$txt['mentions'] = 'Mentions'; $txt['scheduled_task_removeMentions'] = 'Remove seen mentions'; $txt['scheduled_task_desc_removeMentions'] = 'Automatically removes seen mentions older than the specified days'; Print Page - RFU North Review

Yorkshire Rugby Forum

General Rugby => Other Senior Rugby => Topic started by: avinastella on October 09, 2018, 06:17:55 PM

Title: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on October 09, 2018, 06:17:55 PM
Some of you may be aware of the following, but for those who aren't then please see below.
Now is the time to raise your concerns, objections and contributions. The fallout over the t'other side of the hill may well impact on Yorkshire. There is also the concerns within the DN leagues regarding travel, some seem to find the edge of town too much trouble.

Anyway, here's the letter i've been asked to post up. Please add your comments:

As you will be aware the English Clubs Championship (ECC) in the North West is operating, this season, on an interim basis.  This follows the withdrawal of some clubs in Lancashire from the ECC and an appeal by some clubs in Cumbria against the revised structures that were due to be implemented. Part of the appeal judgement required the RFU Competitions Department to conduct a review of Adult Male Rugby in the North prior to issuing a league structure for the 2019-20 season.

As Chairman of the Competitions Development Sub-Committee I chaired the meeting that was held in Lancaster in July and which resulted in the current, interim league structure. Subsequently I was asked to form a Working Group to carry out the review required by the appeal judgement. The first part of the review process requires that we hold a series of consultation evenings with groups across the North, the timetable for which is appended to this letter. I would like to invite your club to participate in this consultation and would ask that you nominate a maximum of two people from your club who you feel  can represent the views of the club, including the playing members, at one of these meetings.
 
? 16th October – Morpeth RFC
? 17th October – West Park Leeds RFC
? 23rd October – Preston Grasshoppers RFC
? 25th October – Winnington Park RFC
? 30th October – Kendal RFC
? 6th November – Durham City RFC
? 4th December – Morpeth RFC
? 5th December – Durham City RFC
? 6th December – West Park Leeds RFC
? 11th December - Preston Grasshoppers RFC
? 13th December – Winnington Park RFC

At the meetings we would welcome any views on a possible structure and playing calendar. We are particularly interested in :

? Whether you believe leagues etc. should be restricted to CB Boundaries or should go beyond them
? Optimal league sizes 
? The variety of fixtures you think would make a successful season (e.g. league, cup, friendly)
? The constraints of travel time against suitably competitive fixtures ? How regulated you would wish leagues etc. to be
? What a successful playing calendar looks like to your club.

We hope that the representatives who attend the meeting will have some time to consult within their clubs before attending the meeting and would be grateful if you could email Paul O’Leary with the names of those attendees and which meeting they wish to attend.

Can I thank you for your time in considering these points.  We wish the meetings to be open and frank and will welcome all ideas and views that you put forward.  I look forward to meeting you. 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on October 10, 2018, 10:32:18 AM
Well, to get this started.
My take on this is;

It's an attempt to resurrect the 12 team league structure that was voted out previously.

An attempt to establish the RFU National Cup comps that haven't yet achieved universal approval.

A forlorn attempt to retain County cup competitions long after many teams have lost interest in them.

A desperate attempt to resolve the Lancashire problem by implementing cross border (County) league structures. In simple form, post code. On that basis, West Yorkshire and North Yorks/Teeside clubs should be particularly interested in where they may end up.

It looks like the RFU have only given a one season window for the Lancs problem and that a solution will be implemented for next season.

For those with an interest in the finances of clubs, the above could have a serious impact on income.

I really don't understand how the refusal of the Cheshire/Lancs clubs travelling to the wastelands of Cumbria should become our problem. With regards to travel in the Yorks leagues it seems only the Teeside/Nth Yorks (Boro excepted) who moan. Adding extra, longer (ish) journey's to placate others who moan would be unfair.

Regarding Cup comps, many clubs have shown how they feel about them, 11 Walkovers this weekend, and this for competitions they accepted an invite for.

It would seem sitting back is not an option if we want to avoid having further changes imposed on us in an attempt to placate the West of the Pennines.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Sycamore on October 10, 2018, 08:20:02 PM
It’s an interesting one I think the attitudes of the Lancs/Cheshire of refusing to travel is a growing problem in the game in that more and more players seem to have an issue with away games. Look at the East coast you’ve got sides that won’t travel more than 10 miles inland and teams with ridiculous cancellation records.Hull Ionians stick out.

Rugby seems to me in a spot of bother that no one seems to want to acknowledge.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Gilly on October 10, 2018, 10:37:01 PM
Having played in the old North Lancs / Cumbria league as a youngster I can see why teams would rather not travel so far from around Manchester to places like Whitehaven, Workington and Barrow. It’s a long way! 3 hours each way on a coach. I loved it but it was a 12 hour commitment 5 or 6 times a season. 

It is very much like the Durham teams being added into the Yorkshire structure. As seen from cups / level transfers it causes issues. Cumbria is a separate county after all.

As a kid at Rochdale half our games were against the Halifax or Huddersfield based sides all within 30 minutes drive. Then you hit senior rugby and never play any of those sides again.

I don’t know how this can be resolved but the fact that a large number of Lancashire clubs have decided to set up on their own shows how serious the issue had become.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Ribb Exile in Lancs on October 11, 2018, 01:53:23 AM
I agree we must resist cross border level transfers to NW leagues.
Living as I do in East Lancashire (unfortunately) I have been aware for a number
of years from my contacts at Burnley and Colne & Nelson of NW clubs reluctance to travel to Cumbria.
However I can understand the RFU wanting to retain the seamless league system & think the 20
Lancashire/Cheshire clubs have been selfish in breaking away.
In our geographical position I think Ribb are vulnerable.
You may be aware Ribb were level transferred to a NW league a number of years ago.
This caused major problems, no games against Yorkshire clubs with whom we  had long standing
connections. No real affinity with clubs like Blackburn & Rochdale although we were always made welcome.
The effect was attendances down, bar takings down & player interest declined so we became unable to raise
a 3rd XV and have rarely done so since.
I must stress this is my opinion & by no means the official North Ribblesdale position.
At the moment there are too many league games leaving little margin for playing cup games & rearranging
games called off because of bad weather.
In my playing days you could expect players to be willing to turn out on a weekly basis, now there are many
distractions, lifestyle has changed, we must embrace that.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: ye olde 9 on October 11, 2018, 11:01:12 AM
Wouldn't district leagues like football and cricket work but may be on a slightly larger scale, is not the county unions not trying to hold on to their power.

For example area around me.
Calderdale district leagues 1/ 2
Bradford and Craven 1 / 2
Leeds City 1 / 2

Promotion to Yorkshire East
Or
Yorkshire West

Promotion to Yorkshire 1 then NE etc.

Northwest would be

Manchester City 1/2

Merseyside 1/2

Upper lakes

Lower lakes etc.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on October 11, 2018, 11:17:06 AM

Wouldn't district leagues like football and cricket work but may be on a slightly larger scale, is not the county unions not trying to hold on to their power.

For example area around me.
Calderdale district leagues 1/ 2
Bradford and Craven 1 / 2
Leeds City 1 / 2

Promotion to Yorkshire East
Or
Yorkshire West

Promotion to Yorkshire 1 then NE etc.

Northwest would be

Manchester City 1/2

Merseyside 1/2

Upper lakes

Lower lakes etc.
Doesn't really work in practice. Just like when they arrange county leagues by geographic location. First promotion/relegation usually buggers it up.

Link to google maps of clubs to show what i mean.
The Lancs and Teeside/Duham clubs are not sorted by level, just their location.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1tkEQbaJiNAQGG07gFZ-Yy7yqwlU&ll=53.80988832441279%2C-1.684879799999976&z=8

The cup competitions have turned into a lost cause. 11 walkovers last week. Says it all.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Thread Killer on October 11, 2018, 12:34:21 PM
All views my own etc.

Not expecting this to be universally popular, and it’s admittedly coming from the perspectives of player retention/recruitment and the lower half/two-thirds of the Leagues, but the structure of the season needs to change drastically if the slide in playing numbers is to be halted. Some imagination is required, alongside a recognition that maintaining the status quo of 14-team Leagues equates to taking the same option when something is clearly not working, a definition of insanity.

The days of most players playing every week between the start of September and early May have gone. The majority of people on this Forum and involved in running their clubs and the Game as a whole (another facet of the problem), played when this wasn’t the case and resent/can’t understand why this has changed. I’m afraid it’s time to embrace the horror. 18-30 year olds now have infinitely more distractions and demands on their weekends (including getting married & having Stag Dos during the season!) from partners, family and work.

It’s time for some radical, evolved thinking as to what Saturday Rugby needs to mean to appeal to existing players & watchers and attract new ones. The solution lies in drastically fewer league games below National League level. An unremitting diet of 26, 80-minute league games a year, with minimal season to season variation in opposition, out of the 30 weeks available is just too one-dimensional and out of date and leaves ZERO room for anything else once weather has forced rearranged fixtures.

At “Social Rugby” level, and the crucial point is where in the League structure you draw that line, 18 league games a year to give the season it’s basic structure is enough. The key to engagement lies in being creative with the balance of the year. A mixture of tours, mini-tours, friendlies, 3-way fixtures, long-lost local derbies, half-pitch tag tournaments, 10s festivals, open days to engage local communities, early kick-offs on International weekends, mixed touch tournaments, family days, yes maybe County Cups and even… whisper it, the odd week off; whatever floats your boat and gives players, wives, girlfriends, kids and families enough variety to make “Saturday afternoon down the Rugby Club” a more interesting, attractive and inclusive offer.

As I understand it, last time round, the argument against the reduction from 14-12 team leagues (Which was the RFU’s preferred choice and recommendation nationally, having spent a 6 or maybe 7 figure sum on a consultation, it was only a Yorkshire/Northern Cadre that dug their heels in and stamped their feet until the RFU capitulated) was the assertion that “we can’t afford to lose the revenue from those 2 home games.” Not my place to tell others how to run their clubs but I’d suggest that if that 2-game marginal revenue is that important, and particularly if that revenue is in envelopes going round a changing room below National League level, then you’re borderline unsustainable already.

It’s obviously not wrong, indeed it’s essential, that many clubs are upwardly mobile, and if, to this end, they want to pay players and have 26-30 League Games a Year to fund that then that’s absolutely fine. Aspirational clubs would still be able to force their way out of “Social” rugby and up the structure over a period of time if they wanted to, and could afford it. I’m speaking from the perspective of those clubs who don’t see themselves as the next Exeter, Doncaster, or even West Leeds, but want to perpetuate the playing of Rugby as a mostly social, recreational, enjoyable, amateur endeavour and provide the same to as many as possible who share that aspiration. There’s more of us than you’d think!

The crux is, where is the line below which smaller leagues might be appropriate? My feel is that its Y1 and down. Others will no doubt feel differently.

I’m also not naïve enough to think much of the above is going to be adopted quickly, if at all; but a reduction in League size in 2019-20 from 14 to 12 in Y1, and 10-team Leagues at Y2 and below would be a start.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: ye olde 9 on October 11, 2018, 01:09:07 PM
Makes a lot of sense, but parhaps that's where it comes unstuck. Look at the smaller leagues in Y4. The schedulers have already given them a week off, yet back to back in bleak mid winter!!! 10 teams so 18 games, season starts 3rd Sat Aug finishes last Sat in March that's 29 Saturday's. 2 off for Xmas, still leaves 9 free Saturday for bad weather or friendlies. I believe scheduling works best so league games in blocks of 3 then a free. County cup starts 1st week in April, rounds every weekend, finals 2nd week in May. 12 league teams in the higher leagues so better squad numbers, still have 5 free weeks so a spare in Sept, Oct, Nov, already 2 weeks off in December and a week off in Jan and Feb.

So free weekends
Blocks of 3 for momentum
A cup month, teams  giving W/O get to finish end of March to regroup.
Teams worried about losing two home games, standard club what's that equate to 200-300 gate, £1000, bar 2000, NET profit 600, so at best 1600. Minus the offset of away games coach 480-500. So cost to club 2k. Cup month good draws, good crowds due to good weather, gate 1000, bar profit 600. So status quo whilst having a better structure.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on October 11, 2018, 06:39:03 PM
I've always been a supporter of the cups...however I have now come to the conclusion of why try and harm the successful leagues (in the present day) to try and resurrect cups (which were successful in the past).

It seems that market forces have made the decision.

Clubs want to play in leagues more than cups....it seems blindingly obvious.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on October 11, 2018, 07:15:49 PM
I've always been a supporter of the cups...however I have now come to the conclusion of why try and harm the successful leagues (in the present day) to try and resurrect cups (which were successful in the past).

It seems that market forces have made the decision.

Clubs want to play in leagues more than cups....it seems blindingly obvious.

I agree. The cup argument is false. Clubs have constantly shown their lack of appetite for cup games.
Straight from the YRFU website:

Season:     Walkovers:
18-19        11 (so far)
17-18        12
16-17        9
15-16        15
14-15        13
13-14        10
12-13        15
11-12        5

Whilst these walkovers are spread across all league levels, including Nationals, a good number are from the lower leagues who already have a number of spare weeks, so the argument of them filling spare weeks with cup games is somewhat false.
Lets not forget, one club even gave a walkover in the Cup final.
Remember, cup games are by invite. Clubs agree to play, then cry off at last minute. Some are serial offenders. Some get a bye in the first round then give a walkover in the next.
How can clubs plan and survive with that?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Ribbflagman on October 11, 2018, 10:53:50 PM
To me its quite simple, if teams enter a competition they should play. Home or away. I know we at Ribb blobbed on a shield game away at Selby three years ago but that was down to genuine a horrific injury list and a decision to try and survive in the league (which we actually did). As posters on here will know we are not travel adverse as we average about 100 miles round trip per away fixture even in Y2. The last six years in Y1 it was almost 150 each away game.
I think that the walkover is a simple cop out for many clubs and should be punished more severely. The current prize of a possible game at HQ should be a more than enough of an incentive to players who actually want to play the game.
 Someone please tell me of any amateur fotball player who would not want to play for their local team at Wembley. It was a great day out for our lads at Twickers in 2004 and is still talked about by the local community. Exactly what I feel the comps were designed to do. So come on all you wannabes play the cup fixtures and do your best for your club.
 Remember its how people/teams cope with the adversity of losing that maketh men not taking the easy option of a home cup game/win.
Only my opinion and i am an old fart as many know.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: old style prop on October 12, 2018, 12:14:58 AM
In terms of the review from my perspective
number 1 aim is competitive games, either watching or playing id prefer to travel a few more miles for a season with lots of closely contested games then save a bit of petrol and time for a season with lots of one sided no benefit to anyone affairs (and i think the Yorkshire leagues, as they are, deliver that).
number 2 for me is linked to above in that i would hate to see us relax the rules around the teams a player can be registered to play for in order to increase teams in the leagues by letting higher league 2nd teams enter the league ladder and then walk through the lower leagues handing out thrashings most weeks before finding their level (worry about increased poaching of players from other local clubs and tactically switching players from 1s to 2s dependent on respective position in leagues are a concern this would cause).
number 3 personally i prefer 12 team leagues to free up a few more none league weekends, to give some lads a week off when carrying  a niggle and also prevent the regular weather inflicted fixture backlog we often get, but i know i am in the minority on here in that.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Ribb Exile in Lancs on October 12, 2018, 12:58:45 AM
To me its quite simple, if teams enter a competition they should play. Home or away. I know we at Ribb blobbed on a shield game away at Selby three years ago but that was down to genuine a horrific injury list and a decision to try and survive in the league (which we actually did). As posters on here will know we are not travel adverse as we average about 100 miles round trip per away fixture even in Y2. The last six years in Y1 it was almost 150 each away game.
I think that the walkover is a simple cop out for many clubs and should be punished more severely. The current prize of a possible game at HQ should be a more than enough of an incentive to players who actually want to play the game.
 Someone please tell me of any amateur fotball player who would not want to play for their local team at Wembley. It was a great day out for our lads at Twickers in 2004 and is still talked about by the local community. Exactly what I feel the comps were designed to do. So come on all you wannabes play the cup fixtures and do your best for your club.
 Remember its how people/teams cope with the adversity of losing that maketh men not taking the easy option of a home cup game/win.
Only my opinion and i am an old fart as many know.

I agree entirely, especially with the last sentence.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Shirt filler on October 12, 2018, 02:04:28 AM
Im a fan of cup competitions and would hate to see them go but I think its nearing the end of life for them. 

Ribbflag, the game you blobbed on Selby pretty much sums up a lot of walk-overs. Teams would rather put all their efforts into surviving/doing well in their league than have a cup run.

If sponsorship could be found for cup comps to give a financial incentive then teams may well feel like its worth giving it a go, just offering a day out at twickers clearly isnt enough of an incentive for many.

As for the league structure in yorkshire, I think the only real problem area is at the bottom end of the structure where yorkshire 4 still gets quite a few walk-over results and that is normally down to small playing squads.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on October 12, 2018, 06:18:05 AM
If there were no cup competitions then players would get their free weekends and player welfare is improved.

This is exactly why Scarborough did not enter the cup this year. We assessed the season, our resources and the need for breaks and therefore did not enter the cup.

We did not want the humiliation of give a walkover for the first time in our history. I'm sure Brid in hindsight wish they had not entered.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Novocastrian on October 20, 2018, 09:51:48 AM
All views my own etc.

Not expecting this to be universally popular, and it’s admittedly coming from the perspectives of player retention/recruitment and the lower half/two-thirds of the Leagues, but the structure of the season needs to change drastically if the slide in playing numbers is to be halted. Some imagination is required, alongside a recognition that maintaining the status quo of 14-team Leagues equates to taking the same option when something is clearly not working, a definition of insanity.

The days of most players playing every week between the start of September and early May have gone. The majority of people on this Forum and involved in running their clubs and the Game as a whole (another facet of the problem), played when this wasn’t the case and resent/can’t understand why this has changed. I’m afraid it’s time to embrace the horror. 18-30 year olds now have infinitely more distractions and demands on their weekends (including getting married & having Stag Dos during the season!) from partners, family and work.

It’s time for some radical, evolved thinking as to what Saturday Rugby needs to mean to appeal to existing players & watchers and attract new ones. The solution lies in drastically fewer league games below National League level. An unremitting diet of 26, 80-minute league games a year, with minimal season to season variation in opposition, out of the 30 weeks available is just too one-dimensional and out of date and leaves ZERO room for anything else once weather has forced rearranged fixtures.

At “Social Rugby” level, and the crucial point is where in the League structure you draw that line, 18 league games a year to give the season it’s basic structure is enough. The key to engagement lies in being creative with the balance of the year. A mixture of tours, mini-tours, friendlies, 3-way fixtures, long-lost local derbies, half-pitch tag tournaments, 10s festivals, open days to engage local communities, early kick-offs on International weekends, mixed touch tournaments, family days, yes maybe County Cups and even… whisper it, the odd week off; whatever floats your boat and gives players, wives, girlfriends, kids and families enough variety to make “Saturday afternoon down the Rugby Club” a more interesting, attractive and inclusive offer.

As I understand it, last time round, the argument against the reduction from 14-12 team leagues (Which was the RFU’s preferred choice and recommendation nationally, having spent a 6 or maybe 7 figure sum on a consultation, it was only a Yorkshire/Northern Cadre that dug their heels in and stamped their feet until the RFU capitulated) was the assertion that “we can’t afford to lose the revenue from those 2 home games.” Not my place to tell others how to run their clubs but I’d suggest that if that 2-game marginal revenue is that important, and particularly if that revenue is in envelopes going round a changing room below National League level, then you’re borderline unsustainable already.

It’s obviously not wrong, indeed it’s essential, that many clubs are upwardly mobile, and if, to this end, they want to pay players and have 26-30 League Games a Year to fund that then that’s absolutely fine. Aspirational clubs would still be able to force their way out of “Social” rugby and up the structure over a period of time if they wanted to, and could afford it. I’m speaking from the perspective of those clubs who don’t see themselves as the next Exeter, Doncaster, or even West Leeds, but want to perpetuate the playing of Rugby as a mostly social, recreational, enjoyable, amateur endeavour and provide the same to as many as possible who share that aspiration. There’s more of us than you’d think!

The crux is, where is the line below which smaller leagues might be appropriate? My feel is that its Y1 and down. Others will no doubt feel differently.

I’m also not naïve enough to think much of the above is going to be adopted quickly, if at all; but a reduction in League size in 2019-20 from 14 to 12 in Y1, and 10-team Leagues at Y2 and below would be a start.

One of the best posts I’ve ever seen on this forum.

I’ve talked about this topic many times on both this forum, the DN Forum and in person. Indeed, my dad and I spent an awful long time collating stats since the advent of league rugby to show the demise its had on most clubs in the NE. We presented our findings to Northumberland RU and i believe this has added fuel to the fire for the above meetings (I’m sure if we had more time, the findings would have been similar for the Lancashire clubs).

I really can’t be bothered with making my points over and over again, but as has been said “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results”. Since 1996 we’ve seen the introduction of H and A fixtures and the leagues have slowly grown in size to which we now have 26 league games (and 30!!! In the National Leagues. Yet the PL only has 22?)
What has been the result? (I’m going to generalise here but my hypothesis is probably correct).

The vast majority of clubs now have fewer sides.
Games below 1st XV level are regularly cried off (25% in 2012. I imagine this is higher now)
Fewer people are now playing rugby than they did 10, 15, 20 years ago.
Players can’t and don’t want to commit to 26 ‘stressful’ league Saturdays a year. 

Can we reverse this trend?
I don’t know.
Will we reverse it by continuing to do what we’re doing now?
 Absolutely not.

It might generally be okay in yorkshire. I guarantee you’re the exception. Many counties up and down the country ARE struggling - and if you guys all want to dig your heels in again like last time, you’re not seeing the bigger picture. And it’ll be to the game’s detriment.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on October 20, 2018, 10:50:52 AM
Equating the reduction in players and teams with the introduction of leagues is a null hypothesis. ALL traditional team sports have seen a reduction in playing numbers regardless of the format, the league arrangements or the frequency of cups or friendlies.

The popularity or gyms, cycling, running etc.. coupled with team sports no longer being universally taught in schools are the largest contributors.

Having less rugby matches will lead to less rugby not more players.....!!!

The answer to anyone who thinks they are playing too much rugby is to play less...seems simple to me.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on October 20, 2018, 11:05:10 AM
And with 11 clubs crying off cup matches when they accepted the invite ...how does that link to the league structure

Suggesting reduction in league games to accommodate a cup match is madness.
As BRB says. You want a week off, have one.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Red Horseman on October 20, 2018, 11:07:24 AM
Totally agree about declining numbers across the whole team sports spectrum  -  BUT only as regards male team sports. The reverse seems to be happening in women's team sports. What are they doing and how are they doing it that men could possibly learn from, if anything?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on October 20, 2018, 11:32:17 AM
Possibly because of in case of women's rugby cricket and football the starting base was near zero. Traditionally these were seen as men's sports and therefore when women began to play them, the growth rates will inevitably be rapid. 

Not sure about traditional women's team games...
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Red Horseman on October 20, 2018, 11:40:49 AM
Women's rugby, cricket and football all started in or around the 1890's, one game of football attracted a crowd of 10,000.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on October 20, 2018, 11:57:08 AM
None were played in schools or clubs in any "mass" fashion until relatively recently. Indeed even now clubs without senior women's rugby teams far outweigh those which with them. This gives the opportunity for rapid growth.

Anyhow we're dancing on the head of a pin...we both basically agree.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Novocastrian on October 20, 2018, 11:58:17 AM
A lot of this will go over your heads in regards to the clubs mentioned etc. There’s issues in Lancashire, Cumbria, Cheshire, Northumberland and Durham. There’s a reason these reviews are taking place.

REPORT TO NORTHUMBERLAND RUGBY UNION BOARD, AND COMPETITIONS COMMITTEE
How Northumberland (and Durham) rugby union clubs have fared from 30 years of league rugby

INTRODUCTION

It is perhaps fitting that this report is produced at the end of the 2017-18 season; the first bad winter for many years, and also a season in which a number of Northumberland clubs are struggling in their leagues.
This information was first collected during the 2016-17 season, but had not yet been reported upon. It is now very timely, with the potential for this report to provide a meaningful system of measurement for the Northumberland Rugby Union Strategic Plan (NRU SP), allowing comparison over time on the performance of Northumberland (and Durham) clubs in the national league pyramid. We are able to look at how 30 years of league rugby affected individual clubs, and also how the overall standing of the two counties has changed.
It should be made clear, that the views held in this report, are those of Graham and Chris Ward (both Novocastrians RFC), and do not necessarily reflect the views held by Novos as a club. We carried out the research after many, many conversations where we discussed how league rugby has affected the game in the North East on many fronts; how different fixtures are now compared to the playing of rugby both before and during the earlier years of league rugby, how fewer fixtures are played, and potentially how income and expenditure are affected by the requirements of league rugby.
We do hark back to an era – not too long ago, when club first teams had fixtures on every Saturday of the season, and where for most clubs, meaningful local friendlies took place. We make our own conclusions and recommendations to Northumberland Board and Competitions Committee.

METHODOLOGY

The inaugural league season was in 1987-88, when fixtures were played either home or away. In the pyramid of leagues that Northumberland and Durham clubs are part of, there were 12 leagues in that first season, through National 1, 2 and 3, Area North, North 1 and 2, North East 1 and 2, then D&N 1, 2, 3 and 4. The national leagues each had 12 teams; the rest of the leagues had 11 teams, with 10 in D&N3 and 8 in D&N 4. In total, there were 131 clubs in our pyramid.
There have been a number of restructures over the years, leading to frequent changes in the number of clubs in our pyramid. These changes mean that it is not straightforward in making simple comparisons over time as to how individual clubs have progressed.
Season 93-94 saw the introduction of home AND away games in the National League set-up (Nat 1- Nat 4).
1996-97, the season which saw the advent of the professional era, also brought home AND away games into the entire league structure.
We sourced most of the Rothmans Year Books covering most of the league seasons, until the start of computerised league records being held by the RFU. At 7 regular points across the last 3 decades, we plotted where each Northumberland and Durham clubs were in relation to the pyramid. Given the regular changes in structure / pyramid size, we decided that the best way to enable comparison was to allocate the actual finishing position a ratio.
For example, in a pyramid of 100, the top of the Premiership is 1/100 = 0.01, and the bottom of D&N3 is 100/100 = 1.0. A club halfway, i.e. 50/100 = 0.5.
In a pyramid of 125, the top is 1/125 = 0.008, bottom is 125/125 so still 1.0, but the team in 50th position, 50/125 = 0.4. The middle of the pyramid is now 62nd position.
Using the ratio at the 7 points in time, allows us to see where each of the clubs in the two counties are in the structure and whether they have moved up, down or stayed the same in relation to clubs in Durham and Northumberland, the North East, the North, and nationally, regardless of how many leagues there are, and how many clubs there are in each league at each point in time. The lower the ratio, the higher a club is up the pyramid.

RESTRUCTURES

Season 1990-91 saw the first reorganisation, just at National Level. This saw the top 4 tiers increase in size from 12 to 13. “Gosforth [sic] escaped relegation to Division 3 because there was none. The size of national divisions is increased for 1990-91, so Gosforth remained in Division 2” (Rothmans RU Year Book 1990-91). This was the first of many restructures which would have a knock-on effect throughout the league pyramid, where a number of teams who should have been relegated, avoided so.
This has been repeated on a number of occasions since (too many to mention), where teams have either been promoted or relegated as a direct result of changes in the pyramid, with the number of clubs in leagues increasing or decreasing, or the actual number of leagues changing. Similarly for Northumberland and Durham clubs, relegation when not expected can follow the movement of Yorkshire clubs into or out of our local D&N leagues. Most recently, at the end of season 2016-17, Blyth who had finished 3rd bottom of D&N 2 were relegated to D&N 3 as a result of Acklam moving back into our pyramid from Yorkshire, although geographically in Yorkshire. A significant number of Yorkshire clubs are, and have been in D&N leagues over the years.
These changes have affected the number of clubs in our league pyramid, hence the methodology outlined above, as we are not exactly matching like with like. Across the 7 seasons that form our analysis, our pyramid is as follows:
1987-88   131 clubs across 12 tiers
1991-92   137 clubs across 12 tiers
1996-97   143 clubs across 13 tiers
2001-02   107 clubs across 10 tiers
2006-07   116 clubs across 9 tiers
2011-12   122 clubs across 9 tiers
2016-17   123 clubs across 9 tiers

The various changes to league arrangements, have led to massive change in how club 1st XV rugby is organised, countrywide. In the inaugural season, with clubs playing each other either home OR away, clubs played a maximum of 11 league games; the majority played 10. Thirty years on, all league rugby is home AND away, and with variance of league sizes, there is now between 22 and 30 league games.


THE FINDINGS

TOP 50% OF THE PYRAMID, 1987-88
In the inaugural league season of 1987-88, Northumberland had 4 clubs in the top 50% of the pyramids; Gosforth (now Newcastle Falcons 0.168), Northern (0.313), Tynedale (0.405) and Alnwick (0.481), in that order.

Durham had 3 clubs in the top 50%; West Hartlepool (0.199), Durham City (0.29), and Hartlepool Rovers (0.42).
This point will be repeated regularly, that with the many changes to league structures, we are not comparing like with like. In that first season, there were 6 tiers above the North-East leagues, and Alnwick who finished 5th in North 2, were the lowest of the 7 D&N clubs who finished in the top 50% of the pyramid.

NORTH-EAST LEAGUES

Then came North-East 1 and 2, both of which contained 4 D&N clubs, then the local Durham and Northumberland Leagues 1-4.
Overall, there were 15 clubs from Northumberland and Durham who were in leagues above the D&N tiers; 7 from Northumberland and 8 from Durham.

DURHAM & NORTHUMBERLAND LEAGUES

Top of D&N1 that year (Blyth) were placed at 0.702 in the pyramid. In total, there were 40 clubs in the D&N leagues, of which 6 were from North Yorkshire (Acklam, Redcar, Whitby, Guisborough, Wensleydale and Richmonshire). In all leagues that season, there were 17 Northumberland clubs and 32 Durham clubs.

Whilst there are a number of individual club stories to tell, and with 7 points in time across the 30 years to look at, it is perhaps a direct comparison of where the Northumberland (and Durham clubs) finished in 2016-17, which gives the most immediate comparison of like with like.

TOP 50% OF THE PYRAMID, 2016-17

From 7 clubs in the top 50% of the pyramid in that first season, there were just 5 clubs who finished in the top half in the most recently completed season. In order, they were Newcastle Falcons (0.065), Darlington Mowden Park (0.268), Blaydon (0.309), Tynedale (0.366) and Billingham (0.488).

From Northumberland, the Falcons and Tynedale have remained stable, but Northern and Alnwick dropped out. Very interestingly for Durham, all of the previous 3 in the top 50% have dropped out, replaced by 3 clubs who have made significant strides up the leagues.

ABOVE DURHAM & NORTHUMBERLAND LEAGUES 2016-17
With restructures, there was now only 1 league between the National leagues and the D&N Leagues; North 1 East. With 5 clubs from Northumberland and Durham in this league in 2016-17, the numbers playing above the D&N league structure had now reduced from 15 (in 1987-88) to just 10. Previously 7 Northumberland clubs (1987-88) there were now 5, and previously 8 Durham clubs was also now 5.

DURHAM & NORTHUMBERLAND LEAGUES 2016-17
Top of D&N 1 in 2016-17 (Northern) were placed at 0.683 in the pyramid (0.702 in first season). As with that first year, there were still 40 clubs in the 3 D&N leagues, including 4 from North Yorkshire (Middlesbrough, Redcar, Whitby and Richmondshire). In all leagues last season, there were still 17 Northumberland clubs, but 29 Durham clubs, down from 32.


CHANGES FROM 1987-88 TO 2016-17
There are some clubs from both counties which have seen improvements in their standing in the pyramid; for some very significant. There are however, far more clubs which have seen their standing deteriorate, again for some very significantly. By using the ratio of a club’s standing in the pyramid at different points, we can show the percentage change +/- for each club.
6 Northumberland clubs have improved their standing: Falcons (10.3%), Tynedale (3.9%), Percy Park (16.1%), Medicals (8.3%), North Shields (7%) and Gosforth – who reformed in 1996-7 (21%).

 All of the other Northumberland clubs have seen their standings decrease: Northern (37%), Alnwick (11.1%), Morpeth (6.9%), Novos (15.4%), Blyth (18.4%), WB Rockliff (10.4%), Ponteland (8.7%), Ashington (14.5%), Seghill (21.1%), Wallsend (10.3%) and Prudhoe & Stocksfield (1.3%).


 In Durham, there are similar differences in standings. The most significant improvements are:
Blaydon (29.4%), DMP (51.8%), Billingham (39%) and Consett (11%).

The most significant deteriorations are: West Hartlepool (38.6%), Durham City (36.9%), Hartlepool Rovers (34.4%) and Gateshead (who also merged with North Durham - 18.2%).

There will be many and varied reasons for what has happened to each club over the 30 years. Without passing comment, it is noticeable however that where the biggest changes have happened, for many of the clubs (predominantly Durham), the spending of money in pursuit of league status has been a significant factor.

2017-18

As we write (16.4.18), the season is drawing to a (very late) close, due to the severe and prolonged winter. As with all seasons, clubs continue to move up and down the structure.

Both Newcastle Falcons and Tynedale have again had good seasons; Newcastle will have their highest finish since winning the title in 1998. Fingers crossed, Alnwick will be promoted from North 1 East; Morpeth have also had a good season in this league. In D&N 2, WB Rockliff are still in with a chance of being promoted in 2nd position, however their league season will continue until May 12th.

These are the good news stories for Northumberland. Yesterday, it was confirmed that Northern (and West Hartlepool) have been relegated from North 1 East. It looks like Percy Park need to win both their last 2 games if they are to avoid the same fate, but even this might not guarantee their status.

In the next league down (D&N1), only 4 of the 14 teams are Northumberland clubs, and currently they are all in the bottom 5 positions. Whilst Redcar (a Yorkshire club) are already relegated, a minimum of 1 Northumberland club will be relegated. Depending on what happens in North 1 East and any possible sideways moves to / from Yorkshire leagues, another Northumberland club could also drop down. Gosforth, Ponteland and Medicals are all at risk.

There will be 1 Durham club promoted from D&N1, and depending on how the play-off against Yorkshire 1 goes, potentially a second. The promoted club(s) will come from Durham City, Barnard Castle, Consett and Westoe.

Under a possible scenario of Alnwick being promoted from North 1 East, and only 1 Durham club being promoted from D&N1, then North 1 East will have only Morpeth and the Durham club as local clubs in the league; the other 12 will be from Yorkshire. That would mean that only 8 Northumberland and Durham clubs were in leagues above the D&N tiers, 4 from each county. A very sad situation. Should this occur, Alnwick’s nearest away game of 13 will be at Billingham. Morpeth too will have very difficult and expensive travel commitments. Truly, they will both be geographically challenged (we will come back to this phrase later).

There will be many different views about how to read league standings, and at what level clubs want to be playing their league rugby. What these figures show however, is that overall, since the inception of league rugby, there has been a significant erosion of the overall, relative strength of Northumberland (and Durham) clubs.

Having this information, what do we want to do with it, if anything?

HOW CLUB 1st XV (and junior teams) RUGBY HAS CHANGED
Prior to, and during the early years of league rugby, virtually all clubs would have 1st XV fixtures on every Saturday of the season. Before the introduction of leagues, matches might have been classed as ‘friendlies’ or as ‘merit table’ fixtures. Additionally, for part of this period, Northumberland County also played Senior Cup fixtures midweek. The matches that most of our clubs used to have, included many long-standing, traditional fixtures. It was common-place for clubs to play all of their fixtures on any given day, against the same club. For example, Morpeth v Novos might have 3 games on at Morpeth (1st, 3rd and 5th XV), and 3 on at Novos (2nd, 4th and 6th XV). Both clubhouses would be full for many hours after the games, with many players and supporters spending money over both home and away bars.
The tables below, show Novos’ completed 1st XV fixtures from the season before, and the first season of league rugby. Our fixture list is now incredibly different - and didn’t we do quite well back then – possibly something to do with Jim Pollock joining the police in 1986, and coming back to Novos from Gosforth!
Season 1986-87               Season 1987-88         
Seghill   44   12   W      Seghill   26   6   W
Tynedale   12   9   W      Tynedale   3   10   L
Horden   13   13   D      Northern   4   34   L
Carlisle   23   13   W      Ryton                L   6   0   W
Hartlepool   25   16   W      Stockton           L   10   9   W
Nth Durham   16   0   W   Hartlepool   27   21   W
Ripon   13   3   W      York                   L   10   4   W
Northallerton   22   7   W   Ncle UniversityL   16   12   W
Penrith   7   9   L      Beverley           L   15   13   W
Scarborough   44   3   W   Penrith   15   6   W
Winlaton   10   7   W      Barnsley           L   16   4   W
Blaydon   11   6   W      Selby                 L   6   3   W
Ryton   23   0   W      Winlaton   13   7   W
Percy Park   21   7   W      Ripon   10   6   W
Medicals   52   3   W      Darlington   7   3   W
Stockton   9   14   L      Medicals   15   13   W
Ashington   17   3   W      Ashington   13   14   L
Currie   17   10   W      Gateshead Fell   16   16   D
Morpeth   10   13   L      Morpeth   12   14   L
Westoe   12   9   W      Westoe   18   14   W
Redcar   16   4   W      Gosforth   10   9   W
Rockcliff   22   9   W      Morpeth   9   14   L
Berwick   15   11   W      Old Hymerians L   16   7   W
Durham Univ   16   12   W   Wigton   23   10   W
Gosforth   4   12   L      Percy Park   34   7   W
N/cle University   25   6   W   Durham Univ   10   4   W
Redcar   13   0   W      Horden   16   6   W
Gateshead Fell   4   15   L   Alnwick   12   20   L
Darlington   9   16   L      Westoe   13   13   D
Sunderland   9   7   W   Carlisle   15   27   L
N/cle University   19   7   W   Pocklington   L   29   7   W
Northern   10   29   L      Blaydon   16   12   W
Leodiensians   3   4   L   Pontefract     L   13   13   D
Seghill   38   11   W      Ashington   7   9   L
Mowden Park   38   13   W   H'pool Rovers   23   17   W
               Wasps II   16   32   L
               Leodiensians   52   0   W
               Seghill   22   9   W
               Mowden Park   23   6   W
               Redcar   15   9   W

For season 2017-18 for Novos, our 1st XV fixtures included 1 warm-up game, the 26 league fixtures, 3 cup dates, and 1 friendly between Christmas and New Year. 31 fixtures arranged for 37 Saturdays. It was common for there to be 38 1st XV fixtures per season, then cup matches.

As the number of league fixtures has increased, fixtures and numbers of games for most clubs has changed significantly. With rugby union being a winter sport, there is always the possibility of increasing numbers of league fixtures being postponed.  This has led to the need for a number of Saturdays after Christmas to be designated as ‘league free’ weekends; basically kept free for any re-arranged fixtures following a postponement. This has been the first winter for many years when this has actually been required in great numbers. To our knowledge, it is unusual if not rare, for any friendlies to be arranged on the league-free Saturdays.
Players’ attitudes have also changed with time. There is strong evidence that players now look for the league fixtures to come out, and then make alternative arrangements for non-league weekends, when invariably there are no 1st XV fixtures at all. This is perhaps difficult to understand for the older rugby players amongst us who wanted to play every Saturday. However given the intense nature of league rugby, it is perhaps understandable?

Example. On 24th February 2018 (originally scheduled as a league-free weekend – 6 Nations), Gosforth lost 123-0 to Westoe in a re-arranged fixture. Gosforth could only select a 1st XV squad from 17 players across the whole club; they wanted to fulfil the fixture so as not to be deducted 5 points in the league system and an increased risk of relegation to D&N2.

So far, this report has concentrated just on 1st XV fixtures and league standings. However, as most people reading this report will be only too aware, there has been considerable change (for the worse) at all levels of club rugby. In 2014, the RFU published their wide-ranging Adult Competition Review. That report will again be well known by those reading this report. Rather than going into any detail on it, we include this segment as it relates to the playing of all club rugby and significantly includes some very pertinent information on Morpeth RFC.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Novocastrian on October 20, 2018, 11:59:08 AM
Continued:

4. Findings and recommendations – league and cup rugby 2014 RFU Adult Competitions Review (ACR)
i. The landscape
4.1 By way of overview, it is apparent that the profile of club competition has changed markedly since the advent of the leagues 25 years ago – and also, more broadly, since the arrival of professionalism in 1995. The game has increased its physicality and intensity and, as a result, the attritional effect of playing has become more marked. Feedback has consistently remarked that the impact of this has been felt in a number of ways:
• Higher up the leagues, playing squads have become larger and more fluid to offset the likely loss of players to injury during the season
• Lower down the leagues:
o Better players are being lost to the attractions of higher-level rugby / the need to maintain larger squads, and the promise of material reward
o Less committed players are being lost to the risk / fear of injury, and the inability or reluctance to train harder to offset that risk
o A wider pool of players is required to field one team. The combined effect has been less rugby played, and a loss of teams within the competition structure as a whole “The number of teams run by junior clubs is, in many cases, much reduced with some clubs who used to turn out six or seven teams now running only three. Some of this is due to the economy and competition from other sport but some is due to paying players.” Brian Moore Daily Telegraph, 2 January 2012
• At all levels playing careers are shortening, with players now less likely to continue in the game beyond their late 20s than in previous years
 
These findings are true of all clubs. Again at Novos, we used to field 7 teams. Until recently we had struggled to put 3 teams out. Things are improving however as we now regularly have 4 teams playing, as well as an occasional Vets side. From knowledge, we also know that lots and lots of local clubs are struggling with overall playing numbers, and some have difficulties at times to field a second team.

Conclusions
How senior men’s rugby union is organised in this country is now completely different to how it was when league rugby was in its infancy. Top tier rugby is almost a different sport to that played by the vast majority of players. The ‘genie is out of the bottle’ for competitive rugby played in the professional era, and we cannot envisage a situation where the higher leagues change. Finances are now one of the main considerations not just for the very top teams, but also those aspiring to climb the leagues. Indeed, the RFU ACR noted comments from many clubs in the middle tiers, that more league rugby was very important to them, providing sponsorship, entrance charges and bar revenue.
This report has provided a brief but objective demonstration that for some Northumberland (and Durham) clubs, league rugby has offered the opportunity to play at a higher level through promotion. However we have also seen that for a higher proportion of clubs in both counties, our 1st XVs are now playing at a lower comparative level. Additionally, the overall number of games being played throughout clubs, whether league, merit, cups or friendlies has massively reduced.
Surely the main measure of how our clubs are doing, is the level at which our 1st XVs are playing. As we have already shown, in that first league season, there were 15 Northumberland and Durham clubs playing above the D&N league tiers. That was down to 10 in 2016-17, and could be as low as 8 next season. Even as recently as 2011-12, there were 13 of our clubs above that level (including Team Northumbria).
Whilst there will be many reasons behind the general decline, we firmly believe that clubs in Northumberland, and a good proportion of those in Durham are ‘geographically challenged’. Has our relative remoteness, and distances travelled (exacerbated by H&A fixtures) played a significant role in the reduced league standing of Northumberland (and Durham) clubs? Are our counties able to sustain more than 10 clubs playing league rugby above the D&N leagues?
We deliberately haven’t mentioned representative rugby. However both of our counties have appeared in 2 County Championship Finals in the fairly recent past. Northumberland won in 1981 and lost in 1995; Durham won in 1989 and lost in 1994. With the professional era, senior county rugby clearly doesn’t have the same attraction that it once did. What effect has there been on the ability of Northumberland and Durham to compete as the majority of our club sides have gradually slipped down the league pyramid?
We would imagine that as with Novos, for most Northumberland clubs one of the main sources of income is bar takings on match days, where home fixtures of whatever level will provide more income than away games. It is not uncommon for us at Novos to have Saturdays where all games are played away from home. For some clubs, bar income through the season is essential to them surviving the summer. Collectively, we need to be increasing the number of games being played, reversing the trend of many, many years.
To summarise OUR views, league rugby in its current format is detrimental, both to the league standing of the majority of clubs in Northumberland and Durham, and also to the overall state of our clubs and the sport in this region. Something must change to ensure the future of the sport in the far north-east of England. What exactly those changes might be, we do not know. However, as with the RFU ACR, nothing should be off the table, in order to increase participation in senior men’s rugby, both the number of active players, numbers of teams, and the number of fixtures fulfilled.  There needs to be less league rugby at the lower levels (1st XV AND below) and less travel, with increased opportunity for meaningful local friendlies / merit games; the challenge is how to achieve this.
We can take a steer from the RFU Regulation 13, specifically 13.2.4 a and b:
13.2.4 a)
(viii) at Level 7 in the North Division four leagues each comprising 14 Clubs; (D&N 1 must have 14 clubs)
(x) at Level 8 and below such number of leagues comprising such numbers of Clubs or teams as have been approved by the Committee. (D&N 2 and below, we can organise locally?)
13.2.4 b)
(iii) at Level 8 and below 1st XV, 2nd XV, 3rd XV teams etc., may, subject to Regulation 13.2.4(b)(iv) below, be permitted to play together in the leagues with the consent of the Clubs, Constituent Bodies and Divisional Organising Committees involved; (iv) teams from the same Club shall not be permitted to play together in the same league;
There are precedents in other areas of the country;
13.2.4 a)
(vii) at Level 7 in the London & South East Division and Midlands Division eight leagues each comprising 12 clubs; (presumably this was voted for by those areas, the North must have voted to keep 14?)
Solutions could perhaps include reduced league sizes at D&N tiers (2 and below), or retaining the same league sizes but playing only home or away? Based upon the information in this report, can we revisit the decision to keep leagues at 14 at level 7? What might meaningful local friendlies look like? What might merit tables look like to include most if not all club sides, of all levels?

RECOMMENDATIONS
1   For Northumberland Rugby Union Board and Competitions Committee to receive this report;
2   Through the NRU Strategic Plan, consider this report and its methodology as a practical means of measuring how our clubs perform each season, and over time;
3   NRU Board to use this information to consult with Northumberland clubs, and with Durham Rugby Union about the state of rugby union in our 2 counties, especially in respect of the reduction in clubs playing league rugby above the D&N tier;
4   Give consideration to a club summit for all clubs in Northumberland and Durham; present these findings, and seek solutions to address the future of our game;
5   As with the RFU ACR (2014), please keep everything on the table; discount nothing.

Graham Ward, Chris Ward, Novocastrians RFC (our personal views)
16.4.18
(Graham Ward will be away on holiday for the May General Committee meeting)

?
APPENDIX A      Base figures for Northumberland clubs
Club   1987-88   1991-92   1996-97   2001-02   2006-07   2011-12   2016-17   Difference
                       
Newcastle    0.168   0.124   0.091   0.056   0.078   0.098   0.065   0.103
                       
Northern   0.313   0.379   0.497   0.579   0.716   0.631   0.683   -0.37
                       
Tynedale   0.405   0.394   0.392   0.29   0.379   0.287   0.366   0.039
                       
Alnwick   0.481   0.518   0.489   0.542   0.733   0.705   0.593   -0.112

Morpeth   0.565   0.577   0.552   0.514   0.647   0.664   0.634   -0.069

Novocastrians   0.618   0.613   0.811   0.841   0.819   0.803   0.772   -0.154

Blyth   0.702   0.657   0.755   0.813   0.887   0.811   0.886   -0.184

Rockcliff   0.709   0.693   0.748   0.822   0.853   0.836   0.813   -0.104

Ponteland   0.718   0.839   0.853   0.86   0.741   0.779   0.805   -0.087

Ashington   0.725   0.701   0.636   0.617   0.862   0.795   0.87   -0.145

Seghill   0.74   0.745   0.909   0.888   0.974   0.984   0.951   -0.211

Percy Park   0.779   0.788   0.566   0.636   0.681   0.59   0.618   0.161

Wallsend   0.832   0.876   0.881   0.757   0.802   0.885   0.935   -0.103

Medicals   0.839   0.847   0.79   0.804   0.905   0.738   0.756   0.083

North Shields   0.924   0.883   0.783   0.748   0.793   0.893   0.854   0.07

Prudhoe   0.954   0.978   1         0.918   0.967   -0.013

Gosforth         0.958   0.673   0.776   0.754   0.748   0.21

Team Northumbria                  0.689     







APPENDIX A      Base figures for Durham clubs
Club   1987-88   1991-92   1996-97   2001-02   2006-07   2011-12   2016-17   Difference

West Hartlepool   0.199   0.102   0.077   0.374   0.612   0.508   0.585   -0.386

Durham City   0.29   0.358   0.546   0.626   0.664   0.639   0.659   -0.369

Hartlepool Rovers   0.42   0.423   0.608   0.654   0.655   0.721   0.764   -0.344

Gateshead   0.55   0.599   0.601   0.682   0.698   0.68   0.732   -0.182

SS Westoe   0.588   0.679   0.643   0.523   0.509   0.385   0.691   -0.103

Blaydon   0.603   0.562   0.483   0.308   0.371   0.254   0.309   0.294

Stockton   0.626   0.438   0.406   0.551   0.767   0.713   0.74   -0.114

Ryton   0.672   0.737   0.769   0.692   0.759   0.787   0.789   -0.127

Darlington   0.733   0.76   0.692   0.411   0.466   0.697   0.829   -0.096

Horden   0.763   0.708   0.587   0.608   0.672   0.73   0.724   0.039

Winlaton   0.771   0.825   0.804   0.71   0.845   0.861   0.862   -0.091

D Mowden Park   0.786   0.73   0.657   0.299   0.431   0.467   0.268   0.518

Hartlepool     0.794   0.781   0.825   0.729   0.931   0.869   0.781   0.013

Bishop Auckland   0.802   0.723   0.797   0.869   0.94   0.853   0.837   -0.035

Sunderland   0.809   0.774   0.713   0.776   0.707   0.771   0.846   -0.037

Consett   0.817   0.766   0.832   0.701   0.785   0.82   0.707   0.11

Seaham   0.824   0.81   0.923   0.972   1   0.926   0.976   -0.152

North Durham   0.847   0.832   0.839               

Hartlepool BBOB   0.855   0.942   0.944   0.963   0.948   0.975   1   -0.145

Houghton   0.863   0.891   0.93   0.738   0.871   0.943   0.943   0.08

Billingham   0.878   0.898   0.902   0.645   0.724   0.582   0.488   0.39

Seaton Carew   0.893   0.854   0.867   0.832   0.897   0.844   0.902   -0.009

Wearside   0.901   0.92   0.951   0.897           

Chester le Street   0.908   0.869   0.86   0.879   0.957   0.967   0.959   -0.051

Darlington RA   
0.916   
0.752   
0.888               

West Hartlepool TDSOB   0.931   0.818   0.664   0.81         0.96   -0.029

Washington   0.939   0.985   0.979               

South Shields   0.962   0.905   0.874   0.944   0.983   1   0.894   0.068

Barnard Castle   0.97   0.861   0.846   0.785   0.914   0.828   0.699   0.171

Jarrovians   0.985   0.949   0.972   0.916      0.959   0.984   0.001

Civil Service Durham   0.992                     

Newton Aycliffe   1   0.934   0.993   0.935      0.934   0.911   0.089

Sedgefield      0.956   0.937         0.951   0.878   0.078

Hartlepool Athletic      1   0.965   0.981   0.966         

Durham Police      0.964   0.986   1           

Shildon      0.993      0.991           

West Hartlepool Amateurs         0.907           
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on October 20, 2018, 12:09:56 PM
Summary... the current situation basically works very well for Yorkshire clubs - and therefore are happy with it.

The current situation  does not work well for  Durham or Northumberland and therefore they want to change it.

Conflict is inevitable.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on October 20, 2018, 12:23:18 PM
One of the biggest issues i read about regarding clubs up in the DN Leagues is travel. They seem to constantly moan about it.
Stockton seem to moan if they have to travel to the town boundary, let alone beyond it.

What also stands out is the lack of ethics and morals of (most) the clubs within Yorkshire but playing in the DN Leagues with regards to travel and their obligations.
It's a pretty nailed on bet that they will give a last minute walkover in the Cup Comps if drawn away. That is nothing to do with excessive matches, but simply can't be ar**d with no thought to the future implications of their actions.

Some of the DN clubs give walkovers in the National cup comps. Again, invited to play but cry off at last minute if they don't like the odds.

Remember, these cry offs are 1st team games, not weekend wobblers extra XVs.

Down in Yorks 4, comments suggest the majority (?) of the clubs would love to play more games but the current structure denies them this.

The issue over the hills and the dark lands is mainly regarding the travel to Cumbria. I have to say, understandably so for some of the clubs. So, not the number of league games.

With the evidence of the DN leagues, replacing league games with cup matches will be a pointless exercise - they don't turn up.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Red Horseman on October 20, 2018, 12:52:34 PM
I don't know how much more evidence is needed to convince someone up the food chain that cups are a complete anachronism in this day and age.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Novocastrian on October 20, 2018, 01:16:31 PM
Avina. I’ve not said National cup games is the answer.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on October 20, 2018, 09:19:35 PM
Avina. I’ve not said National cup games is the answer.
But teams in your leagues don't turn up for County Cup games.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Ribbflagman on October 21, 2018, 10:57:43 AM
If we could relocate Settle, would we ?? Definitely not. We love our surroundings and travel is part of our club culture. We have a bus every week and now actively try to get both teams to travel together as often as possible. Later this season we have a bus booked on two occasions  when both teams are playing at different  clubs but will travel together. This has been well received by the players and engenders club spirit. When you only have 3 clubs within a 16 mile radius as we have and only another 3 within a 28 mile radious ( three of them in national leagues) travel is a necessity if you want to play rugby.  The excuses  given for non fulfillment of cup fixtures is rarely genuine and often apathetic. So i urge ALL clubs to embrace away fixtures and make them a social event for the players, the vast majority of whom actually pay match fees for the privilege of playing for their local team.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Novocastrian on October 21, 2018, 01:04:50 PM
Avina. I’ve not said National cup games is the answer.
But teams in your leagues don't turn up for County Cup games.

When did I say more county cup games was the answer?

I’m not advocating that - but what I would say, is the reason the cups (in most counties) aren’t taken seriously anymore is because players don’t want to have to play more and more rugby at the end of a long hard season.

It’s also why I’d argue Senior County rugby is on its knees apart from in Cornwall, Yorkshire and Lancashire. The players don’t want to do it.

There needs to be change somewhere.

I was speaking to someone who attended the meeting at Morpeth on Tuesday. Lots of differing opinions and ideas floating around; but all were agreed that change is needed (in the NE at least). However, Cumbria are pining to join the DN leagues. I can’t see that happening.

So now you have 4 counties out of 6 in the North of England who aren’t happy (I don’t know about Cheshire - but it could be 5 from 6!). Change is inevitable
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on October 21, 2018, 01:31:12 PM
Out of interest, how many clubs attended the Morpeth meeting?

Word is, not many. On that basis, it could be argued, not many care.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: PercyR on October 21, 2018, 04:56:30 PM
Perhaps Durham and Northumberland are not inherently different to Yorkshire, just further down the track in their aversion to travel?

Stockton are mentioned on here as one of the worst travellers, but I well remember Stockton being one of Pock's 'big' games in pre-league days, and playing them home and away from 1st to 3rds in the 1970s and 80s, in 1974 I played against Stockton 1sts at Pock on Easter Saturday and got well beat with both sides being just about full strength. Another big game was Gateshead Fell who we played 1st-4ths home and away, same with Darlington.

We wouldn't our get lower sides to play a friendly now out of county unless it was a one off tour game.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on October 21, 2018, 06:25:21 PM
There really isn't an easy answer to this ....not one of the various options satisfy all the issues.

A bit like Brexit!
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Ribbflagman on October 21, 2018, 08:02:31 PM
Brexit is simple imo. Lets go and stand on our own two feet. I personally am fed up with being told what we can and cant do by a European system that stifles our go forward attitude.
 Its time Theresa stood tall and told them to?????
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Shirt filler on October 22, 2018, 04:33:42 PM
Looking at results so far this season, Only Sheffield Oaks (bottom of York 4) have given a walk-over (twice) in the league so far in all Yorkshire and D&N Leagues. I do believe on at least 1 of those occasions oaks travelled but just short of numbers so played a friendly instead. Teams seem to be travelling fine as the leagues stand. Its the cups that seem to be the issue for travelling sides.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on November 11, 2018, 10:38:39 AM

Aspull HWO Furness
Bolton HWO Aspatria
Northallerton 36 - 0 Whitley Bay Rockcliff
Old Rishworthians 24    - 33 Novocastrians
Thornensians 63 - 10 Blyth

We now have 20 walkovers in the County 'Cup' competitions.

And still the RFU make noises suggesting cup rugby is the way forward.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: nazir4 on November 11, 2018, 01:00:25 PM
Got to agree - solution to non-participation in cup competitions and teams unwilling to travel seems to be more cup games and travelling further.

Decreasing playing numbers is a massive issue. Here's an idea - scrap merit tables. No points at stake, just an opportunity for 30 odd players to run around with their mates before a few shandies with just an occasional bus trip. You can play local teams rather than anywhere in god's county and give novices a chance to get involved without the pressure of the 3rdXV dropping from 5th to 6th in a Yorkshire merit 2 east south west A.

Interested in thoughts on this?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Bren on November 11, 2018, 03:16:59 PM
Got to agree - solution to non-participation in cup competitions and teams unwilling to travel seems to be more cup games and travelling further.

Decreasing playing numbers is a massive issue. Here's an idea - scrap merit tables. No points at stake, just an opportunity for 30 odd players to run around with their mates before a few shandies with just an occasional bus trip. You can play local teams rather than anywhere in god's county and give novices a chance to get involved without the pressure of the 3rdXV dropping from 5th to 6th in a Yorkshire merit 2 east south west A.

Interested in thoughts on this?

I personally am a huge fan of the merit leagues and when I played in them I loved looking at the league table and how many points we had etc. It gave the game extra meaning.

Now I’m running Sandal Socials 4 points on a Saturday are irrelevant and that is about getting matches played.

There have been many initiatives to try and get more games played but it’s a hard thing to fix.

One of the issues is pressure from the clubs first team specifically surrounding front rows. Props and hookers can be like gold dust.

Are the cups irrelevant/had their day? I’m not sure, it would certainly be a shame if they are.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dropkicker on November 11, 2018, 06:06:19 PM
Got to agree - solution to non-participation in cup competitions and teams unwilling to travel seems to be more cup games and travelling further.

Decreasing playing numbers is a massive issue. Here's an idea - scrap merit tables. No points at stake, just an opportunity for 30 odd players to run around with their mates before a few shandies with just an occasional bus trip. You can play local teams rather than anywhere in god's county and give novices a chance to get involved without the pressure of the 3rdXV dropping from 5th to 6th in a Yorkshire merit 2 east south west A.

Interested in thoughts on this?







100% agree re scrappping merit leagues, although I have to state this is not th official view of York RUFC. Playing local teams on a friendly basis would save cost and create many local derbies and possibly create more interest for spectators. Appreciate friendly and derbys don't go " hand in glove"
Only down fall I see is it may create one side games although my memory of 20/30 years ago this wasn't the norm????
I would go as far as to say (without evidence so just an opinion) that merit leagues have been part of the reason for the demise in numbers playing rugby. Today's average rugby player is way different from years gone by. They certainly can't/won't commit to week in week out rugby 8 months of the year at merit league level. If each week is a friendly and your playing for the pure enjoyment, as when your able, your more like to get players staying interested in the game for longer, just my opinion.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Shirt filler on November 12, 2018, 12:33:03 AM
Why scrap merit leagues? Teams aren't forced to play in them. If teams don't want to be involved in them and just play localised friendlies then just do that. That doesn't need a RFU review or intervention. I know of a good handful of teams that just play socially in Yorkshire already.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on November 12, 2018, 12:57:01 PM
Has to make you laugh though - the RFU wandering round the country saying let's play less rugby!
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Sail By on December 20, 2018, 01:32:11 PM
Interesting article on Lancashire website;

http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/rfu-north-leagues-consultation-document-25467/ (http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/rfu-north-leagues-consultation-document-25467/)
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on December 20, 2018, 01:45:40 PM
Interesting article on Lancashire website;

http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/rfu-north-leagues-consultation-document-25467/ (http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/rfu-north-leagues-consultation-document-25467/)
Received it yesterday.
Earlier suspicions confirmed.

In a nutshell. When they want our opinion, they'll give it to us.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: old style prop on December 20, 2018, 05:04:44 PM
One of the things they seemed desperate to bring in and no one apart from the "big" clubs seem to want is to allow higher level teams 2nd teams to enter the leagues. I am sure they will get their way eventually those clubs will then poach players from smaller clubs for their 2nd teams to win by cricket scores leading to even more clubs folding - just can understand why the persist with that one.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: caravan boys on December 20, 2018, 05:49:35 PM
Only one way that will end big clubs get bigger and will have 3 or 4 teams and the grass roots clubs will fold .
Not sure that's expanding the game !
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Sail By on December 20, 2018, 08:19:37 PM
I was over at a Lancashire club last week and that is exactly what they are pushing for. The sticking point is the registration between both teams.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on December 20, 2018, 08:30:10 PM
I was over at a Lancashire club last week and that is exactly what they are pushing for. The sticking point is the registration between both teams.
Wasn't that popular at the Yorkshire meeting.
It does seem the Lancashire clubs have some persuasion though. God knows how. Perhaps throwing your toys out of the pram does work after aall?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on December 20, 2018, 10:37:46 PM
Never had any doubt that this wasn’t a consultation just a charade to help them get over their problem with what to do with the annexed Cumbrian clubs.
Initial thoughts are will Yorkshire and North East Club’s do a Lancashire and form their own leagues, and how can they think any changes for season 2019-20 can be revealed half way through season 2018-19 when we are all playing under the existing promotion and relegation scenario?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on December 21, 2018, 07:01:28 PM
I am strongly against 2nd teams being in the league structure. It creates clubs within clubs and would in my opinion contribute to a toxic atmosphere within a club. Example is that first team are struggling in league, loads of injury problems, 2nd team doing well in theirs and winning every week, there will be some lads who refuse to go and play for at team in a higher league as they don't want to lose. Sad but true.

I do think there needs to be flexibility around fixtures, more and more players are getting married and having stag dos's in the season as it is cheaper.

I also think the season would be better without the cups and free weekends instead.

I think you'd get much more buy in and enjoyment from clubs with an end of season tournament. Turn the Yorkshire cup/shield/trophy into sevens tournaments. All held over one weekend (bank holiday in May). League rules so can only use players registered for your club by end Feb.

Just spent half an hour thinking it through and tried to come up with various options but problems with any way you go. You won't please everyone whichever way you go.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Pristine Shorts on December 21, 2018, 07:39:39 PM
Hi, Dan and Happy Christmas !

It seems so long ago that we at Ilkley played the same opposition 1,2 3 and 4 and of course, it’s the same with all Clubs.

Personally, I’d love our A and B teams to be playing Skipton, Ribb, Keighley etc

Even Grovians !

Seriously, the number of cancelled/postponed games is ridiculous and I’m afraid it’s the travel that is mostly to blame, plus a toxic combination of the Me Now generation and softer, snowflake alternatives....
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on December 21, 2018, 08:56:33 PM
Here's a question.
With the RFU and the North  bending over backwards to accomodate the clubs in the West. Assuming the come up with a solution, how are they going to bring all the clubs that took their bat home back into the leagus.
Regulations currently state that clubs applying to join the Leagues must do so from the Bottom.

Lets see how the swerve that one.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on December 27, 2018, 11:57:45 AM
Never had any doubt that this wasn’t a consultation just a charade to help them get over their problem with what to do with the annexed Cumbrian clubs.
Initial thoughts are will Yorkshire and North East Club’s do a Lancashire and form their own leagues, and how can they think any changes for season 2019-20 can be revealed half way through season 2018-19 when we are all playing under the existing promotion and relegation scenario?
Suggestion that the RFU committee aren't fully in touch with the clubs (again)?

http://www.rolling-maul.com/revolt-in-the-north_topic16736_post414787.html#414787
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on December 27, 2018, 06:02:32 PM
Maybe it's going to be impossible for one league structure to satisfy the differing demands and requirements of clubs.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Used To Be Fast Once on December 27, 2018, 07:33:58 PM
I don't believe second teams in the league is the solution .however third teams could work  by only being allowed to register for one team with very limited movement between the two sides to avoid the lower team being filled with first team players when it suits . This is nothing new going back  5 to 10 years ago Pontefract 3rds (Pythons) Wharfedale 5ths (Rams) Harrogate 3rds (Pythons) Wakefield vets (Cougars) all had teams in Yorkshire 5. They where all separate clubs with their right afflitated to the RFU.Having played with Pontefract Pythons Yorkshire 5 and  decent 3rd team rugby where a similar standard. It would create more teams in the leagues utilising the fantastic facilities at the top Yorkshire clubs .
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Shirt filler on December 31, 2018, 03:37:25 AM
I think the 3rd team idea is better than 2nd teams as I believe its less likely to be abused in the same way but if it worked then Wharfedale and Pontefract would surely be still doing it.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Fredsbar on January 09, 2019, 01:30:23 PM
Proposed structures (3) have been sent to clubs today.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 09, 2019, 01:43:13 PM
Proposed structures (3) have been sent to clubs today.
Why have the meetings?
Fixing what wasnt broken.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Fredsbar on January 09, 2019, 01:57:45 PM
1. To agree a structure
2. Are you sure it ain’t broke?
Doing away with level transfers is a starter.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 09, 2019, 02:01:41 PM
1. To agree a structure
2. Are you sure it ain’t broke?
Doing away with level transfers is a starter.
It's the cup comps that are broke.
Even you admit as such.

L7 (at the Leeds meeting) didn't ask for 12 team leagues but still the committee try and push through their crusade for it.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 09, 2019, 03:21:58 PM
Am i right in thinking the Lancashire clubs are sticking to their guns and not rejoining the RFU leagues??
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Oldandslow on January 09, 2019, 04:20:49 PM
Am i right in thinking the Lancashire clubs are sticking to their guns and not rejoining the RFU leagues??

Spoke to a contact in Cheshire they will return as long as they get the structure they want.

Bit like the current political debate on Brexit  “it’s there deal or no deal”.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 09, 2019, 05:46:44 PM
Am i right in thinking the Lancashire clubs are sticking to their guns and not rejoining the RFU leagues??

Spoke to a contact in Cheshire they will return as long as they get the structure they want.

Bit like the current political debate on Brexit  “it’s there deal or no deal”.
The email sent out today doesn't include them so looks like they are happy with their current lot.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Rugby01 on January 09, 2019, 08:55:31 PM
Fredsbar -
Proposed structures (3) have been sent to clubs today.

Who would receive this email?

Hon Sec., Chairman, Fixture Sec???
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Fredsbar on January 09, 2019, 09:12:20 PM
To Hons Secretaries for Cheshire, Lancashire, Cumbria, Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire, North DOC, attendees of the consultation meetings and Hon Secs for all clubs in the North Leagues level 7 – 10

 
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 09, 2019, 09:20:10 PM
To Hons Secretaries for Cheshire, Lancashire, Cumbria, Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire, North DOC, attendees of the consultation meetings and Hon Secs for all clubs in the North Leagues level 7 – 10
Some of the Level 6 clubs aren't going to be happy they weren't informed.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Harry Hotspur on January 10, 2019, 10:47:44 AM
Level 6 clubs have been informed BUT only if they attended the meetings which they weren't officially notified of in the first place. Option A splits L6 from 2 to 3 leagues of 12 based on post codes. Option B the same but with 14 teams and Option 3 doesn't affect L6 just L7 and below.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 10, 2019, 11:15:28 AM
Level 6 clubs have been informed BUT only if they attended the meetings which they weren't officially notified of in the first place. Option A splits L6 from 2 to 3 leagues of 12 based on post codes. Option B the same but with 14 teams and Option 3 doesn't affect L6 just L7 and below.
There's now options D and E

But option C would affect the promotion/relegation between L6 and L7 this season for the clubs involved.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Harry Hotspur on January 10, 2019, 12:01:02 PM
Yes option C would mean relegation and promotion in the usual way, but A and B would mean no relegation from L 6 this season. I might be cynical here but I reckon the proposed A and B options with save RFU a bit in travel grants ;D
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on January 10, 2019, 01:58:36 PM
Can someone please copy and paste - NOTHING received at Scarborough

What a shower of shhhiiiiittttt
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Oldandslow on January 10, 2019, 04:12:03 PM
Can someone please copy and paste - NOTHING received at Scarborough

What a shower of shhhiiiiittttt

Well said BRB, I’m not a club official of ant club but I have a copy of all three documents. Sent to me by a friend in Cheshire. I’m reliably told the three documents are n the breakaway Lancashire leagues web site.

Only seen the documents on my phone and useless with technology so it may be quicker for you to look at the Lancashire web site.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Oldandslow on January 10, 2019, 06:07:29 PM
Looking at options D and E are they a joke!

Option E has levels 8 to 10 merged with local leagues. Will never work the Eat Yorkshire league has strong sides like Goole in the same league with Nesle and Osset will kill smaller clubs who want to play and enjoy their rugby.

I’m looking at the three documents on my phone on a train so will look later st home on laptop.

But my first impression are some are just there so they can be rejected and we end up with what the RFU want.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 10, 2019, 06:46:03 PM
To Hons Secretaries for Cheshire, Lancashire, Cumbria, Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire, North DOC, attendees of the consultation meetings and Hon Secs for all clubs in the North Leagues level 7 – 10
And that's assuming the GMS DB links worked.
It was apparent at the last meeting some/quite few club contact details were being missed by the system
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on January 10, 2019, 07:07:05 PM
Its going to be be near on impossible to satisfy such a wide range of requirements. They could change everything to please some currently unhappy clubs and end up with a legion of newly unhappy clubs!
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on January 11, 2019, 12:10:28 PM
So five options on the table - six if you include maintaining the status quo. Once they've been discussed at various meetings around the North  how will it all be decided? No sign of a transparent vote from what I can see. So now that the waters are well and truly muddied the RFU will impose what it always wanted to get out of the problem they (and we) have been handed by Lancashire. They need to be careful though as other areas may see what Lancashire have done and decide to go their own way.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on January 11, 2019, 07:01:15 PM
http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/rfu-league-north-proposed-structures-25587/

Is it just my maths or for option A are there only 13 teams in Yorkshire 2 despite it saying 14?  Maybe I need to go to bed, it has been a long week.

Whatever they choose some won't be happy.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Oldandslow on January 11, 2019, 08:36:18 PM
Dan

13 in Yorkshire 3 as well, I need a drink.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 11, 2019, 08:55:26 PM
And no explanation of what happens at end of next season with promotion and relegation.

A far bigger worry is the detail they probably hope people will overlook.
At least one of the options has teams currently in Y4 being put into the same league as teams currently in promotion contention to Y1

Yer, that'll do a brilliant job in growing the game. Madness.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on January 11, 2019, 09:59:49 PM
I think that option is to highlight why there has to be an element of travel which seems to be one of the complaints given by players for not wanting to play. It is there to make a point and no other reason other than after thought to tag it on.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 11, 2019, 10:16:28 PM
I think that option is to highlight why there has to be an element of travel which seems to be one of the complaints given by players for not wanting to play. It is there to make a point and no other reason other than after thought to tag it on.
Not what they said in November. Yes, it would be folly, but.....  ::)
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Harry Hotspur on January 15, 2019, 10:16:40 AM
It's all gone a bit quiet about the review of the leagues. With meeting coming up over the next few weeks as far as L6 is concerned who is in favour of reducing team numbers i.e. Option A or adding another league Option B so L6 goes to 3 from 2 leagues. That would mean no play offs.

Less travelling for most clubs?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 16, 2019, 12:40:00 PM
For anyone at last nights meeting interested in the 1 hour travel time 'target' being put forward. the Map below might help clarify how this clearly isn't possible for many clubs.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1tkEQbaJiNAQGG07gFZ-Yy7yqwlU&ll=54.13307106983169%2C-2.3523096000000123&z=8
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Fredsbar on January 16, 2019, 02:07:44 PM
That’s a good map.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 16, 2019, 02:28:49 PM
That’s a good map.

Took some doing, but it's been up a while now.
Hence the frustration when clubs/people suggest, all with the best intentions, geographical options without looking at the fuller picture. Day/time of travel also needs to be taken into account. Google quite accurately gives the facility to check. Saturday lunchtime is busier than many people realise.
It also shows how some of the feedback 'received' is, at best, tenuous.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: schming on January 20, 2019, 04:02:40 PM
After reading the possible league restructure options last week my thoughts are what do players want - 14  or 12 team leagues and possible cups/tours/friendlies/7s/10s as fillers and free weeks off to work/socialise etc.

It seems Y1 wants to remain at 14 (possibly due to finances) but lower leagues possibly want 12 team leagues?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on January 23, 2019, 12:23:54 PM
So what's the feedback from the meetings? Which way are the RFU trying to steer us?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 23, 2019, 01:43:51 PM
So what's the feedback from the meetings? Which way are the RFU trying to steer us?
Have a guess.
The puzzle is why they aren't including the Lancashire clubs that left. They originally claimed they had to come up with a solution for that. It would appear they have - leave them alone.

It would appear another couple of clubs indicated they may join the new ADM leagues at the Lancashire meeting last week.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on January 23, 2019, 01:51:50 PM
Not option D or E but havent a clue as to which of A, B or C they favour as they said they wanted 12 team leagues but most of those are 14. My head hurts.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 23, 2019, 02:44:34 PM
Not option D or E but havent a clue as to which of A, B or C they favour as they said they wanted 12 team leagues but most of those are 14. My head hurts.
They are certainly fixated on 12 team leagues. Unfortunately they based their assumptions on 'feedback' and statistics they can't back up, or at the very least, appear unable to do so. Many at the meeting could provide evidence that stood up to scrutiny countering the panels 'view'.

Bottom line is, they've now created discord around the division whilst seemingly ignoring the original problem.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on January 23, 2019, 06:32:59 PM
I've emailed in to ask about how promotion works for option E but no response.

To be fair I think the modern player wants 12 team leagues. It is only the clubs that want 14 or 16 for financial reasons. Clubs may have to look at other revenue opportunities to improve their income.  Particularly those with a wage bill.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 24, 2019, 12:03:36 AM
For those at last weeks meeting who were wondering about the RFU feedback, you might find some of the comments in the link below seem familiar.

http://yorkshirerugby.net/index.php?topic=8350.0
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on January 24, 2019, 05:20:09 PM
Dan on what basis do you make such a sweeping comment. I mainly get involved in level 6 and level 7 games and have yet to hear a player complain they are being asked to play too often. They do complain when they are dropped or benched. And what about those of us who look forward to watching a game on a Saturday. Do we count?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Harry Hotspur on January 25, 2019, 08:53:46 AM
That's basically the RFU stance that players want 12 team leagues and the clubs (for financial reasons want 14). The RFU used ridiculous and spurious stats from the GMS match card to try and back this up, which they couldn't certainly at the Morpeth meeting.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 25, 2019, 09:02:33 AM
That's basically the RFU stance that players want 12 team leagues and the clubs (for financial reasons want 14). The RFU used ridiculous and spurious stats from the GMS match card to try and back this up, which they couldn't certainly at the Morpeth meeting.
Oh dear, that’s at least 3 Counties/Regions they’ve failed to impress using the same tactic then.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Sail By on January 25, 2019, 09:12:49 AM
I will put it out there that I would be in favour of a 12 team league with a cup system like the Midlands. They start their level cups earlearly in the season with the winners going through to national competitions.
If unsuccessful clubs can organise local fixtures which would reinforce old local fixtures.

*This is my personal view and nothing to do with the Selby club.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on January 25, 2019, 02:46:36 PM
Dan on what basis do you make such a sweeping comment. I mainly get involved in level 6 and level 7 games and have yet to hear a player complain they are being asked to play too often. They do complain when they are dropped or benched. And what about those of us who look forward to watching a game on a Saturday. Do we count?

Davie, I make that statement having been a coach at a level 9 and 8 club for 7 years, having talked to friends/coaches involved at other level 5 to 10 clubs and those coaches I have met at various Erdpp gatherings in central Yorkshire.

It is extremely frustrating trying to put a side together when invariably nearly every weekend lads are away for various reasons. It is a largely amateur game so you cannot criticise. Having played at a variety of levels I certainly wasn't available for 26 league games every season, definitely in the 20s though. I never complained about having to play too often because, essentially, I played when I wanted which is no different to players today. The difference is I felt more committed to my team mates to make sure I was available to help the team than a few do today, not all players I hasten to add as there are many committed lads out there.  So I think your point is moot. You won't hear them complaining because they play when they want. However, my personal view is that they would be tempted to arrange certain things on free weekends if there were more of them. Therefore, be more readily available for most league and cup games.

Society is different now and like it or not sport comes way down on people's list of priorities now given how much easier and cheaper it is to travel far and wide.

I have even read an article claiming the problem with rugby playing numbers at adulthood is some schools making it compulsory. Not quite convinced by that but it is out there.

And for the spectators out there, there is plenty of stuff out there to go and do, and I am sure if players are available on a free weekend there will be games going on far and wide.

I am not claiming to be omniscient but I can honestly say that I have seen first hand the number of lads who are consistently available most weekends drop considerably over the last ten years. To do nothing in my opinion is folly and akin to shutting your eyes and hoping for the best as some clubs continue to struggle putting more than one side out.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on January 25, 2019, 03:51:46 PM
Thanks Dan
There seems little doubt then that attitudes at level 6 and 7 are different from 8 and 9 . So perhaps the RFU should do what most want and keep leagues at 14 teams for 6 and 7 and max of 12 lower down.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on January 25, 2019, 06:03:18 PM
Thanks davie, I think this is the issue, it is the clubs who have a problem with this, perhaps a player survey would represent a more informed opinion. Not sure many clubs would vote for less games because of the financial impact as stated previously. Ultimately, if we run out of players there won't be any income anyway.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: caravan boys on January 25, 2019, 06:08:26 PM
I attended the central meeting , iam glad to see that other areas could see some dodgy facts and figures directing what the RFU want.
But from a level 10 club all we want is regular fixtures without nearly a month without a fixture along with other missing weeks .once you have a gap then players wonder and often never seen again .
You carnt fit all levels in one bag that will suite all . We just want a level playing field and competitive games to make the game grow
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Harry Hotspur on January 25, 2019, 07:35:43 PM
Thanks davie, I think this is the issue, it is the clubs who have a problem with this, perhaps a player survey would represent a more informed opinion. Not sure many clubs would vote for less games because of the financial impact as stated previously. Ultimately, if we run out of players there won't be any income anyway.
But the RFU insist that there are more players playing the game now than ever before :o

We all know different, so chances of them listening to players or clubs and taking views that differ to their agenda seem unlikely IMO
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on January 25, 2019, 07:42:01 PM
I have not come across any players at level 6 who want to play fewer games. I really haven’t and I don’t think it’s anything to do with them getting match fees ! In reality very few will play all 26 games so when you can’t play because of injury, work, wife or red card someone else gets the shirt and you can’t wait to get it back. Coaches obviously want their best starting 15 on the park every game but the best will build a decent squad and do their best to keep all he players engaged.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 25, 2019, 07:56:03 PM
Thanks davie, I think this is the issue, it is the clubs who have a problem with this, perhaps a player survey would represent a more informed opinion. Not sure many clubs would vote for less games because of the financial impact as stated previously. Ultimately, if we run out of players there won't be any income anyway.
But the RFU insist that there are more players playing the game now than ever before :o

We all know different, so chances of them listening to players or clubs and taking views that differ to their agenda seem unlikely IMO
They spouted the same nonsense they've done previously.

Dan, they claimed they do extensive player surveys. The questioned was asked of the room who had ever seen/hear/been made aware of any survey. The silence was deafening.
They claim they email these surveys and if people haven't received one then the fault lies with them not having logged their email addy in GMS.
Tried the same excuse at the meeting end of November when even club secretaries were kept out of the loop.

Regarding number of games, there were quite a few at the meeting who could actually prove their players are happy to play the number of games, and do so.
The logic of their argument was shot down from the off.
Players only want to play 12-18 games.
12 team leagues to reduce number of games, the free weekend can be filled with Cup games and meaningful friendlies.

So, the argument isn't the number of games, based on their argument, it's just they've been hell bent on 12 team leagues for a number of years.

As for cup games, they themselves confirmed that nationally, clubs aren't interested anymore - including those in 12 team leagues.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: schming on January 25, 2019, 08:53:04 PM
I think I agree with Dan on this- I think the lower levels want 12 team leagues for thevreasins stated.

There's a lot of RFU bashing on here about the powers that be insisting on 12 team leagues - I just wonder why they would want to insist on it if they had no evidence? I think they are trying to be proactive and shake things up  - the game at grass roots is struggling as society changes.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 25, 2019, 08:58:56 PM
I think I agree with Dan on this- I think the lower levels want 12 team leagues for thevreasins stated.

There's a lot of RFU bashing on here about the powers that be insisting on 12 team leagues - I just wonder why they would want to insist on it if they had no evidence? I think they are trying to be proactive and shake things up  - the game at grass roots is struggling as society changes.
You forget what the main reason given for this potential change.
We were told it was to resolve the Cumbria/Lancashire issue.

That appears to have been jettisoned and the old, 12 team system resurrected. As many asked last week. Why??
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on January 25, 2019, 09:26:37 PM
They received massive grants from Sport England two years ago to increase participation.Appatently GMS has revealed that teams who use more players in first team games have more second and third team cry/offs. Less first team games equals more second and third team games which looks better to Sport England. It’s all about money.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 25, 2019, 09:35:52 PM
They received massive grants from Sport England two years ago to increase participation.Appatently GMS has revealed that teams who use more players in first team games have more second and third team cry/offs. Less first team games equals more second and third team games which looks better to Sport England. It’s all about money.
Not sure that's right. GMS doesn't monitor lower teams.

However, when they put forward the average number of players and said it was an average number of players in a clubs squad, it was clear they were making it up.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on January 25, 2019, 09:42:38 PM
That’s what they are saying is happening according to my RDO contacts. Not too difficult to check cry-offs in various second team leagues. The RFU reports numbers of teams playing a certain number of games not how many players are actually playing. They also want certain second teams to enter the league pyramid for the same reason.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 25, 2019, 09:52:28 PM
That’s what they are saying is happening according to my RDO contacts. Not too difficult to check cry-offs in various second team leagues. The RFU reports numbers of teams playing a certain number of games not how many players are actually playing. They also want certain second teams to enter the league pyramid for the same reason.
They were quizzed at length on their stats and fairy tales. A lengthy discussion was had on this very topic. They confirmed they can only look at L8 upwards. They also stated they only looked at GMS and had no knowledge of stats outside that.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: ye olde 9 on January 26, 2019, 12:24:20 AM
Is all this just not a crock of tosh? Yorkshire clubs not wanting to lose a couple of bar takes and home gates ( 3 men and a dog) Lancashire teams not wanting to travel more than an hour? Yorkshire teams run a 7s tournament or two, Lancashire teams the average commute in the UK is 57 minutes, grow a pair. The EU are laughing at the UK joke at the moment I assume the Midlands, SW rugby regions are doing the same to the North, they seem to have leagues, travel, cups sorted!!!

Suggestion anyone that's administrated the game for the last 20 years stand down, in the same way as the politicians should leave brexit to the business people.

And on a final note the good old days 11 league matches a season, home or away !!! Clubs still paid the bills.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Alf Hart on January 27, 2019, 05:12:56 PM
Old 9

The EU aren't laughing at the uK they're worried sick that we might just call their bluff .... the southern clubs giving one seconds consideration about Lancs/Yorks rugby ...  toffee old boy.. a load of old toffee... the couldn't care any less.

As for the business commentary ... let the businessmen run the job and Corbers would be posted to Venezuela in an ethnic fair trade biodegradable cardboard solar powered paper plane tomorrow and all would then be well.

If you think Im talking rubbish ... you started it!

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 27, 2019, 06:11:25 PM
Ye Olde 9

You might want to take a closer look at the Southern leagues and whats going on down there.
As for the cups, again have a closer look. Clubs have given up across the country, just the RFU have yet to notice.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on January 29, 2019, 12:33:19 PM
Hmm
Anybody bothered to check the mileage for their club on each of the options put forward?
And then checked to see how this may affect the travel expenses they are paid from the RFU?

Don't be surprised to find you mileage increases whilst the expenses paid by the RFU decreases.

Are the RFU so slippery??
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on January 29, 2019, 07:14:40 PM
I can't even follow who is being asked, who is making the decision and when will it be made.

It really is just not good enough.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 20, 2019, 12:21:29 AM
Update on the position over in the dark lands.
http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/league-applications--expansion-26123/
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on February 20, 2019, 09:26:34 AM
It would be a disgrace if this small number of clubs were allowed to influence the whole of rugby across the North. There again if the precedent has been set I suppose we could reorganise ourselves - 16 team leagues at Level 6 and 7 anyone anyone?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on February 20, 2019, 09:52:42 AM
I agree with the sentiments at the beginning of your post Davie and your possible outcome at the end...
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 22, 2019, 10:37:08 AM
One of the suggestions that was regularly raised at the recent meetings was playing league games midweek as more than a few clubs have match standard floodlights.
So, Guisborough and Middlesborough arranged to play their rearranged fixture midweek. I'm sure i read this a couple of weeks ago.

Guess what:
https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/guisborough/news/guis-v-boro-re-arranged-confirmed-saturday-23rd-fe-2388192.html

And the RFU say the clubs are inflexible and need to modernise.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 22, 2019, 08:36:05 PM
Two options have finally been released.

Seems like a lot of fannying around to achieve not a lot - as expected.
Look after Lancashire and bugger it up for everyone else.

Preferred option, as they have been repeatedly told over the last few weeks, of leave alone, not given as an option.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on February 23, 2019, 10:26:37 AM
Where are the options?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 23, 2019, 10:30:43 AM
Where are the options?
Secret society. Need to know basis.

I'll post them up when I get in shortly.
Don't focus on York's leagues alone.
Look at the impact it has on the leagues above. Also DN1 having to travel to Barrow and such like.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on February 23, 2019, 11:18:37 AM
Had them read out on the phone which is not ideal but two options on table. Looks like they’ve listened and will still have 14 team leagues at least at level 6 and 7. No mention of any daft cup competitions. Remaining
Lancashire and Cumbria clubs accommodated in new structure which makes a bit of a nonsense of their continued claim that the vast majority of players don’t want to travel for more than an hour (not proven)
Three level six leagues SE, SW and NE but no mention of how promotion/relegation to North Premier will be managed with three leagues feeding.
Overall not as bad as feared but despite assurances they do want it to start from next season which totally devalues existing league competitions
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Ripit on February 23, 2019, 11:30:33 AM
http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/proposals-for-new-north-league-structure-26173/

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 23, 2019, 11:34:38 AM
As promised. See attached.
Make sure to read page two of both options, that's where the changes are. Easily missed if reading from a phone.
Yorkshire Leagues, no real change in geography but option Y puts L8 leagues at 12 teams.

As mentioned above, the rreal damage looks to be at L6. Also DN1
Option Y looks a crock of s**t

The East Riding clubs specifically highlighted at the last meeting how ridiculous the proposed geographical split proposed was. And lo and behold, they have put it forward as one of the options.

Interestingly, they are positioning this as an either or. No mention of keeping the status quo - which seemed to be the preferred option at the meetings and around the clubs.
Also worth remembering, L6 clubs didn't get an invite to the meetings from the RFU. Just like L7 clubs and below were mysteriously dropped from the mailing list.

Don't think this is over.



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on February 23, 2019, 11:58:47 AM
Thanks for that. So at worst one down from Yorkshire 2.  Tried reading the promotion relegation for option x for those in Cumbria and gave up.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 23, 2019, 12:38:43 PM
Thanks for that. So at worst one down from Yorkshire 2.  Tried reading the promotion relegation for option x for those in Cumbria and gave up.
You fell into their trap then.

As i said, the damage is to those clubs above. Calculations so far say the mileages will increase, the exact opposite to what they claim they wanted to achieve.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on February 23, 2019, 01:07:43 PM
Personally, it doesn't seem the Yorkshire sides are effected too greatly. Not sure why people are getting their knickers into a twist.  North Eas1 teams will face greater travel but that comes with the territory as we found out at Ilkley when we went up many years ago.  I think it may mean more clubs just happy to be in Yorkshire 1 and no higher but I think there is a few of them already.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 24, 2019, 11:08:34 AM
Personally, it doesn't seem the Yorkshire sides are effected too greatly. Not sure why people are getting their knickers into a twist.  North Eas1 teams will face greater travel but that comes with the territory as we found out at Ilkley when we went up many years ago.  I think it may mean more clubs just happy to be in Yorkshire 1 and no higher but I think there is a few of them already.
Perhaps you haven't checked the journey's in google maps.
It was pointed out to you not to focus on the Yorkshire leagues. So, assuming clubs are in the Leagues to try and gain promotion, any Yorkshire club is going to get spanked on travel, as was pointed out at the meetings, if they go up to L6. Everyone knows the travel implications with going up but this is over and above that.

They banged on about player welfare and travel time - then propose the complete opposite.

Option Y is punishing the Yorkshire clubs, but sucks up to Lancashire. Remember, it was Lancashire who threw their toys out of the pram.
Nothing that panel said at either meeting supported the clubs, all they are doing is trying to implement the 2014 review. They were challenged on the statistics and data they were bandying about. And yes, we are still waiting for any evidence of it.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on February 24, 2019, 11:33:18 AM
As I said, doesn't effect the Yorkshire leagues too much. Only effects those wanting promotion into North leagues and with that comes travel anyway.  It is to be expected.  So there might be a few extra miles. Lads know at that level they will be travelling more.

Genuinely, there is no way to keep everyone happy.  RFU should just let Lancashire get on with it. If they aren't in the RFU league system then they don't get promoted into the rfu leagues.

I think option Y will get voted for. Personal opinion is that 12 team leagues and a revised cup be it tens preseason and 7s post season would be the way to go. Again, not everyone would be happy with that though.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 24, 2019, 11:39:51 AM
25 walkovers and you say cups are the way to go.
And no, it isn’t just  Yorkshire issue.

The general consensus at the meetings was to let Lancashire get on with doing their own thing.  But that was ignored in their desire to push through the 2014 review.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on February 24, 2019, 01:15:09 PM
I said revised cup, 10s or 7s at beginning and end of season.

I do pity you as you seem to enjoy trying to foster conflict where there needs to be none. Perhaps avinatetleys would be rather more appropriate as you do sound rather bitter on most of your posts.

Or perhaps you just need a sherman. I'm sure the lads at your club have got plenty of material if you need any help.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 24, 2019, 02:06:17 PM
I said revised cup, 10s or 7s at beginning and end of season.


And your evidence supporting that is?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Thread Killer on February 24, 2019, 02:21:18 PM
I said revised cup, 10s or 7s at beginning and end of season.

I do pity you as you seem to enjoy trying to foster conflict where there needs to be none. Perhaps avinatetleys would be rather more appropriate as you do sound rather bitter on most of your posts.

Or perhaps you just need a sherman. I'm sure the lads at your club have got plenty of material if you need any help.

Superb effort Dan!

Agree option Y with 12 team leagues looks like best option. Shame it's not going to apply at Y1. Also reckon it'll get support from a few clubs in Y2 as it will probably mean no relegation & multiple club promotion this year. Let's see if this gets through.. It's about fewer league games & IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH CUP COMPS!!!.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: old style prop on February 24, 2019, 03:29:46 PM
My two penneth worth as a fixture secretary and player with three decades of rugby under my belt. Main things i always want every year for the following season.
From players perspective
1. A compertive league were most team can beat the others on their day
2. Knowing as early as possible were you need to finish to be promoted/avoid relegation

From fix secs perspective
1. Knowing as early as possible which teams are in the league and the initial cup draws allocated cup weekends

Personally i don't see a drop to 12 team leagues from Y2 down having big effect on above but a move to regional leagues would have seriously put at risk the good competitive leagues we currently have. So if outcome to this is just a drop to 12 team leagues from Y2 downwards but no other changes i would be happy with that.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on February 24, 2019, 05:14:05 PM
I said revised cup, 10s or 7s at beginning and end of season.


And your evidence supporting that is?

Evidence for what? You've lost me.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on February 24, 2019, 05:33:32 PM
I said revised cup, 10s or 7s at beginning and end of season.


And your evidence supporting that is?

Evidence for what? You've lost me.

Presumably evidence that there is any interest in playing cup games. The number of walkovers in recent seasons would suggest the focus of coaches and players these days is for league rugby.



Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 24, 2019, 05:49:44 PM
I said revised cup, 10s or 7s at beginning and end of season.


And your evidence supporting that is?

Evidence for what? You've lost me.
Presumably evidence that there is any interest in playing cup games. The number of walkovers in recent seasons would suggest the focus of coaches and players these days is for league rugby.

Correct. It was flagged up at both meetings.
The puzzling thing was clubs asking for restructuring to allow for Cup comps when they'd already given a walkover, and not for the first time.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on February 25, 2019, 06:47:18 AM
It was a suggestion, not an evidence based argument.

Got to try something new.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Harry Hotspur on February 25, 2019, 04:16:18 PM
I'm surprised that the Forum isn't buzzing over this topic as it will effect every club in one way or another and looks as though it's going to be railroaded in by RFU North for next season.

Has any club voted yet?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on February 25, 2019, 04:29:56 PM
Do level 6 clubs get a vote?

If it turns out to be ridiculous then I'll happily lead a break away, I've had over 20 emails already- however I haven't had time to fully digest the implications.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 25, 2019, 04:38:07 PM
Do level 6 clubs get a vote?

If it turns out to be ridiculous then I'll happily lead a break away, I've had over 20 emails already- however I haven't had time to fully digest the implications.
I'll send you a spreadsheet when I get in
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Harry Hotspur on February 25, 2019, 04:46:54 PM
Do level 6 clubs get a vote?

If it turns out to be ridiculous then I'll happily lead a break away, I've had over 20 emails already- however I haven't had time to fully digest the implications.
As far as I know all clubs in the north from L6 and below were emailed on Friday PM via club secretaries
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 25, 2019, 06:17:35 PM
Do level 6 clubs get a vote?

If it turns out to be ridiculous then I'll happily lead a break away, I've had over 20 emails already- however I haven't had time to fully digest the implications.
As far as I know all clubs in the north from L6 and below were emailed on Friday PM via club secretaries
Yes you do.
Even without an invite.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 25, 2019, 08:49:08 PM
Do level 6 clubs get a vote?

If it turns out to be ridiculous then I'll happily lead a break away, I've had over 20 emails already- however I haven't had time to fully digest the implications.
I'll send you a spreadsheet when I get in
Email sent
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on February 26, 2019, 07:48:42 AM
Scarborough RUFC have not received anything about ANY of this.

It is an absolute disgrace and I think clubs need to make their feelings known next time there is an election.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on February 26, 2019, 09:31:07 AM
Scarborough RUFC have not received anything about ANY of this.

It is an absolute disgrace and I think clubs need to make their feelings known next time there is an election.
Begs the question of how many other L6 clubs were missed off the mailing list.
Or perhaps they assumed you were promoted already and didn’t think they needed to include you?
Wrong either way..

I trust you are contacting them about the oversight?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: davie on February 26, 2019, 09:33:33 AM
I'd get your Hon Sec to check his Spam folder first.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on February 26, 2019, 09:39:46 AM
I've contacted our Sec and told him to check everywhere.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on March 22, 2019, 06:58:18 PM
And the saga over the hill continues.

http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/porposed-lc-structure-26479/

Looks like Lancs and cheshire are wahing their hands of Cunbria yet expect the East to help them out.

Talk about picking and choosing.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Dan Nulty on March 22, 2019, 08:43:15 PM
I think it is outrageous the way they are just doing what they want without any thought to the Cumbrian clubs, nor their Eastern counterparts.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: ye olde 9 on March 22, 2019, 10:22:07 PM
Talk about ivory tower syndrome, why does the rfu just get a grip of it. Where do the referees come from, surely they stop promotion to level 6. If they want to be  an island let them be and cut the them off. This happened once before in 1895, let it happen again RL version 2. I assume any and all funding as been stopped to the region, stop cheshires aswell and divert to Cumbria, speak to the SRFU see if they can play north bound to the borders. Gun crime in NZ they ban guns 4 days, we leave Europe farce 3 years on, Enlgish rfu have a problem lets be English about it and esrom about and get nothing done, god fore bid we upset someone.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on March 22, 2019, 10:34:16 PM
Participating in the ECC (RFU Leagues) is not compulsory. As long as a club meets all the requirements of RFU Membership they are entitled to all/any benefits.
Look at clubs who only play in the Merit Leagues, University sides even. Are they to be denied RFU benefits?

What isn't on is throwing your toys out of the pram then saying you'll only come back if everything meets your requirements and if it doesn't saying f**k the Cumbrians let the NE clubs look after them.

The problem was the panel saw the opportunity to try and implement their last failed attempt at restructuring and dragged all the Northern clubs into it whilst rolling over to Lancashire.
Cheshire and Lancashire created a mess, the panel escalated it into a complete clusterf***.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Oldandslow on March 23, 2019, 07:15:52 AM
I think it is outrageous the way they are just doing what they want without any thought to the Cumbrian clubs, nor their Eastern counterparts.

They have lost all faith in the Cumbrian clubs. The Cumbrian have for years been allowed to break the rules with impunity.

Most recently last season when St Benedicts abandoned their final league fixtures, which effected relegation of Lancashire clubs. Then this season St Benedicts just reappear in Cumbria division one as though nothing has happened.

You reap what you sow.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: WestoftheHill on March 23, 2019, 08:27:09 AM
As my User name alludes I’m from t’other side of the hill and have some direct interest and to be fair more knowledge of the situation than some of the posters on here.
Full disclosure I’m a Lancastrian (I’ll wait whilst you go and get the Tar & Feathers), I’m also the Competition Secretary for the Lancashire County RU Leagues and Director of Rugby Development for Lancashire among other roles within our wonderful game.

I know both Jim Chapman and Ted Atkinson extremely well due to my involvement in Age Grade rugby over the years and despite both Gentleman being from the “wrong” side of the Pennines I can state that both of them have integrity and good standing within the game  that hopefully sometime in the future I can emulate. To say I’m little disappointed with some of the comments on this forum is an understatement.

“I wanna tell you a story.....”

Firstly, like Jim I was handed a possible “poisoned chalice” last year when I was asked by the County (the Red Rose one, current County Champions etc.) to organise the “breakaway” Lancashire League and I did so with some trepidation but bagfuls of determination. As we began to get organised we dodged the bucket loads of “hope you fail”, “pointless competition”, “over by Xmas” mud that was slung our way by all and sundry from both inside and outside of Lancashire and like any good story we probably need to go back to the  beginning for some perspective.

The actual reason why the original  19 Lancashire Clubs resigned from the RFU Leagues was not some whim, not some “toys out the pram” issue it was the culmination of SEVEN years of repeated requests to look at the issue of long distance travel which was swept under the Committee room table at the North DOC every time it was brought up by the Lancashire Reps all the other County Reps (Yorkshire included) vetoed any discussion. Some of our Clubs where finding it increasingly hard to turn sides out for trips into Cumbria that lasted in some cases from 10am in the morning to 9pm at night. Unlike our mainly rural Cumbria friends the list of other things to do on a Friday/Saturday in a major metropolitan area kept increasing year on year and player bases started to shrink and shrink, pretty sure the same goes for some  Clubs in the major metropolitan areas of Yorkshire.

So a cluster of clubs decided enough was enough and they would form their own competition assisted by the County in its formation as like Cumbria we were looking out for our Clubs interests, not exactly radical, given that in the North West we already had the Intermediate Leagues and the North East had the Candy League albeit for lower XVs in the main. The point I’m trying to make is that whilst others blame those Clubs the actual reason for the review is the fact that Cumbria (and Cheshire) didn’t like what the North DOC came up with after the Lancashire Clubs went their own way. Appeals were lodged and a compromise setup came out of the meeting at the Holiday Inn, Lancaster, the RFU Competitions Department decided to take the North DOC mandate away on a temporary basis  and as Jim Chapman alluded to this was only ever a one year thing and the reason why the review and the Competition Sub-committee got underway and where it has led us to now!

Now it’s fair to say that the conspiracy theorists among us are citing not being informed of proposals, missing invites to meetings and “promised” alternative options by “whoever” as part of some Machiavellian plot. I will say we are crediting “whoever” they are way too much. I would offer the suggestion that certainly a good part of the issue is with the Clubs themselves.  What do I mean it’s the Clubs fault? Well, to put it simply GIGO (I work in the IT Industry so I’ve seen my far share of Garbage In, Garbage Out over the years). The RFU Game Management System (GMS) is a significant investment that the powers that be in HQ hope and believe will help them, CBs and Clubs run the game more efficiently....... and in some cases I believe it will. However as in a case with a Club in Lancashire who claimed they hadn’t received emails, we confirmed they had gone to the Secretary on GMS, ”Ah he’s no longer Secretary.”  So did he forward the emails to the correct person then.....”No he’s changed his email address...” ok, it was on the County Website and Social Media, “We don’t really look at the Website...”

Back to GIGO, if your Club data on GMS isn’t up to date or correct then that may well be a reason why some Clubs have been out of the loop on this issue. I can’t stress enough how important it is to get GMS Data correct especially when next year International Ticket Allocation numbers to Clubs will be based on that data being up to date along with all 15 aside fixture data for ALL sides at your Club!

Again there is a view that the “RFU” are making things up when it comes to some of the figures that have been published about playing numbers. One of the key things I wanted to implement from the start of the Lancashire County RU Leagues was the use of Electronic Match Cards. Thank fully the Clubs agreed and Player Registration and eMatch Cards are in full use. Now one thing I noticed from seeing these match cards where that Clubs in LCRUL were using pretty low numbers of 1st XV players. This was confirmed at the meeting with the Sub-Committee back in November at Preston as they had the same data. The question was why? Well a sample of the LCRUL Clubs all came back with the same two reasons, local games (no travel time over 45 mins) and smaller league size meant players want to play in the available games. This had a bonus knock on effect that some Clubs 2nd and 3rd XV had better numbers as they didn’t have players being nicked by the 1st XV on a Saturday. Yes some Clubs had higher turnovers but in comparison to past seasons it was definitely a lower average and a clear downward trend in player unavailability. That’s why GMS data is for me quite a reliable source.

League sizes are important, we currently have 2 x 10 Leagues, not ideal we’ve agreed that 12 Team Leagues are a better fit. Having the flexibility to have “catch up/rest/stag do/tour weeks is an absolute must, we initiated TaB (Take a Break) to allow Clubs to postpone a scheduled Fixture in season that had unfortunately landed on a date that would be an issue. So long as the Clubs informed the League and their opponents 4 weeks in advance we could easily reschedule with a lot of free dates in March and April. Now back in August at our League Launch some of the Clubs where worried that the season for must would finish on the 23rd March  (i.e Today) unless they were involved in our League Cup Comp that has its Semi-Finals and Finals in April. Well a couple of weeks of bad weather and TaBs being used have seen the League programme stretch in to April especially in Division 1, Clubs have also taken the opportunity to play “friendlies” like the good old days on free weekends but the appetite for some of these games is less than healthy. In my own opinion 12 Team Leagues are more suited to the current state of rugby at Level 7 down however I accept that some will feel 14 Team Leagues are a must, maybe we should compromise at 13?

So when Cheshire asked us to meet them, they proffered the idea of a combined Lancashire & Cheshire  League structure for all Level 7 and down  Clubs in the 2 counties, that was done and proposed and has been sent to both Jim Chapman and the North DOC, will it get any traction? Who knows lot of water to go under the bridge yet. Neither County has clubs willing to travel North, Lancs did have (at the last Lancs Clubs meeting clubs were asked to volunteer to go North, no takers) indeed we use to have a few keen to keep the link with Cumbria and as someone who spent a good deal of my 1st XV playing career in the North Lancs/Cumbria League I can say I met some lovely people at some great Clubs up there however this is 2019 and young players don’t want to spend best part of 12 hours a day for a game of rugby or indeed any other sport. I’ve said elsewhere that Level 7 down rugby should be about being as amateur as you can, yard of ale, card schools etc. So expecting young men to commit to a longer day than most professional sportsmen do is just a bit too much of an ask.

Cumbria being left out of the North West League structure (i.e playing other CBs)  is sad but inevitable and I doubt even there is appetite for Clubs closer to Cumbria but with a Hill Range in the way to travel from the East. Local competition as we have in the LCRUL has proven to be a very successful enterprise so much so LCRUL has had applications from other Clubs to join next season, LCRUL Clubs are happy to continue with their competition however they are also happy to come back into the fold in a League structure that doesn’t cripple them with travel costs (RFU Travel funding is being cut) and loss of the most vital resource, players.

So I find some posts on here a bit bizarre as you have people complaining about the League system needs changing to those defending the current setup, to those denouncing anything that happens on the West as in this case whilst still shouting “Don’t ask us about changing anything in the East....” each to their own.

In summary whether you endorsed X or Y or Status Quo there is still a long way to go before you can start planning for next season.

Tar & Feather away.



Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on March 23, 2019, 08:27:32 AM
I think it is outrageous the way they are just doing what they want without any thought to the Cumbrian clubs, nor their Eastern counterparts.

They have lost all faith in the Cumbrian clubs. The Cumbrian have for years been allowed to break the rules with impunity.

Most recently last season when St Benedicts abandoned their final league fixtures, which effected relegation of Lancashire clubs. Then this season St Benedicts just reappear in Cumbria division one as though nothing has happened.

You reap what you sow.
I read an article last season where the RFU ‘sanctioned’ St Benedict’s actions.
Main reason was the state of the pitch. They were having a new pitch laid and their existing pitch was almost permanently waterlogged and unplayable.
As they had already lost so many games and were already relegated and no chance of catching up their backlog of fixture, they were encouraged to drop out.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Novocastrian on March 23, 2019, 09:23:23 AM
I know it’s an unpopular view on here.

I for one think that what Lancs has done is terrific and hopefully it’ll see change for the better in a few years.

Option X and Y will only be a stop gap until a better scenario is established.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on March 23, 2019, 09:23:38 AM

Now it’s fair to say that the conspiracy theorists among us are citing not being informed of proposals, missing invites to meetings and “promised” alternative options by “whoever” as part of some Machiavellian plot. I will say we are crediting “whoever” they are way too much. I would offer the suggestion that certainly a good part of the issue is with the Clubs themselves.  What do I mean it’s the Clubs fault? Well, to put it simply GIGO (I work in the IT Industry so I’ve seen my far share of Garbage In, Garbage Out over the years). The RFU Game Management System (GMS) is a significant investment that the powers that be in HQ hope and believe will help them, CBs and Clubs run the game more efficiently....... and in some cases I believe it will. However as in a case with a Club in Lancashire who claimed they hadn’t received emails, we confirmed they had gone to the Secretary on GMS, ”Ah he’s no longer Secretary.”  So did he forward the emails to the correct person then.....”No he’s changed his email address...” ok, it was on the County Website and Social Media, “We don’t really look at the Website...”

Except we have members of the NOC/YRFU confirming L6 were NOT included in any official communicatiion.
We also have clubs who did NOT receive any communication confirming their GMS contact details are correct and upto date. This would suggest no conspiracy theory that the GMS is flawed - as seems to be a common concern. Do you not find it odd that the clubs not in receipt of communication of potential changes receive all other emails from the RFU?
We then get the conflict arising from Jim and the panel telling different regions different things, Jims letter to the YRFU/clubs effectively confirming this.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Camp Freddie on March 23, 2019, 11:15:08 AM
Sorry ASS but

"We also have clubs who did NOT receive any communication confirming their GMS contact details are correct and upto date."

If their contact details were'nt correct they would'nt receive an email asking if they were.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on March 23, 2019, 11:25:08 AM
Sorry ASS but

"We also have clubs who did NOT receive any communication confirming their GMS contact details are correct and upto date."

If their contact details were'nt correct they would'nt receive an email asking if they were.
???
Having just got in and re read, punctuation and the odd word makes all the difference.

At the meetings, clubs confirmed  their details were correct and on the system. They receive all other communications but non for the meetings. They were made aware of the meetings through this forum and talking to other clubs.

At both meetings, when this issue was raised, Jim blamed the clubs and yet we have confirmation clubs weren't on the email list.
A well respected official  flagged up concerns about the issue of some clubs other than L6 also missing from the list and asked if the letter could be placed on the forum, hence this thread.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: Oldandslow on March 23, 2019, 11:32:17 AM
I think it is outrageous the way they are just doing what they want without any thought to the Cumbrian clubs, nor their Eastern counterparts.

They have lost all faith in the Cumbrian clubs. The Cumbrian have for years been allowed to break the rules with impunity.

Most recently last season when St Benedicts abandoned their final league fixtures, which effected relegation of Lancashire clubs. Then this season St Benedicts just reappear in Cumbria division one as though nothing has happened.

You reap what you sow.
I read an article last season where the RFU ‘sanctioned’ St Benedict’s actions.
Main reason was the state of the pitch. They were having a new pitch laid and their existing pitch was almost permanently waterlogged and unplayable.
As they had already lost so many games and were already relegated and no chance of catching up their backlog of fixture, they were encouraged to drop out.

Dan

True they had pitch problems but RFU North simply caved in when they said they were not going to complete their fixtures.

Think you will find most of their remaining fixtures were away only one at home. They also had access to a all weather pitch in Whitehaven which they could have used.

The problem with removing all their results from the league was it changed who got relegated.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on March 23, 2019, 12:12:51 PM

Dan

True they had pitch problems but RFU North simply caved in when they said they were not going to complete their fixtures.

Think you will find most of their remaining fixtures were away only one at home. They also had access to a all weather pitch in Whitehaven which they could have used.

The problem with removing all their results from the league was it changed who got relegated.
Not saying they were right in what they did. It was just an article i read after someone mentioned Benedicts had 'disappeared' from the Leagues.

There really does seem to be differing rules and standards being applied across the various leagues.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: backrowbandit on March 24, 2019, 06:28:35 PM
As my User name alludes I’m from t’other side of the hill and have some direct interest and to be fair more knowledge of the situation than some of the posters on here.
Full disclosure I’m a Lancastrian (I’ll wait whilst you go and get the Tar & Feathers), I’m also the Competition Secretary for the Lancashire County RU Leagues and Director of Rugby Development for Lancashire among other roles within our wonderful game.

I know both Jim Chapman and Ted Atkinson extremely well due to my involvement in Age Grade rugby over the years and despite both Gentleman being from the “wrong” side of the Pennines I can state that both of them have integrity and good standing within the game  that hopefully sometime in the future I can emulate. To say I’m little disappointed with some of the comments on this forum is an understatement.

“I wanna tell you a story.....”

Firstly, like Jim I was handed a possible “poisoned chalice” last year when I was asked by the County (the Red Rose one, current County Champions etc.) to organise the “breakaway” Lancashire League and I did so with some trepidation but bagfuls of determination. As we began to get organised we dodged the bucket loads of “hope you fail”, “pointless competition”, “over by Xmas” mud that was slung our way by all and sundry from both inside and outside of Lancashire and like any good story we probably need to go back to the  beginning for some perspective.

The actual reason why the original  19 Lancashire Clubs resigned from the RFU Leagues was not some whim, not some “toys out the pram” issue it was the culmination of SEVEN years of repeated requests to look at the issue of long distance travel which was swept under the Committee room table at the North DOC every time it was brought up by the Lancashire Reps all the other County Reps (Yorkshire included) vetoed any discussion. Some of our Clubs where finding it increasingly hard to turn sides out for trips into Cumbria that lasted in some cases from 10am in the morning to 9pm at night. Unlike our mainly rural Cumbria friends the list of other things to do on a Friday/Saturday in a major metropolitan area kept increasing year on year and player bases started to shrink and shrink, pretty sure the same goes for some  Clubs in the major metropolitan areas of Yorkshire.

So a cluster of clubs decided enough was enough and they would form their own competition assisted by the County in its formation as like Cumbria we were looking out for our Clubs interests, not exactly radical, given that in the North West we already had the Intermediate Leagues and the North East had the Candy League albeit for lower XVs in the main. The point I’m trying to make is that whilst others blame those Clubs the actual reason for the review is the fact that Cumbria (and Cheshire) didn’t like what the North DOC came up with after the Lancashire Clubs went their own way. Appeals were lodged and a compromise setup came out of the meeting at the Holiday Inn, Lancaster, the RFU Competitions Department decided to take the North DOC mandate away on a temporary basis  and as Jim Chapman alluded to this was only ever a one year thing and the reason why the review and the Competition Sub-committee got underway and where it has led us to now!

Now it’s fair to say that the conspiracy theorists among us are citing not being informed of proposals, missing invites to meetings and “promised” alternative options by “whoever” as part of some Machiavellian plot. I will say we are crediting “whoever” they are way too much. I would offer the suggestion that certainly a good part of the issue is with the Clubs themselves.  What do I mean it’s the Clubs fault? Well, to put it simply GIGO (I work in the IT Industry so I’ve seen my far share of Garbage In, Garbage Out over the years). The RFU Game Management System (GMS) is a significant investment that the powers that be in HQ hope and believe will help them, CBs and Clubs run the game more efficiently....... and in some cases I believe it will. However as in a case with a Club in Lancashire who claimed they hadn’t received emails, we confirmed they had gone to the Secretary on GMS, ”Ah he’s no longer Secretary.”  So did he forward the emails to the correct person then.....”No he’s changed his email address...” ok, it was on the County Website and Social Media, “We don’t really look at the Website...”

Back to GIGO, if your Club data on GMS isn’t up to date or correct then that may well be a reason why some Clubs have been out of the loop on this issue. I can’t stress enough how important it is to get GMS Data correct especially when next year International Ticket Allocation numbers to Clubs will be based on that data being up to date along with all 15 aside fixture data for ALL sides at your Club!

Again there is a view that the “RFU” are making things up when it comes to some of the figures that have been published about playing numbers. One of the key things I wanted to implement from the start of the Lancashire County RU Leagues was the use of Electronic Match Cards. Thank fully the Clubs agreed and Player Registration and eMatch Cards are in full use. Now one thing I noticed from seeing these match cards where that Clubs in LCRUL were using pretty low numbers of 1st XV players. This was confirmed at the meeting with the Sub-Committee back in November at Preston as they had the same data. The question was why? Well a sample of the LCRUL Clubs all came back with the same two reasons, local games (no travel time over 45 mins) and smaller league size meant players want to play in the available games. This had a bonus knock on effect that some Clubs 2nd and 3rd XV had better numbers as they didn’t have players being nicked by the 1st XV on a Saturday. Yes some Clubs had higher turnovers but in comparison to past seasons it was definitely a lower average and a clear downward trend in player unavailability. That’s why GMS data is for me quite a reliable source.

League sizes are important, we currently have 2 x 10 Leagues, not ideal we’ve agreed that 12 Team Leagues are a better fit. Having the flexibility to have “catch up/rest/stag do/tour weeks is an absolute must, we initiated TaB (Take a Break) to allow Clubs to postpone a scheduled Fixture in season that had unfortunately landed on a date that would be an issue. So long as the Clubs informed the League and their opponents 4 weeks in advance we could easily reschedule with a lot of free dates in March and April. Now back in August at our League Launch some of the Clubs where worried that the season for must would finish on the 23rd March  (i.e Today) unless they were involved in our League Cup Comp that has its Semi-Finals and Finals in April. Well a couple of weeks of bad weather and TaBs being used have seen the League programme stretch in to April especially in Division 1, Clubs have also taken the opportunity to play “friendlies” like the good old days on free weekends but the appetite for some of these games is less than healthy. In my own opinion 12 Team Leagues are more suited to the current state of rugby at Level 7 down however I accept that some will feel 14 Team Leagues are a must, maybe we should compromise at 13?

So when Cheshire asked us to meet them, they proffered the idea of a combined Lancashire & Cheshire  League structure for all Level 7 and down  Clubs in the 2 counties, that was done and proposed and has been sent to both Jim Chapman and the North DOC, will it get any traction? Who knows lot of water to go under the bridge yet. Neither County has clubs willing to travel North, Lancs did have (at the last Lancs Clubs meeting clubs were asked to volunteer to go North, no takers) indeed we use to have a few keen to keep the link with Cumbria and as someone who spent a good deal of my 1st XV playing career in the North Lancs/Cumbria League I can say I met some lovely people at some great Clubs up there however this is 2019 and young players don’t want to spend best part of 12 hours a day for a game of rugby or indeed any other sport. I’ve said elsewhere that Level 7 down rugby should be about being as amateur as you can, yard of ale, card schools etc. So expecting young men to commit to a longer day than most professional sportsmen do is just a bit too much of an ask.

Cumbria being left out of the North West League structure (i.e playing other CBs)  is sad but inevitable and I doubt even there is appetite for Clubs closer to Cumbria but with a Hill Range in the way to travel from the East. Local competition as we have in the LCRUL has proven to be a very successful enterprise so much so LCRUL has had applications from other Clubs to join next season, LCRUL Clubs are happy to continue with their competition however they are also happy to come back into the fold in a League structure that doesn’t cripple them with travel costs (RFU Travel funding is being cut) and loss of the most vital resource, players.

So I find some posts on here a bit bizarre as you have people complaining about the League system needs changing to those defending the current setup, to those denouncing anything that happens on the West as in this case whilst still shouting “Don’t ask us about changing anything in the East....” each to their own.

In summary whether you endorsed X or Y or Status Quo there is still a long way to go before you can start planning for next season.

Tar & Feather away.

Thanks for joining and posting.

1) you have just looked out for what is best for your clubs - why do you find it so offensive that others want to do the same.

2) I can categorically confirm that Scarborough have received NO communication about this process. And I can assure you my friend that with more staff than most clubs in the UK and there is nothing wrong with our data governance. I don't think you should judge Yorkshire clubs with the same lack of professionalism as afflict Lancashire clubs.

3) In your post you say 10 teams is too few and 14 is too many. Are you really saying that your counties Hissie fit is based on wanting 4 less matches a season. Really???

However I appreciate you having the courage and dignity to publicly state your case and position - sadly you have shown qualities which our two representatives may lack. Wanting to be everyone's friend and sitting on the fence is not an admirable quality - so come on Yorkshire reps.

Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: ye olde 9 on March 31, 2019, 07:29:56 PM
Chaps got bored of this so a little out of loop. However yesterday was told option X is happening next year?? Is that correct,  info from two chair persons at two clubs, as letter recieved?
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on March 31, 2019, 08:00:46 PM
Chaps got bored of this so a little out of loop. However yesterday was told option X is happening next year?? Is that correct,  info from two chair persons at two clubs, as letter recieved?
Correct. Recommendation for start of season 2019/20
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: vanlock on April 05, 2019, 07:45:29 AM
Can you share option X for us lowly players who haven’t been involved in any of this so we may have a clue as to what the f*ck is going on.
Title: Re: RFU North Review
Post by: avinastella on April 05, 2019, 08:05:33 AM
Can you share option X for us lowly players who haven’t been involved in any of this so we may have a clue as to what the f*ck is going on.
Surprised your club haven't discussed it with you all.
http://lancashirerfu.pitchero.com/news/proposals-for-new-north-league-structure-26173/