RFU's Bill Sweeney quizzed on Eddie Jones' future beyond 2021
New Rugby Football Union (RFU) chief executive Bill Sweeney has confirmed that England defence coach John Mitchell has extended his contract to fall into line with head coach Eddie Jones.
Sweeney also admitted on Thursday that it is possible boss Jones could stay with England beyond his 2021 contract. "We have extended John Mitchell's contract through to be consistent with Eddie's, so it goes through to June of 2021," said Sweeney.
"That was in full consultation with Eddie. He and I spoke about it about five, six weeks ago maybe. It is part of Eddie's long-term coaching structure plans. So we entered into negotiations with John, he is keen to stay and we concluded the agreement about three weeks ago. He is contracted now through to June 2021."
Kiwi defence specialist Mitchell joined England before the 2018 autumn internationals, and has now committed his long-term future to Jones’ set-up.
Asked if Jones could stay with England beyond the end of his current contract, Sweeney continued: "It is possible, we are not looking at that at this stage. The focus now is really on the World Cup and then making sure we get our plans in place post World Cup.
"Eddie has reconfirmed his commitment through to 2021. We have lots of conversations on that and he has said he wants to stay through to the end of that contracted period. So from that perspective we've already started conversations around what will the structure and look of that coaching team be coming back from Japan.
"He has got a number of names in the frame. We haven't approached them yet. We wouldn't contract anyone pre-World Cup. But he has got in mind how he would like to structure that as soon as we get back. We would confirm it immediately as soon as we got back."
Former British Olympic Association (BOA) chief executive Sweeney has joined the RFU in a bid to reverse serious financial troubles suffered by the English game's governing body. Former chief executive Steve Brown lost his job over hefty cuts that led to scores of job losses. But now Sweeney has insisted there is no crisis at the RFU.
"It's definitely not a crisis; there's no financial crisis here," said Sweeney. "The similarities with the BOA are there, it's a cyclical business. You'd expect to have a loss-making year in the year coming up. It's not a financial crisis.
"The business model at the RFU is inherently very healthy, we generate a lot of cash, a lot of revenue and if you keep your costs in control there's no reason why that should be a fragile business plan. So it’s inherently strong.
"Stabilising the financial situation is a key priority. It's not in as bad a situation as perhaps I would have expected it to be quite frankly, having read a number of things coming in. The team here has done a really good job over the last 18 months already, taking quite a bit of cost out of the operation."
WATCH: Part one of the two-part RugbyPass documentary on what fans can expect in Japan at this year’s World Cup
Latest Comments
Everywhere you turn some irish journo is advocating Ireland as the greatest, reasoning that the wc is a 4 year cycle event so, they say wc doesn’t matter it’s the rugby in between that should account for the accolade. If there was no wc then some substance could be gained, however in my opinion the moment that defined Ireland’s fate against the abs was 37 phases of repeated head bashing against a brick wall. If a change in strategy or a tinker with the game plan was executed then things could've been vastly different. And to point a finger the let down was in the hands of the number 10.
Go to commentsI have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.
Go to comments