Regular readers of Inside the scrum might have picked up that I am not a fan of the RFU and the way they run the game. To celebrate my 20th article for LastWordOnSports.com I have decided to look into the club vs country farce that exists within the English game, what it actually entails, why it was brought into place and why other coaches walked away from the Head Coach job, before it was given to Stuart Lancaster. Now before I begin, I rate Lancaster very highly and this article is not meant as a dig at him, more at his paymasters who have managed to create a situation where the Head Coach is doing the job with one hand tied behind his back.
The EPS as it is known has been around for quite some time, and it was originally brought in to manage the club vs country row that was spilling over during Clive Woodward’s tenure. So what happened?
Well in 1995 the IRB announced that the game was to become professional with immediate effect. At the time the RFU can be accused of standing around watching as while millionaires bought clubs and put the leading performers on big contracts. Significantly in the Southern Hemisphere the exact opposite happened. This is an important thing to note as I think it has significant bearings on the successes and failures of England and English clubs today.
By allowing these people to come into the game and buy up players, the RFU instantly lost control of its biggest bargaining chip and has since been trying to play catch up ever since. This meant that the clubs as the players paymasters were entitled to do what they wanted with their players and were able to hold the RFU over a barrel, over and over again. Top players are earning top salaries but this single action has been detrimental to the players health and the length of their careers because they are constantly being over played to meet the demands of their clubs aspirations.
Clive Woodward stepped down from the job of England Head Coach within a year of winning the World Cup and in his parting shot he declared that the situation prevented him from having the level of access to the players that he felt he needed to build for the next World Cup. Quoted here “I wanted more from the union – more training days with the players, more influence over the way they were treated – and ended up with less.”
The article on this link here gives a really good insight to the situation just 10 years later and highlights just how bad the situation had become in 2005.
Now whilst I agree with Brian Kennedy’s sentiments, as an owner of a club, the reality is he was over exaggerating the issue to give his point meaning. Look across the Irish Sea and you will see a centrally contracted country making the situation work for both clubs and country. A player like Brian O’Driscoll would not have survived from his injuries as long as he has had he been playing in England because he would probably have been made to play twice the amount of games. This point is also significant because the row currently erupting over the ERC competition actually criticises the Irish system because the top Irish clubs rest their players for the RaboDirect League games and then have them fresh for the ERC Cup competitions. This point has been highlighted as one of the key contributing success factors behind Irish clubs Munster and Leinster’s dominance in the Heineken Cup.
Yes these men were and should be allowed to recoup the money they invested into the sport, but the reality is that they all did so at a time when rugby wasn’t commercially successful at club level and some would argue that it still isn’t. So their interests have been very selfish as the look to stem the tide of money leaving from their pockets.
And then the RFU then gave away their final bargaining chips in 2007 and here in this link is the terms of the agreement.
1. The creation of an EPS system that states the following:
The Agreement provides for the creation of 3 Elite Player Squads (EPS); Senior, Saxons and U20 each of 32 players. An Elite Player Management Programme will be set at the beginning of each season for each Senior EPS player by the Elite Rugby Director and the England Head Coach following discussion and consultation with the club Director of Rugby. The Annual Player Programme for each Saxons EPS player will be discussed and agreed between the RFU Elite Rugby Director and each club Director of Rugby. The Annual Player Programme for each U20 EPS player will be drawn up by the club Academy Manager for the approval of the RFU Director of the National Academy. PRL and each of its clubs will be responsible for ensuring full implementation of the Elite Player Management Programmes. The England team coaches and RFU National Academy coaches will have access to and regular contact with all Senior EPS players to provide and deliver programme support in respect of the individual Elite Player Management Programmes.
This means that the RFU and England coaches have to appoint their squad of players for the season at the start of the season, thus preventing form to be a consideration for anyone who has the job. And this has been a bane of almost every England Head Coach since.
2. The release of players to train and prepare with England:
To improve the preparation for England matches, all Senior EPS players will be released 13 or 14 days before the start of the autumn internationals and RBS 6 Nations and for the duration of both international windows. There will also be a minimum of 2 weeks of preparation for the Senior EPS players prior to each summer tour on which England will take their strongest available squad.
And there seems to be a contradiction with this agreement as the Premiership Final is being played 7 days before the first England test in the summer tour down top New Zealand. As best I understand it the clubs have said that those players in clubs that are in the final will not be given the requisite 14 days but will get on the plane the day after and then travel, meaning that not only are they not being given to recover properly after that match but they then have a long 24-hour flight to join up with the England team after. Now surely somebody in the RFU and PRL should have seen this coming and made efforts to change this for the better. But then it would affect point 3
3. 11 week rest period for all EPS players after their last game for country.
“EPS players will have an 11-week off-season from playing competition rugby, subject to their returning from any International tour commitments no later than 11 weeks prior to the first Guinness Premiership match of the next season. Specific provisions need to be agreed in Lions’ years.”
Now this in principle is good for the players but what it has actually meant is that the RFU has had its scheduling affected, so players don’t get a rest prior to the Summer Tour and come straight out of the back of a gruelling end of season, so that the clubs have a chance of having these players available at the start of the season.
4. English Qualified Players compensation scheme
The EQP is an incentive payment to clubs in both the Premiership and Championship to maintain an average of 14 English qualified players in their 23-man match-day squads, which is worth on average £16,500 per player to the club each season (2010 article here).
This again has had its detriments to the game however not necessarily to English rugby but more to other developing nations such a Nigeria who have seen some of their more talented players declare eligibility for England, under pressure from their clubs even though they do not have a hope in hell’s chance of ever playing for England. Losing that eligibility for some of these players actually means that they would be costing their club money and putting their own contracts at risk. The issue isn’t the principle of the idea it is the application of the idea that gets corrupted by the money men trying to recover any penny they can.
There is enough in the English structure of the game that if the IRB ever got serious about governing anti competitive behaviours by larger nations then both the RFU and PRL might just find themselves out on a limb, but then as a Founding member of the IRB, England have the decks stacked heavily in their favour, for the time being.
5. European Club Rugby
The shareholding and votes shall be divided equally between PRL and the RFU. Under the draft ERC Shareholders’ Agreement, the following matters currently require unanimity of votes (all 18) and, therefore, the RFU should be able to ‘block’ anything which risks negatively impacting the International game;
a. Structure of the Tournament
b. Structure of the season
c. Financial distributions to each country
This approach will help bring the French Clubs back into the tournaments and underpin the financial position for all participants.
Both parties should support a change in the European fixture format in the Group stages to 2 blocks of 3 rounds (compared to the current format of 3 blocks of 2 rounds) which represents a better playing / coaching approach for both England and the Clubs.
And here in lies the start of the problems with the ERC, why this became part of the EPS negotiations is beyond me. But effectively the RFU gave the clubs the right to take control of the English affairs within Europe and this has had catastrophic implications with the English clubs no longer part of any European tournament next season. I still don’t understand how this got on to the table but in affect the RFU have given away a bargaining chip at every negotiation and now actually have no control or as the next point will highlight, any financial gain from English rugby tournaments.
6. Commercial Rights to Competitions
PRL will enter separate TV / broadcasting / media contracts following the expiry of the current contract after the 2009/10 season. All PRL sponsor and partner contracts will continue to be separate.
Conversely, PRL Clubs will no longer receive grant funding from the RFU, only monies directly associated with player release, match fees and / or EQP development.
In this the RFU have given away the commercial rights and revenue to the clubs and allowed them to behave as they chose which has lead to the situation as described in my previous article “Premiership Rugby – A Disgraceful Organisation” . They have allowed the clubs the opportunity to try to take ownership of the European game and it has ended disastrously.
The RFU are tasked with developing the game in England and helping the grassroots level thrive. A look around the game today will show that they have failed dismally to even protect that part of the game. A lot of clubs are on the brink of extinction, mostly because in order to “help” the top of the game they took away all funding for the lower levels and pumped it into the Championship. I can’t understand how they have grassroots development as a core interest whilst they continually have given away all of the income generating tools they have at their disposal, they have even given away a 30% share of the final autumn test earnings to the PRL. If somebody can explain how reducing your earning potential AND then cutting funding to grassroots is actually a positive action aimed at developing Grassroots?
