The RFU began a strategic planning process by questioning just what were the key segments of the business. It was recognised that there was a two-tier structure to the game. At the top was the elite representative and Premiership club game; then there was a broad base of clubs below that, but it was felt that many had common problems.

Community Rugby was initiated to cater for the needs of the clubs from the totally recreational up to the sometimes professional in the second division. All, however, provided facilities for playing and membership. Usually there were also facilities for external users through other sports, meeting venues – even keep fit classes.

Once the elite part of the game was defined (U19 International to the full England side plus the Premiership), it was then necessary to define the Community Rugby requirements. The list contained:

• Competitive activity through leagues, merit tables and cup competitions as well as ‘friendly’ rugby.
• Investment in facilities to meet expectations in a changing leisure market.
• Investment in people who support and manage their game. Valuing, supporting and rewarding the volunteer contribution to rugby needed to be addressed and there had to be more sympathy for volunteer administrators in the way the game was regulated.

At the heart of the initiatives were the numbers of players who were dropping out of the game. Many problems exist which may have had a part in the process, but there was a definite cycle of decline:

• Some clubs may have focused solely on their 1^st team to the detriment of players below that.
• The reasons may have been financial but often only the 1^st squad trained, was coached or had kit provision.
• Lower teams felt neglected in the club structure.
• Social habits were changing. More choice was available for young players; they had more leisure time, more money and more opportunity to look elsewhere.

Add fewer players coming into the game to the statistic that existing numbers were declining and there was a potentially serious problem emerging. The fewer young players coming through was a complex matter and different problems emerged at different ages:

Age 13-16
There is a lack of quality coaching in this age group. Up to 13, the players often have parents who run the system and a relatively simple game is offered with some success.

Age 15
The position now becomes more complex. Selection issues begin to emerge and coaching knowledge may be beyond the parents who coped before. It is even possible that the players’ knowledge of the game has overtaken the coaches’. Whatever the reasons, this is the area with the first big loss of players.

Age 16-18
Social factors start to become increasingly important. There is the opportunity to work, exams appear and the opposite sex is a real attraction. The previous Colts’ system had a quality coach and managerial structure, but the current problems are proving too much and groups of players are not being kept together. There is a lack of a competitive fixture structure and the post-16 player expects more in the shape of leagues and cup games.

University
This group of players has not been motivated to play, though there are exceptions. However, there is often a lack of structure and support within the university, especially for players who have had compulsory rugby at school with a well- defined system.

The problems were relatively simple to define; solutions were more complex. A start was made with the following proposals:

• Investment in coach education and development at all age groups. There would be a full review of course delivery (i.e. to suit coaches) and content (is it relevant to the people being coached?)
• There would be a full analysis of cost-effective rugby. How could provision be made for a ‘good game’ through a competitive fixture structure that is time and travel efficient?
• Evaluation of the need for competitive rugby.
• The existing competitive structures needed analysis to find out if they suit the participating players and clubs.

One problem was to get players’ thoughts on the game. The normal route for opinion was through the Constituent Body committee structures, but that opinion did not necessarily reflect what the players were thinking. To improve this:

• The playing community is being asked for their feedback through IT and the web.
• Focus groups are being formed with a cross-section of rugby people to offer thoughts.

Valuing the Volunteer is perceived as a significant step in the process. Recruitment and retention of this enormous work-force is vital to the game. Their estimated value in unpaid service is £100,000,000 per annum in England, so it is a very important strategy to get right when we start investing in these people. The RFU is currently working with Sport England on a volunteer investment strategy; coaches, referees, administrators and club members are part of a current appraisal of their value in the sport.

Investment in facilities was a major aspect of the review. We decided that the game demanded:

• Better playing surfaces.
• Lighting for quality training/coaching and matches at times other than Saturday or Sunday.
• Changing and social facilities to suit the modern participant, especially as there is also a growing number of female and disabled participants.

The whole package was one the RFU felt it had to get right without there being any specific priority. The big areas were:

COACHING
COST-EFFECTIVE RUGBY
VALUING THE VOLUNTEER
INVESTMENT IN FACILITIES.

The catalyst for RFU action probably emerged when a series of consultation exercises made it apparent that there was no clear strategy for the 1700 clubs and 3000 schools below the elite game. Hopefully the loss of player numbers has bottomed out as we respond to the needs of the game. Significant investment is taking place in key areas and £150 million is earmarked for the game over the next seven to eight years. Our key objectives are:

Which should eventually lead to:

• More participants
• More teams
• More clubs

The Community Rugby Department has Terry Burwell as Director and there are six key departments that focus on key areas of the game.

• Evan Crawford, Head of Coach Development
• Andrew Scoular, Player and Game Development
• Nick Bunting, Officiating and Production of Resources, to support other departments’ work
• Alan Black, Community Rugby Manager, accountable for many of the Blackman initiatives
• Peter Drewett, Student, Schools and Youth manager.