DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 153193--------------------------------------------------
Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: April 22, 2026, 3:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reforming bonus points is a no-brainer, but docking them for
being thrashed might be a step too far
Charles Richardson
Based a stone's throw from the Allianz Stadium in Twickenham,
Charles has worked for the Telegraph since 2019 and was heavily
involved in coverage for both the 2021 Lions tour of South
Africa and the 2023 men's World Cup in France. See more
Published 20 April 2026 3:22pm BST
Where has all the jeopardy gone in the Prem? In the past weekend
alone, we watched Saracens score 85 points against Sale, Bath
notch 48 against Harlequins, Bristol rack up 53 against
Gloucester, and Leicester put 62 on Newcastle Red Bulls.
As well as the landslide victories, there is also growing
disinterest in how the top sides fare until the business end of
the season.
This makes rugby fans wonder how to prevent the English top
flight becoming background noise until the play-offs. Below are
six possible tweaks, and my view on which of them might actually
work.
1. Change the bonus-points system
A classic shout, this: ditch the current bonus point and adopt
the one used in the French league and in Super Rugby, where a
team must score three tries more than the opposition, rather
than just simply scoring four times, to earn a bonus point.
Would it work? This is an absolute no-brainer, and the sooner
the Prem adopts it the better. The “three tries more” model is
superior in every facet. It forces dominant teams to play for
the full 80 minutes and losing sides can rob them of a bonus
point if they, too, do not chuck in the towel. There are simply
no disadvantages and the Prem should make this switch as soon as
possible. The Six Nations and the new Nations Championship
should wake up and smell the coffee, too.
2. Ditch play-offs totally
This season it is tight at the top, and you wonder if a Premier
League style-battle to the finish would look great, rather than
some sides cruising until the knockout rounds.
Would it work? This would suit traditionalists, but the genie is
well out of the bottle. If anything, the play-offs are set to
become bigger and badder, with administrators dreaming of
mirroring France and their neutral venues from the semi-finals
onwards. Even now, the play-offs are lucrative and bring crucial
revenue into a league which is still not flush with cash. That
said, in a 10-team league, one option could be reducing the top
four to a top three, to add greater cachet to the play-offs.
Second could host third in the only play-off before the winners
face the top side at the Allianz Stadium.
3. Cut the bottom off the table in April
Bin off the bottom four clubs at the crux of the season, leaving
the remaining six in the hunt for glory and European
qualification.
Would it work? I am not sure about this one. If anything, the
Prem needs more, not fewer, matches and teams. It also sounds
suspiciously like a top-six play-off system, mirroring the
French Top 14. But that league has 14 teams. You cannot have
that system in a 10-team league. It would be preposterous were a
side who finished sixth out of 10 (i.e. in the bottom half of
the table) crowned as champions. As written above, the Prem
should go the other way, and reduce the play-offs by one
placing, not increase them by two.
4. Dock league points for being thrashed
A rogue shout, but one that increases the punishment for
shocking displays. The idea: if a team concede 50 points or more
they lose a league point. A team could, therefore, end the
season on negative points.
Would it work? This is a radical and brutal concept but I’m not
against it ideologically. What happens, however, if a side lose
51-48 in an all-time classic? Do they deserve to be docked
points for that? Maybe this could work if the difference between
the two scores exceeds 50 points.
5. Hit underperforming teams in the pocket
This is being (jokingly) floated in US sports as an extension of
the dynamic pricing concept. Picture a league where a side who
are hammered have to lower the price of concessions – beer,
basically or tickets for their next home game. Teams tend to
buck up their ideas if it looks like they will lose money.
Would it work? Ah, yes, it’s that time in the show when we enter
the realm of “American-inspired” ideas. Some, admittedly, do
work, but this one is pretty wacky. It would be fun, but it
would financially punish losing sides, in a league which is
still in the embryonic stages of fiscal recovery. And I will not
be the person who has to tell Tony Rowe at Exeter or Bruce Craig
at Bath that they have to lower the price of their pints because
of a bad result the previous week...
6. Make Europe great again
The fact teams in the Prem can be so bad and still qualify for
the Champions Cup feels silly. Why not make the Champions Cup
more elite, with fewer, better teams and do the same for the
Challenge Cup. Then, for the real stragglers, no European
competition at all. The incentive of European rugby and the
money it brings would surely tell.
Would it work? In an ideal world, absolutely. It is hardly an
original observation that having eight out of 10 teams qualify
for the “Champions” Cup is too many. As things stand, could
anyone at Gloucester, Harlequins or Sale truly say that they
deserve to be competing in the top tier of Europe next season?
Restricting the number to six would make the bottom half of the
table far more competitive during the business end of the
season. The issue, of course, is that this is almost impossible,
given the Champions Cup in its current state is a 24-team
league, with eight sides apiece from the Prem, France and the
United Rugby Championship. Equality was the name of the game
when the competition was established but should England really
have the same number of qualifiers as France when the former
have 10 teams in their league and the latter 14?
#Post#: 153197--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: FrostAndFire
Date: April 22, 2026, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Too many of these ideas would take money and revenue from the
bottom clubs. But often they are at the bottom because they
don't have the funds to compete with the top teams. (See
Newcastle in recent years.) Making them poorer just seems to
ensure they stay down the bottom. Can't see it helping, but more
to the point, I can't see clubs agreeing.
#Post#: 153198--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: Rugbycat
Date: April 22, 2026, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. do bonus points make a difference to teams, looking at the
Prem at the moment we have won more games than Gloucester but
are below them, Bristol have won more games than Exeter but are
below them.
The French system is also blamed in France for increasing
injuries and there are other complaints.
2. Less games will just decrease the value of the broadcast
rights.
3. Same as 2
4. We would have no points this year.
5. The clubs don't own the concessions, we don't, so a non
starter.
6. Would effect the broadcast rights value, and when/if the prem
expands, asking for the places back would be harder than giving
them away.
A week when the results went the way that the table suggested
they should is being built into the league having terrible
problems, making changes based on one week is not the best way
to improve the league.
Increased investment will be a better way to increase
competition, but why try to cure an illness the league does not
have.
#Post#: 153199--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: sussexquin
Date: April 22, 2026, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't the original end of season the 2/3 play-off to face the
top side in the final? Then it was changed because the top side
often lost the final being less hardened by the week off.
#Post#: 153200--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: Yareet
Date: April 22, 2026, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: sussexquin link ---
>
> Wasn't the original end of season the 2/3 play-off to face the
top side in the final? Then it was changed because the top side
often lost the final being less hardened by the week off.
>
--- End Quote ---
I seem to remember Wasps making a habit* of winning the league
that way
*I haven't checked so it may actually only be that they only did
it twice but that was enough to change the system
#Post#: 153201--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: Rugbycat
Date: April 22, 2026, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Yareet link ---
>
> I seem to remember Wasps making a habit* of winning the league
that way
>
>
>
> *I haven't checked so it may actually only be that they only
did it twice but that was enough to change the system
>
--- End Quote ---
It is also the system in the Hundred and the team that plays in
the week, often win.
#Post#: 153203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: never sleep
Date: April 22, 2026, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
it also financially penalises the team that finishes first as
they don't get an extra home fixture. So, teams would be better
always finishing 2nd. It may make clubs consider fielding
understrength teams towards the end of the season to manage
getting in to the 2nd place.
#Post#: 153205--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: Fearless Fred
Date: April 22, 2026, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In answer to the original points:
1: I'm agnostic about this. Seems to work in both Super rugby
and Top 14 (two very different styles of play) so worth
considering at least.
2: No. With a league as small as it is, it needs something to
build towards. The final is a great occasion.
3: Absolutely not. Clubs need the revenue from the fixtures and
plan around that. Also, how/when do you decide when the
cut-point would be? in our winning season of 20-21, that
could've seen us cast adrift at the end of Jan rather than going
on one of the most storied season finales ever.
4: Can't see how that does anything to increase interest. Stupid
idea.
5: Absolutely NO. Clubs are already financially strapped, and
even if they're bought by rich interests it's a stupid idea.
Plus, as RugbyCat says, a lot of the pricing is not part of the
clubs' interests. Why should you penalise a food catering
business for a Rugby Clubs' on field performance?
6: I would back a slimming down of European competition. I've
long said Champions Cup should be drawn from the top 50% of each
domestic comp (5 from England, 7 from France, and 7 from URC.
Add in the last seasons Champions Cup winner (if not already
qualled) or Challenge Cup winner (if not already qualled) or the
next qualifier from the Champ Cup winners' domestic league in
the draw to make a 20 team comp. 5 pools of 4, playing home &
away. Pool winners and top 3 go into knockout. Challenge Cup
works in a mirroe format with the other 19 Prem/URC/T14 teams
and 1 or 2 (as required) invitees from the next level down. Get
rid of teams dropping down from Champions Cup to Challenge Cup
after the pool stages. After that's been going a few years, if
you want to tweak the format, do it by introducing "Shield"
comps for those that don't make it past the Pool stage in each
comp. (Pool placed 9-16 in the Champs Cup go into the Champions
Shield knockout, and the same in the Challenge Cup. You can then
plan either two destinations for the Finals weekend, or even
holding all four Finals in one place over the Friday to Sunday
(Challenge Shield final on Friday eve, Challenge Cup final
Saturday afternoon, Champions Shield Sat evening, Champions Cup
Sunday afternoon).
So basically only 1 and 6 are worth considering in any form.
On a side note, re the play-offs, there were a few years where
there was a single 2nd v 3rd Semi then the final ('03, '04, &
'05) all won by Wasps from second place. It was generally
believed that the longer gap between the finish of the regular
season to the final for the team placed in 1st was actually
detrimental, taking their "edge" off before the final.
#Post#: 153206--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: euroquin
Date: April 22, 2026, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been in favour of 1 for a long time. And there are decent
arguments for 6 as well. Not the rest though.
#Post#: 153207--------------------------------------------------
Re: Six ‘fixes’ for Prem and whether they would work
DIR By: Yareet
Date: April 22, 2026, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Agree with a lot of that Fred apart from the Champs Cup final on
the Sunday.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page