rugbyunion
Latest News:
Untitled Document
 

Premiership Shares
Albertfromla (IP Logged)
06 December, 2017 09:27
With all the press speculation about ring fencing, reducing the Premiership to 10 teams, etc where does that leave clubs that still have premiership shares? Have Bristol held on to their shares since we have been in the Championship? Surely,if you have "a share" in any organisation you cannot be forced out, unless agreeing to do so.

 
Re: Premiership Shares
Gray_Lensman (IP Logged)
06 December, 2017 10:24
No, we still have our voting and income shares. Leedshire sold the income ones but, I think, retained the voting ones.

The reduction to 10 teams is linked to the creation of a second tier also of 10 teams under the overall control of Premiership rugby (a bit like the old Allied Dunbar Premiership 1 and 2, so it isn't proposing that shareholders are chucked out, just that they are in a second division. Presumably the funding is equitably distributed.

 
Re: Premiership Shares
Graham_U (IP Logged)
06 December, 2017 10:39
Big assumption on funding distribution Gray, as that not true today why would it be in the future.

As for reductions, being a "voting" share owner clearly gives you a say/vote, but not sure that guarantees your inclusion, we've been voting shareholders outside it for most of the last decade. It will depend on the small print, but I thought most structural decision required significant majority vote but not unanimous. If true then if that majority voted for a reduction to 10, without the second tier, we could be outside. Even if that was the case I doubt that could before the end of the season without calling in the lawyers.



Graham

C'mon Bris,

http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/file/s100.htm?102,file=399.jpg

Stand out in a crowd, wear the Hoops!

 
Re: Premiership Shares
Gray_Lensman (IP Logged)
06 December, 2017 10:55
The proposal that was widely circulated was for 2 divisions both controlled by the Premiership. So any existing Premiership clubs who end up in the second tier would still be in the Premiership! If you see what I mean. It isn't like they are being cast out completely. That's why I assume that some sort of equitable funding would have to be in place otherwise you can't see why, for example, Bristol, Leeds, Worcester, Sale or Irish would vote for it. Or any of the clubs in Division 1 who thought they might be likely to end up in the bottom 2 of a 10 team League 1. Essentially you end up with a majority against the idea - unless the funding is sorted.

 
Re: Premiership Shares
Graham_U (IP Logged)
06 December, 2017 11:18
Ideas were circulated in media/social but was there anything seriously proposed to PRL? I was talking more theoretically about a close 10 only but what I've seen of the two tier proposal was little more than kite flying.
I'd certainly expect that as current income is influenced by income shares/time in the prem then adding a second tier would have a massive impact on distribution that very few of the current voters would accept. They would have to accept the principle first before any of the other clubs have a say. So I struggle to see how equal funding for both tiers, or a reduction in their current income for the current top 10 would ever be accepted. As we know what seems the right thing to do rarely happens in English Pro rugby.



Graham

C'mon Bris,

http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/file/s100.htm?102,file=399.jpg

Stand out in a crowd, wear the Hoops!

 
Re: Premiership Shares
Channel2 (IP Logged)
06 December, 2017 11:53
It is absolute madness to set up two divisions when there are patently nowhere near 20 clubs that could even feasibly compete. If the aim is to reduce player injuries then do away with the anglo welsh.

 
Re: Premiership Shares
AlexInSouthville (IP Logged)
06 December, 2017 12:05
Quote:
Channel2
It is absolute madness to set up two divisions when there are patently nowhere near 20 clubs that could even feasibly compete. If the aim is to reduce player injuries then do away with the anglo welsh.

The trouble is, simply doing away with the Anglo-Welsh wont necessarily reduce the amount of game time for the top players anyway (which my understanding is one of the key drivers of this).

The issue is the number of games being played by players, not by clubs....so rather than trying to hack a solution by tweaking competitions, I would rather they addressed the problem head-on, and simply restricted the game time at a per-player level.

So for example, Player X can not player more than Y minutes per season.

Or a more simple solution, players gets 3 point for starting a game, and 1 point for any game they come on as a replacement. No single player is allowed to accumulate more than X appearance points per season.

 
Re: Premiership Shares
Rich. (IP Logged)
06 December, 2017 13:09
As I said on the other thread about this in my opinion this idea of two 10 team divisions will no way happen and is not even genuinely being considered. It was simply leaked out as one of the items to be discussed as a way of pressurising players pondering strike action. The premier clubs have used this type of tactic a lot ( for example when they were trying to form the Champions Cup.).


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?