Was the RFU aware of the depth of antagonism their plans for a new-look Premier 15s would meet? (www.premier15s.com/news/article/allianz-premier-15s-update)
Five years ago a similar verdict brought angry questions in the House of Commons. Now in 2022
the tone is equally hostile. They don’t seem to heed the lessons of history.
We must wonder why the announcement was made at this time and in this form, when they must
have known the reactions it would cause. Why issue a partial statement, partial in the sense that
only eight clubs have been shown the green light, not ten? If it was meant to add some drama to
the process, it has succeeded only too well.
The standard for acceptance had been set at a certain level, termed ‘a competitive tender
process’. Has it remained the same since 2017, or has it risen as in a high-jump competition? The
statement claims that ‘strong proposals [were] submitted’, but not how many or by whom. So we
cannot tell whether the clubs omitted also submitted ‘a strong claim’.
You might even argue that the bar has been lowered, since one of the two fundamentals of
admission set in 2017 has already been breached: that is Onfield Playing Standards.
A glance at the performances of certain clubs over the past five years shows failure to reach those
standards with no summary exclusion.
The the selection committee’s quest for a geographical balance of the ten elite clubs is laughable.
As I suggested before (4theloveofsport.co.uk/2022/12/18/a-new-look-premier-15s), that the RFU
has shown no ability to answer the question ever since it raised its head years ago.
Why does the committee omit the two Sharks, DMP and Sale, then ask for help in restoring them
to the list?
A final mysterious statement: ‘The RFU and Women’s Premier 15 Ltd (WP15) will continue to work
with these clubs on their potential to participate in the league.’ How they propose to do that is left
unsaid. All we know is that, when the RFU stepped in aid DMPS, it brought no obvious benefits at
all. And once those two bodies have done their work, they will still exclude two of the clubs they
claimed to be aiding.
Protests
Voices in Wales wonder if the omission of clubs containing many Welsh players (especially University of Worcester Warriors) means fewer of them remaining in England. If they were to return to their homeland, would a viable league already have been established to welcome them?
The loudest protests come, unsurprisingly, from the North of England. If Sale Sharks are deemed
unworthy of immediate inclusion, what does that say about the RFU’s decision to add them to the
league only two years ago? How could they possibly have fallen behind so far, so fast?
Immediate reactions from angry supporters include: ‘“The North-South Divide” rears its ugly head
again’, and ’A travesty not just elite for the elite but all levels of women’s rugby in the North’. One
critic specifically wonders what the criteria were for the decision and why they weren’t made
known. Another cynic congratulates the decision-makers on their short-sightedness.
Comments centre in particular on the choice of Ealing Trailfinders. Why yet another London club?
Why a club located down the road from one already in the league? Why a club from the Championship, not the Gallagher Premiership? – and so on.
How could the selection committee be sure of its playing strength at this early stage? The same
question might be asked of Leicester Tigers, but at least this club is a major force in English
rugby; its name alone must be a magnet for aspiring players.
It will be fascinating to read the follow-up statement. This time round it won’t set the tone for a
mere 3-year cycle, but for a decade. So much depends upon a clear-sighted view into a distant future.
