England great calls out ‘smoke and mirrors’ R360 and demands that 4 questions are immediately answered by ‘anonymous franchise bidders’
Leading England players are reportedly among those targeted by R360
Former England hooker Brian Moore has unloaded his frustrations about the anonymity of the proposed R360, demanding its organisers answer four key questions.
Specifics about the finances and mechanics behind the world franchise league involving Mike Tindall, the 2003 Rugby World Cup winner, have been vague.
Writing in his latest Telegraph column, Moore wants answers after hearing “conflicting claims” about whether funding is locked in for the tournament featuring eight teams of rugby’s best male players and four teams of the best women, or whether it is all smoke and mirrors.
The two-time British and Irish Lions tour hooker and a 1991 Rugby World Cup finalist, Moore has prioritised four areas for scrutiny. Without reassuring answers to these concerns, he fears R360 will be “rugby’s equivalent of the UK’s utility companies waiting to happen”.
“Live on their crumbs…”
In the UK, its historically privatised energy sector has left the system vulnerable to price volatility – and Moore is worried about the future of rugby if R360 gets the go-ahead.
“Historically reliable sources have recently made conflicting claims to me about the proposed R360 rugby initiative. Some say that funding is locked in already for a global circus comprising eight teams of rugby’s best male players and four teams of the best women. Others claim this is smoke and mirrors,” he began.
“If the R360 model is sustainable and funding is in place, we are entitled at least to know the franchise bidders or holders; not just because of issues like sportswashing, but to scrutinise the possible owners’ previous records in sports investment. If they are reputable and genuinely exist, why is this a problem? If they want anonymity, why?”
Moore then went on to pose his series of questions: “The first question is a legal and governance point: has R360 complied with its duty to speak to individual unions in whose territories it proposes to play games? If not, why not, and why should the application be allowed at all?
“There are then three questions around the wider issues of stability, compensation and player release which must be considered against the fact that disruptor brands, like R360, depend on damaging legacy brands.
“Without proper detail, rugby’s stakeholders, including its commercial, broadcast and other supporters, cannot adequately form a view and transmit it to those making decisions. Those stakeholders must be heard before anything is agreed or, alternatively, rugby goes to war via litigation and threats of non-selection.”
Moore sifts through all these issues, concerned that the “game will be left to pick up the pieces”, given the lack of assurances that R360 is a viable option. He also believed that the lack of an international window player release guarantee would kill off the women’s game.
“R360 is proposing taking on the burden of financing professional elite rugby but only for a very thin top layer,” he concluded.
“Already rich men and organisations want permission to make hundreds of millions of pounds by taking the game’s best assets, then expecting the vast majority of amateur and professional rugby to live on their crumbs. They are rugby’s equivalent of the UK’s utility companies waiting to happen.”
