Lancaster steps down

[crossref]

on the other hand he didn't manage to win the six nations..

 

[didds]

Meanwhile since SCW only Johnson did - that made a lot of difference ultimately 'cos he was out of a job within 6 months.

Probably SL moving along is the best thing now, but I do wonder that had the draw been different and England hadn't been in the pool of death, they would have got into the QFs, where a loss would have meant that enough would have been done for the status quo to remain..

A fortuitous QF draw might have even ended up with a SF place (shades of 2007 maybe) and there wold be no doubt over anybody's future.

Its a fickle old world.

didds

 

[crossref]

Meanwhile since SCW only Johnson did

win the 6N that is

that's a big clue, isn't it? England have just one 6N win in twelve seasons since the 2003 RWC.

The problem is a structural/systemic one isn't it, not down to any one coach. It's combination of club system, coach selection, RFU management structure and presumably a whole host of other things.

It's difficult to imagine that replacing SL with (say) Eddie Jones, while everything else remains the same will suddenly make everything OK.

 

[OB..]

What worried me was that he did not seem to know what his best team was and kept making changes. Players need to play together reasonably consistently to generate a team understanding.

If Bath insisted on using Burgess as a#6, was it really sensible to think he could learn to be a RWC centre in only a few matches? If you did believe he was good enough, should he not have been in the team at every opportunity?

 

[Pegleg]

if the national bodies own the top players, you no longer really have clubs as we know them in England, do you, the next level down becomes more like a franchise.

I think that ship sailed. We could have had a set up like that in Wales, if the RFU had acted faster twenty years ago.

Not sure how we could get from from where we are now, to there, even if we were sure we actually wanted to --- it's not exactly all a garden of joy in Wales.

sometimes you simply have to play the cards you are dealt.

It's a right mess here in Wales. We are stuck between two stools. Just because some countries use the central contract / control system it does not mean it is the right way for all. What IS needed is an approach based on cooperation.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Perhaps the British media are finally beginning to understand what is wrong with England (and French) rugby...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...because-too-much-power-is-with-the-clubs.html

This is not exclusive to English rugby, France have exactly the same problem.

Which two countries were the biggest underperformers at the World Cup? England and France. Which two countries have consistently delivered less than the sum of their parts over the past four years? England and France. Which two countries have the biggest senior male playing bases? England and France. Which two countries have virtually no control over their players because of the power of the clubs?

Its hard to argue that these observations are wrong.

 

[Ian_Cook]

It's a right mess here in Wales. We are stuck between two stools. Just because some countries use the central contract / control system it does not mean it is the right way for all. What IS needed is an approach based on cooperation.

Hard to achieve this when one side (the Clubs. the LNR & PRL) simply has no interest whatsoever in co-operation.

 

[Womble]

Have to agree with Ian, the sooner England put players on central contracts the better, Start now with all of the young guys, it may be a 5/7 year plan but it would work.

 

[crossref]

Have to agree with Ian, the sooner England put players on central contracts the better, Start now with all of the young guys, it may be a 5/7 year plan but it would work.

That will (likely) improve the England team, but would it destroy domestic rugby? How is pro 12 for Wales?

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is a bit of a false perception in the NH about how NZ Rugby is structured. Many seem to think that the NZRU is some kind of corporate juggernaut that answers to no-one and that owns everything and maintains control over all aspects of NZ rugby, but this simply isn't so.

What I will do here is a give a reasonably brief explanation of how the NZ system works, so that you can pick the bones out of it and see if there is any facet of the way we do things here that might be applied to England;

Amateur Rugby
There are about 600 amateur rugby clubs in New Zealand. They are ALL completely amateur and run by volunteers. They are distributed around the country and are formally part of one of New Zealand's 26 Provinces.

The Governing Boards and the ownership of the game
The Clubs elect members to their Provincial Governing Body (PGB), which in turn annually elects members to the New Zealand Rugby Board (NZRB), a body that is charged with setting strategy and direction for New Zealand Rugby. Most importantly though, it is the 600 clubs who ultimately own the game in New Zealand. The NZRB is an entirely separate body from the NZRU (the executive branch) and while the NZRU President, Vice President and CEO may attend board meetings, they have no voting rights. Many of the decisions concerning New Zealand’s national teams, domestic competitions, financial management and rugby traditions can only be made by a vote of the Board, and they can, and sometimes do, overrule the NZRU Executive. One example was over the reduction of the National Provincial Championship from a 14 team to a 12 team competition. The NZRU wanted to do this this. the NZRB overruled them and told them to come up with a plan to keep all 14 teams in the competition..

The NZRU
The NZRU sets policy and maintains control of Inter provincial competitions at all age groups. They also provide high level support for the development of the game. They provide direct funding to PGBs who in turn are responsible for the Provincial Teams, clubs, schools, juniors, girls and women and Maori teams. This support involves funding and grass roots development.

The Professional Game and player contracts
The NZRU owns a minimum of 51% of the shares in the Five Super Rugby Franchises. It contracts all professional players and controls most sources of revenue, TV Rights, commercial & image rights etc. The Super Rugby franchises keep all gate receipts and some commercial revenue and sponsorship . Players in NZ can have up the three contracts at any one time.

ALL pro players are contracted to the NZRU,
Super Rugby players are sub-contracted to their franchise
ITM Cup players are sub-contracted to their Provincial Team

NOTE: ITM Cup players must be registered with one if the amateur clubs within the boundaries of their province. New players, i.e. not members of an existing ITM Cup team) can register at any time, but players wishing to transfer from one ITM Cup team to another must register with their new club by May 1st of the year they wish to compete for their new team

Summary
This system seems to work very well for us. Effectively, the NZRU sets policy and is for the most part free to run the game in New Zealand, but the NZRB is its "conscience"; they decide whether what the NZRU wants to do is good for NZ rugby as a whole, and how it would impact on the game right down to grass roots level. They have the final say.

 

[OB..]

Ian - who decides what teams the pro players play in?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian - who decides what teams the pro players play in?

Ultimately, its the players. Neither the NZRU nor the NZRB have any control over who plays for which Club, Province or Super Rugby Franchise.

The Franchises operate just like a clubs in any other sport, they try to lure players to play for them, negotiate sponsorship deals (over and above the national competition sponsor), they negotiate player sub-contracts with player agents, and have to meet all the criteria set down by the NZ Rugby Player's Association as regards employment laws etc.

The only limitations on this are

1. Overseas players; Franchises can only contract non-NZ eligible players (limit of 2 per team) with the approval of the NZRU, who will usually approve provided that the position in which the player is to play is not one which they consider that we have a shortage of test level talent. A good example of that would be the Highlanders had both Fumiaki Tanaka (Japan) and James Haskell (England) in their team in the same season. These restrictions do not apply to Provincial or Club teams.

2. Draft players: Franchises are limited to competition squads of 32, but before each SR season, each franchise "protects" what they consider as their top 28 players. Once named, those protected players are off- limits to other franchises until the end of the season. The remaining four are allowed to negotiate with other franchises to transfer in that coming season if they so choose (overseas players MUST be on the protected list). Franchises also to have a "Wider Training Squad" (WTS), however, their use is limited to injury and is permanent. Once a player is replaced from the WTS, he's out for the rest of the season.

 

[didds]

Have to agree with Ian, the sooner England put players on central contracts the better, Start now with all of the young guys, it may be a 5/7 year plan but it would work.

How so?

You are 17 years old and quite a decent player. You've been in an academy setup for at least two years.

The club the waves a contract at you to PLAY for them.

the RFU waves a contract at you to pay to MAYBE play for somebody else, possibly the team that you've just rejected a contract for in effect.

The ONLY way this would work if ALL the clubs abandoned all and any interest in signing players themselves, and accepted this quasi franchising of players. And at the moment, why would they?

I'm not saying the situation is "correct" - but its what England has.

So how do "we" break teh status quo - short of basically waving VAST sums of cash at clubs to appease them, and I suspect ring fencing the premiership for starters - which has been an anathema to the RFU thus far.

It just ain't gonna happen any time soon. if ever.


didds

 

[menace]

There is a bit of a false perception in the NH about how NZ Rugby is structured. Many seem to think that the NZRU is some kind of corporate juggernaut that answers to no-one and that owns everything and maintains control over all aspects of NZ rugby, but this simply isn't so.

What I will do here is a give a reasonably brief explanation of how the NZ system works, so that you can pick the bones out of it and see if there is any facet of the way we do things here that might be applied to England;

Amateur Rugby
There are about 600 amateur rugby clubs in New Zealand. They are ALL completely amateur and run by volunteers. They are distributed around the country and are formally part of one of New Zealand's 26 Provinces.

The Governing Boards and the ownership of the game
The Clubs elect members to their Provincial Governing Body (PGB), which in turn annually elects members to the New Zealand Rugby Board (NZRB), a body that is charged with setting strategy and direction for New Zealand Rugby. Most importantly though, it is the 600 clubs who ultimately own the game in New Zealand. The NZRB is an entirely separate body from the NZRU (the executive branch) and while the NZRU President, Vice President and CEO may attend board meetings, they have no voting rights. Many of the decisions concerning New Zealand’s national teams, domestic competitions, financial management and rugby traditions can only be made by a vote of the Board, and they can, and sometimes do, overrule the NZRU Executive. One example was over the reduction of the National Provincial Championship from a 14 team to a 12 team competition. The NZRU wanted to do this this. the NZRB overruled them and told them to come up with a plan to keep all 14 teams in the competition..

The NZRU
The NZRU sets policy and maintains control of Inter provincial competitions at all age groups. They also provide high level support for the development of the game. They provide direct funding to PGBs who in turn are responsible for the Provincial Teams, clubs, schools, juniors, girls and women and Maori teams. This support involves funding and grass roots development.

The Professional Game and player contracts
The NZRU owns a minimum of 51% of the shares in the Five Super Rugby Franchises. It contracts all professional players and controls most sources of revenue, TV Rights, commercial & image rights etc. The Super Rugby franchises keep all gate receipts and some commercial revenue and sponsorship . Players in NZ can have up the three contracts at any one time.

ALL pro players are contracted to the NZRU,
Super Rugby players are sub-contracted to their franchise
ITM Cup players are sub-contracted to their Provincial Team

NOTE: ITM Cup players must be registered with one if the amateur clubs within the boundaries of their province. New players, i.e. not members of an existing ITM Cup team) can register at any time, but players wishing to transfer from one ITM Cup team to another must register with their new club by May 1st of the year they wish to compete for their new team

Summary
This system seems to work very well for us. Effectively, the NZRU sets policy and is for the most part free to run the game in New Zealand, but the NZRB is its "conscience"; they decide whether what the NZRU wants to do is good for NZ rugby as a whole, and how it would impact on the game right down to grass roots level. They have the final say.

It's interesting that you know this level of detail, is it well understood, or could be, by the average punter in NZ?
I must admit I have very limited understanding how ARU and state unions here are structured and run. I know they still don't trust each other. What I see is disjointed and adhoc. And I can't find out the real story either. It's like the Mason's......all secret and only those on the inside will ever really know what's going on.
Probably why oz rugby is in a mess still....

 

[Crucial]

2. Draft players: Franchises are limited to competition squads of 32, but before each SR season, each franchise "protects" what they consider as their top 28 players. Once named, those protected players are off- limits to other franchises until the end of the season. The remaining four are allowed to negotiate with other franchises to transfer in that coming season if they so choose (overseas players MUST be on the protected list). Franchises also to have a "Wider Training Squad" (WTS), however, their use is limited to injury and is permanent. Once a player is replaced from the WTS, he's out for the rest of the season.

That rule changed a couple of seasons back Ian. Teams can dip in and out of their WTS at will now, not only due to injury in the main squad. This effectively allows them to have a larger squad, providing even more players with experience. I do think that those players are still open market until they play a regular season game though eg a WTS player for the Chiefs that hasn't taken the field for them can be called up as a squad replacement for the Blues (if they agree).

This also has the effect of widening the net even further and most franchises will also offer training places for development squad players (with the odd pre-season game) to buy loyalty for contract offers that may appear down the track.

 

[Crucial]

It's interesting that you know this level of detail, is it well understood, or could be, by the average punter in NZ?
I must admit I have very limited understanding how ARU and state unions here are structured and run. I know they still don't trust each other. What I see is disjointed and adhoc. And I can't find out the real story either. It's like the Mason's......all secret and only those on the inside will ever really know what's going on.
Probably why oz rugby is in a mess still....

The NZRPA (Rugby Players Association) basic contracts and rules are publicly available on their website. For most young players it is simply a case of fill in the number and away you go. These contracts are the minimum terms and conditions and explain how the system works.

 

[Phil E]

Should the Head Coach have to fulfil the same nationality criteria as the players?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Should the Head Coach have to fulfil the same nationality criteria as the players?

That would lay in the purview of the relevant National Union.

There is no eligibility criteria for coaches in WR Regulations.

 

[crossref]

I don't think you possibly could have that -- for one thing the role isn't totally defined, was Clive Woodward actually the coach, or was he more of the team manager? Was Martin Johnson the coach ? Would such rules apply to all the coaching team? what about the physio and the water carriers...

 

[Crucial]

Surely it depends on whether you think it can work?
If a driver for the players is nationalism, it gets more difficult for a non national coach to push those buttons. If you already have a national fervour within the team, then it is no big deal.
I never thought the Australian players were fully believing of Robbie Deans belting out 'Advance Australia Fair'