly this wouldn't even be an issue! It's a bit of a joke really, 2 out of the last 3 seasons they've effed it up.

Does seem a bit of a joke - if only 2 teams can go up then why not just let those 2 teams into the prem and actually come out and say it's ringfenced?

Also if the only reason LW can't go up is because they won't have primary tenancy at the stadium - but correct me if I'm wrong but most of the other AV clubs who share with football clubs don't have primary tenancy - so why are they allowed to play in the AV?

Sounds like (unattributable R5 report) that LW want to take the ugly route and challenge the decision.

I don't blame them if the decision is because the won't have primary tenancy when other AV clubs don't have it

Smirnoffpriest wrote:I don't blame them if the decision is because the won't have primary tenancy when other AV clubs don't have it

With all due respect Smirnoff, most the qualification issues are sensible and maintain a reasonable environment for the public and media at the elite level. The main point I disagree with is the unrealistic ground capacities.

Although the RFU will catch the flak, in reality it's the PRL who drive the criteria.

There is absolutely no argument against the call for all Jeff sides to satisfy their own membership rules.

Surely the play offfinal is a pointless match in reality due to face none of teams can go up.

Why not bring Bris and Leeds up to make the prem a 14 club league? Then ring fence the whole thing with one/two teams getting relegated every three or four years based upon league standings, finances and support?

And if there are issues with the number of games played either split it in to two pools of 7 or think out side the box, give the HC teams extra budget specifically for Europe so they can get a bigger squad or enforce a rest period for all 1st team players when ever the LV is on.

yappysnap wrote:Why not bring Bris and Leeds up to make the prem a 14 club league? Then ring fence the whole thing with one/two teams getting relegated every three or four years based upon league standings, finances and support?

And if there are issues with the number of games played either split it in to two pools of 7 or think out side the box, give the HC teams extra budget specifically for Europe so they can get a bigger squad or enforce a rest period for all 1st team players when ever the LV is on.

Thats what I suggested Yappy.

And Portnoy - while I agree with needing minimum ground requirements and standards (even if like you say the minimum capacity is a little excessive) I've no problem about that but I can't see why you should enforce it with one club wishing to join the 'big boys' but not enforce the rules for other teams which are already part of the 'big boys'.

Unless of course you have some sort of other motive...

It also seems strange that the rules put in place are so exacting that only 2-3 of the whole Championship can actually meet it - which seems to suggest that the same clubs will get relegated/promoted every other year.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Why not bring Bris and Leeds up to make the prem a 14 club league? Then ring fence the whole thing with one/two teams getting relegated every three or four years based upon league standings, finances and support?

And if there are issues with the number of games played either split it in to two pools of 7 or think out side the box, give the HC teams extra budget specifically for Europe so they can get a bigger squad or enforce a rest period for all 1st team players when ever the LV is on.

Thats what I suggested Yappy.

And Portnoy - while I agree with needing minimum ground requirements and standards (even if like you say the minimum capacity is a little excessive) I've no problem about that but I can't see why you should enforce it with one club wishing to join the 'big boys' but not enforce the rules for other teams which are already part of the 'big boys'.

Unless of course you have some sort of other motive...

It also seems strange that the rules put in place are so exacting that only 2-3 of the whole Championship can actually meet it - which seems to suggest that the same clubs will get relegated/promoted every other year.

The "other motive" is not shifting the goal posts on clubs that are already struggling and bankrupting half you league. You know, trying to keep the game vaguely sustainable.
Theres many inside and outside the RFU that want rid of it altogether, and not just for the benefit of the clubs. In the same way that the Rabo doesnt have it and what amount to franchised clubs have kept those Unions afloat and competitive, in the case of Ireland helping them grow into a serious force.

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Why not bring Bris and Leeds up to make the prem a 14 club league? Then ring fence the whole thing with one/two teams getting relegated every three or four years based upon league standings, finances and support?

And if there are issues with the number of games played either split it in to two pools of 7 or think out side the box, give the HC teams extra budget specifically for Europe so they can get a bigger squad or enforce a rest period for all 1st team players when ever the LV is on.

Thats what I suggested Yappy.

And Portnoy - while I agree with needing minimum ground requirements and standards (even if like you say the minimum capacity is a little excessive) I've no problem about that but I can't see why you should enforce it with one club wishing to join the 'big boys' but not enforce the rules for other teams which are already part of the 'big boys'.

Unless of course you have some sort of other motive...

It also seems strange that the rules put in place are so exacting that only 2-3 of the whole Championship can actually meet it - which seems to suggest that the same clubs will get relegated/promoted every other year.

I know what you're saying, lads, but you're going to have to define "based upon league standings, finances and support" - too vague as it stands, and it's the additional clarification/definition which will be the tough bit.

The rules aren't that exacting if they are planned for properly. Exeter put in place a 10-yr plan to get promotion to the AP and more importantly one that would allow them to stay there forever - what this most recent debacle shows is that there is no short-cut, clubs must put in the hard yards to get there and stay there

Fair enough PSW - I can understand the argument for ring fencing the AV or getting rid of promtion/relegation.

And I certainly don't think it's viable to ask Saracens and the other clubs that share football grounds to move out or sign a contract to be primary tenants (which could bankupt them).

But it seems a bit rich to deny LW promotion on the grounds that they haven't got Primary Tenancy when other clubs haven't got it either.

If they didn't want to promote anyone for whatever reason (but whatever else it's good that there's still a Northern side in the AV) then they should have stated it at the start of the season OR had a play off between Leeds and Bristol for promotion

Right as Ive said before...argue with the specifics but the general principle is sound and not soley based on self interest as some suggest

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Right as Ive said before...argue with the specifics but the general principle is sound and not soley based on self interest as some suggest

But my comment was more to do with the consistency of the rules as they don't seem to be applied evenly. Yet nobodies answered that and taken what I've written as more of a kind of attack on the AV - all I'm trying to find out is if some clubs can have tenancy with football clubs then why isn't LW?

Whatever the pros and cons of the immediate decision and impending objections and legal debates, surely it can't beyond the wit of man to nominate and get ratified a proposed Jeff venue before entering any playoff process.

An astute point put forward on another thread is the idea that LW's challenge may be geared more towards a compensatory payout than actually gaining promotion this year. Cynical yes, but probably not inaccurate.

As for LW being promoted, I agree with those who say they haven't put in the hard yards over the last few years to deserve it. They did not come top of the league and fail to meet a number of the stadium requirements. It is also my view that were they to be promoted, it would be highly likely they'd drop straight back down with a record low points total. Promoting a team who were not the best side over the course of the season and cannot meet the competition's entry requirements would set a bad precedent.

Championship clubs must be supported more by the RFU and financial assistance must be given to allow a teams to build.

The scrap at the bottom of the Premiership will be very interesting next year. Newcastle will undoubtedly improve under Dean Richards and this scare was probably provide the kick up the rear they needed. Wasps have recruited some solid experienced players to complement the talented youngsters they already have. Worcester have also recruited well and have a great infrastructure and looked perfectly at home in the Premiership this season. Exeter have proven themselves in the Premiership, they may need to be careful not to overstretch themselves with their HC involvement, but I think they'll be fine. I find it inconceivable that any other side will struggle near the foot of the table next season. It is also unlikely that whoever finishes 12th will get a reprieve next season after the fuss about it this time, so someone will have to go down. Who will it be?

Bath could be in trouble next year.....

Smirnoffpriest wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Right as Ive said before...argue with the specifics but the general principle is sound and not soley based on self interest as some suggest

But my comment was more to do with the consistency of the rules as they don't seem to be applied evenly. Yet nobodies answered that and taken what I've written as more of a kind of attack on the AV - all I'm trying to find out is if some clubs can have tenancy with football clubs then why isn't LW?

Certain clubs, if relegated would not be eligible for promotion unless they changed their tenancy agreements. In that respect there is consistency. Wasps had primacy of tenure so were safe. Sarries are moving as are Sale (though issue at Stockport was with facilities). LI woul dhave problems if they were relegated.

It seems a silly reason not to let promotion - as if Saracens, Sale and LI can work around both the football and rugby fixtures then why can't LW.

I do agree with comments that say it would be more sensible to take the 'Exeter' route and build slowly, improving the squad and support each season until they have a good shout at staying in the AV. And I agree with people who are saying that LW could go straight back down.

Can some English fans stop harping on about the English clubs having to fight relegation now and the fact it was the reason for a poor European season (their words not mine). This is proof it simply isn't true.

So all that guff about Premiership clubs having to battle it all out all season compared to the layabouts in the Pro 12 comes to nothing.

Presumably that'll have to come off the list of arguments for these new proposals being tabled for the European Cup.

Spoken as someone who just doesn't get it

Hammer; exactly what we think when poster comment on the Rabo...

Pot Hale wrote:So all that guff about Premiership clubs having to battle it all out all season compared to the layabouts in the Pro 12 comes to nothing.

Presumably that'll have to come off the list of arguments for these new proposals being tabled for the European Cup.

Regardles of whether it does or doesnt affect the hc campaigns this doesnt mean the relegation wasnt a worry for the likes of newcastle. Everyone expected Brizzle to walk the playoffs, and it was an open question regarding LW.
Are you sugesting that Newcastle didnt bother winning by enough on the final game because they knew Bristol would lose? Or that the mid table clubs didnt care about getting in the HC?
There was only one game played in the Jeff this season that had nothing riding on it for the playoffs, HC qualification or relegation. Theres no other league that has that level of meaningful competition. Again that doesnt mean Newcastle would be better than Leinster if the Jeff was all friendlies...but its just bunk to suggest the Jeff isnt competitive and hard fought and that relegation isnt a legitimate concern for all but the very biggest clubs like err Northampton

How long have the qualification criteria been in place? when they were introduced there should have been a set time period for all the premiership clubs to meet the required standards. This would have avoided this potentially tricky situation, made even moreso by the result this evening. London Welsh, in my opinion and if the win round 2, have a valid legal argument against the PRL/RFU. And to the poster who mentioned that the team that finished 2nd shouldnt be in the premiership......isnt that where exeter finished the season they were promoted?