Champ as a prem training ground?

[jblee]

To me having a maximum number of loan/DR players in a matchday squad of say two and having a maximum number of loan/DR players you can field in a season - seven/eight? - would go along way to fix the nonsense we have seen at LS, Ampthill and several other clubs in recent seasons at Championship and NL levels. There would have to be allowances for genuine emergency front-row loans of course.

This would hopefully both encourage Premiership clubs to arrange meaningful second team/academy competitions to develop their own players and also encourage Championship clubs to maintain their identities and give chances to their own younger players.

Of course this would only work if the authorities really wanted a genuine second tier rather than one for Premiership clubs' second teams in all but name which seems to be what the appalling RFU and PRL really want.

[The man in seat F131]

Loans across the leagues should be on the basis of development and not return to fitness or match play readiness.
I would like to see 2 loan windows, one for each half of the respective league season where the loaned player will be playing. If a loaned player is injured or recalled no replacement loan is allowed.
On the basis that loaned players are of a standard to make the match day squad, numbers should be restricted to 4 per window at the loaning club, this would give a theoretical 96 players an opportunity to get playing time in the Champ over the season. In reality this would be smaller given that some clubs are unlikely to take loan players and some players may be full season, but still a significant number.
Exceptions allowed for the front row and any player loaned in from a league below or BUCS side.

Perhaps there could be a trading system for unused loan slots?
Perhaps Prem clubs should pay a development fee if they sign any U23 player who has been at a lower club for 2 years or more?

The current arrangements have to change, Champ clubs should be looking to develop their own players.

[Breakdown]

It's when clubs with large numbers of DRs bring in better quality loanees for relegation battles that it becomes infuriating. Having been on the receiving end of such behaviour (from LS, Ampthill &, a few years back Hartpury who put 13DRs from Bristol. Glos and Worcester in the game that put Richmond down), I would concentrate on stopping obvious abuse. For instance, last season Ampthill (who we beat at the Athletic Ground) had Caluori and Jack Bracken in their team for the return match at a crucial part of the season where we might have been able to overtake them at the bottom. Bracken had played for Ampthill once in the season before then and Caluori not at all. A guy who is a fringe international does not need game time. His appearance was there to make sure Ampthill did not lose and be in danger of relegation. Because they would be no use to Saracens if they were in Nat 1. That is surely not the point of the DR system.

I would change the rule to address the abuse. Possibly: if you are playing a team in the bottom three of the league or a team which is fewer than 5 points behind you in the table, you can play only 2 DRs (or maybe none) and if you playing a top three side, you can play up to the maximum of six if you have to.

And if you can't put a team out without DRs (which the President of LS suggested had happened to them at the end of last season), then the model is clearly wrong. I hope Scottish bounce straight back, but I also hope they do it by rediscovering the essence of being a club. We need clubs like them, but not if they are enslaved to Harlequins.

[jblee]

It's when clubs with large numbers of DRs bring in better quality loanees for relegation battles that it becomes infuriating. Having been on the receiving end of such behaviour (from LS, Ampthill &, a few years back Hartpury who put 13DRs from Bristol. Glos and Worcester in the game that put Richmond down), I would concentrate on stopping obvious abuse. For instance, last season Ampthill (who we beat at the Athletic Ground) had Caluori and Jack Bracken in their team for the return match at a crucial part of the season where we might have been able to overtake them at the bottom. Bracken had played for Ampthill once in the season before then and Caluori not at all. A guy who is a fringe international does not need game time. His appearance was there to make sure Ampthill did not lose and be in danger of relegation. Because they would be no use to Saracens if they were in Nat 1. That is surely not the point of the DR system.

I would change the rule to address the abuse. Possibly: if you are playing a team in the bottom three of the league or a team which is fewer than 5 points behind you in the table, you can play only 2 DRs (or maybe none) and if you playing a top three side, you can play up to the maximum of six if you have to.

And if you can't put a team out without DRs (which the President of LS suggested had happened to them at the end of last season), then the model is clearly wrong. I hope Scottish bounce straight back, but I also hope they do it by rediscovering the essence of being a club. We need clubs like them, but not if they are enslaved to Harlequins.

The Championship should have more integrity than to let the Premiership clubs walk all over them but of course that integrity went out of the window when they parachuted in a club who defaulted on it's debts at the expense of decent clubs. It's actually quite bizarre to see the determination of the Championship to tie themselves to the unsustainable Premiership rather than to opt for a long-term future.

[Breakdown]

It's when clubs with large numbers of DRs bring in better quality loanees for relegation battles that it becomes infuriating. Having been on the receiving end of such behaviour (from LS, Ampthill &, a few years back Hartpury who put 13DRs from Bristol. Glos and Worcester in the game that put Richmond down), I would concentrate on stopping obvious abuse. For instance, last season Ampthill (who we beat at the Athletic Ground) had Caluori and Jack Bracken in their team for the return match at a crucial part of the season where we might have been able to overtake them at the bottom. Bracken had played for Ampthill once in the season before then and Caluori not at all. A guy who is a fringe international does not need game time. His appearance was there to make sure Ampthill did not lose and be in danger of relegation. Because they would be no use to Saracens if they were in Nat 1. That is surely not the point of the DR system.

I would change the rule to address the abuse. Possibly: if you are playing a team in the bottom three of the league or a team which is fewer than 5 points behind you in the table, you can play only 2 DRs (or maybe none) and if you playing a top three side, you can play up to the maximum of six if you have to.

And if you can't put a team out without DRs (which the President of LS suggested had happened to them at the end of last season), then the model is clearly wrong. I hope Scottish bounce straight back, but I also hope they do it by rediscovering the essence of being a club. We need clubs like them, but not if they are enslaved to Harlequins.

The Championship should have more integrity than to let the Premiership clubs walk all over them but of course that integrity went out of the window when they parachuted in a club who defaulted on it's debts at the expense of decent clubs. It's actually quite bizarre to see the determination of the Championship to tie themselves to the unsustainable Premiership rather than to opt for a long-term future.

A slightly different topic! But overall, when you make someone like Simon Gillham the chairman of the league, he is always going to see an upward, wholly commercial path rather than one that allows for different models.

[jblee]

It's when clubs with large numbers of DRs bring in better quality loanees for relegation battles that it becomes infuriating. Having been on the receiving end of such behaviour (from LS, Ampthill &, a few years back Hartpury who put 13DRs from Bristol. Glos and Worcester in the game that put Richmond down), I would concentrate on stopping obvious abuse. For instance, last season Ampthill (who we beat at the Athletic Ground) had Caluori and Jack Bracken in their team for the return match at a crucial part of the season where we might have been able to overtake them at the bottom. Bracken had played for Ampthill once in the season before then and Caluori not at all. A guy who is a fringe international does not need game time. His appearance was there to make sure Ampthill did not lose and be in danger of relegation. Because they would be no use to Saracens if they were in Nat 1. That is surely not the point of the DR system.

I would change the rule to address the abuse. Possibly: if you are playing a team in the bottom three of the league or a team which is fewer than 5 points behind you in the table, you can play only 2 DRs (or maybe none) and if you playing a top three side, you can play up to the maximum of six if you have to.

And if you can't put a team out without DRs (which the President of LS suggested had happened to them at the end of last season), then the model is clearly wrong. I hope Scottish bounce straight back, but I also hope they do it by rediscovering the essence of being a club. We need clubs like them, but not if they are enslaved to Harlequins.

The Championship should have more integrity than to let the Premiership clubs walk all over them but of course that integrity went out of the window when they parachuted in a club who defaulted on it's debts at the expense of decent clubs. It's actually quite bizarre to see the determination of the Championship to tie themselves to the unsustainable Premiership rather than to opt for a long-term future.

A slightly different topic! But overall, when you make someone like Simon Gillham the chairman of the league, he is always going to see an upward, wholly commercial path rather than one that allows for different models.

Indeed but there is a difference between a commercial path which keeps the integrity of the league whilst providing a long-term future and one which leads to you shaking hands with the devil!

[Frank]

I think they should bring back the Monday night A league for Prem reserves.

The Champ has the potential to be a great league in it's own right, like Pro D2, not a training ground. There's only 10 teams in the Prem, there is some very good players in it and deserves to be treated as such, imo.

[jblee]

I think they should bring back the Monday night A league for Prem reserves.

The Champ has the potential to be a great league in it's own right, like Pro D2, not a training ground. There's only 10 teams in the Prem, there is some very good players in it and deserves to be treated as such, imo.

Indeed. We keep hearing about what a wonderful league the Premiership is and how great the clubs are and yet they seem totally incapable of arranging meaningful games below 1st XV level to give their squad players game time.

[Bluesman]

I think they should bring back the Monday night A league for Prem reserves.

The Champ has the potential to be a great league in it's own right, like Pro D2, not a training ground. There's only 10 teams in the Prem, there is some very good players in it and deserves to be treated as such, imo.

If the A league was brought back, Prem clubs would operate larger squads and hoover up more players in this league, diluting the quality. If the A league started up again the Champ would get worse imo.

[knightandday]

I think they should bring back the Monday night A league for Prem reserves.

The Champ has the potential to be a great league in it's own right, like Pro D2, not a training ground. There's only 10 teams in the Prem, there is some very good players in it and deserves to be treated as such, imo.

If the A league was brought back, Prem clubs would operate larger squads and hoover up more players in this league, diluting the quality. If the A league started up again the Champ would get worse imo.

They can’t afford the squads they have now, so I can’t realistically see A leagues being restarted.