It’s that Ring Fencing time of year

I see in the Rugby Paper, that Mark Tainton, is backing his boss with a renewed call to ring fence, at least this year he suggests it would help those Prem clubs who are struggling. Following on from Mr Lansdown calling for no reduction in the salary cap and the retention of marquee players. They do have short memories these clubs/owners. There is a certain arrogance that is directly related to the amount of money each owner brings. 

Richard Lowther wrote: Can anyone find Mr Lansdown advocating ring fencing whilst Bristol were still in the Championship? I must admit I am struggling to. I can find pre Coronavirus comments where he advocates a closed shop for financial reasons, but surely those same financial issues applied whilst Bristol were outside the top flight and I would like to read his comments on the situation then so I can have a balanced viewpoint.

Grants by definition do not need to be paid back.

You have to meet the criteria to get the grants, which by definition do not need to be repaid. I have two. 

I’m sure this conversation will be ruled out of bound before long, but grants pay bills for suppliers, landlords etc. which generates income within the wider economy, it’s not a case of taxpayers handing money over to businesses who then suck that money out of the economy.

Really? He wants to keep the marquee option and doesn’t seem to believe that the Premiership is spending money on wages that it doesn’t have.  He may personally have the money and is clearly committed to Bristol, but the fact remains that every Premiership club bar Exeter loses money. There is an enormous reset coming post COVID and the game at the top level needs to see sense.

Deerhunter2 wrote: I listened to Mr Lansdown on the 5 Live Rugby Union Weekly, not particularly about promotion and relegation, but he did make a lot of sense about salary cap And Marquee players.

As he has already got Marquee players on contracts, I am sure he wants the status quo to remain and if it doesn't he will want exemptions.

Old Blue wrote: I heard from a contact in Australia that NZ have just proposed That their sides would play against Australian sides plus Pacific All stars in the revamped “Super” competition. No SA teams or the Argentine side. I wonder where the SA teams will play - expanded Premiership with Conferences????

Who's going to pay for the SA flights hotels etc and if the 2nd wave comes flights will be cancelled with everyone pleading poverty cash will be needed

Old Blue wrote: I heard from a contact in Australia that NZ have just proposed That their sides would play against Australian sides plus Pacific All stars in the revamped “Super” competition. No SA teams or the Argentine side. I wonder where the SA teams will play - expanded Premiership with Conferences????

Old Blue wrote: I heard from a contact in Australia that NZ have just proposed That their sides would play against Australian sides plus Pacific All stars in the revamped “Super” competition. No SA teams or the Argentine side. I wonder where the SA teams will play - expanded Premiership with Conferences????

The article I read this morning stated that NZ are pulling their sides out of Super Rugby and forming their own competition including some South Sea Island representation to build on the success of their re-start competition.

Absolutely no mention of Australian sides or Argentina.

The article also suggested that South African sides might look to Northern Hemisphere following the Kings and Cheetahs.