WRU speaks out

First topic message reminder :

Press release:

"WELSH RUGBY UNION STATEMENT

The Welsh Rugby Union wishes to clarify recent media reporting of a variety of current issues related to Welsh rugby. The WRU is anxious that the Welsh rugby public are made aware of the facts.


PRGB

The proposal to create a Professional Regional Game Board was developed during discussions following an independent report which concluded that the Regions needed to improve their business management and explore collaborative solutions.

A memorandum of understanding was signed by all four Regions and the WRU late in 2012 agreeing terms for the creation of the PRGB, its remit, who should be its members and its independent Chairman.

Early in 2013 the Regions sought to interpret the memorandum of understanding in a manner which was unacceptable to the WRU.

On Tuesday March 26, in a desire to move matters forward, the WRU presented a new proposal for a PRGB and awaits a response from the Regions.

It is important to note that the WRU seeks to help the regions create long term rugby and business sustainability. Demands for more money do not address the fundamental problems.

The WRU urges the regions to work together with the WRU to ensure that a PRGB can become operational in order to help address the issues raised in the PwC report.


JUDGEMENT DAY

The WRU organised, marketed and managed the event within its stated aim of helping the Regions achieve greater visibility and attract more and new supporters. This initiative was first proposed to the Regions by the WRU in 2007.

The WRU guarantees significant match fees to the Blues and Dragons as this day replaces their scheduled home fixtures.

The WRU has underwritten the event for four years with financial guarantees.

The WRU has also proposed further, major events involving the four Regions at the Millennium Stadium.

Judgement Day has proved a remarkable success with 36, 174 people attending to watch a celebration of regional rugby which has raised the profile of the elite game in Wales.


PLAYER TRANSFERS

The WRU accepts that some elite players will inevitably seek to leave Wales to achieve contractual incomes which are beyond the capacity of the current game in Wales.

The WRU has developed an elite pathway structure which nurtures talent through the WRU age grade structure, the WRU academies, the WRU funded regional age grade competitions, the Principality Premiership Division and its WRU resourced community game.

The WRU funds the Regions to secure the release of those elite contracted players with an annual sum in excess of £6million. This £6 million is part of the £15 million distributed to the Regions annually by the WRU.

The WRU has created a powerful elite playing and training environment through its National Centre of Excellence. The WRU urges the Regions to abandon the practice of selling Welsh qualified senior players for profit before their contracts are concluded.

The WRU further urges all four Regions to inform other regions and the WRU, as a first priority, when they are seeking to sell or release any elite Welsh qualified player.


GEORGE NORTH

The WRU is aware that the Scarlets opened discussions to transfer the player with clubs outside Wales and the UK late in 2012.

George North informed the WRU shortly after the Wales v Ireland RBS 6 Nations international on February 2 2013 that he had then been told of the transfer proposal.

George refused to consider France, but reluctantly conceded he would be prepared to move if the Scarlets wished.


CENTRAL CONTRACTS

The WRU first tabled an offer to discuss centrally contracting Welsh qualified regional players in August 2012 and has renewed that proposal. No meaningful response from the Regions has been received by the WRU.

The WRU revisited the issue of George North and agreed to consider assisting in a financial model to retain him in Wales with one of the four Regions.

The WRU has recently discovered that the Regions signed an agreement which precludes any of them playing an individual who is centrally contracted to the Union.


The WRU urges all four Regions to abandon this stance and return to the negotiating table.


This press release was produced by Sotic Ltd.

© Copyright Welsh Rugby Union. All rights reserved."


EDIT:

The Regions' response:

"The four Welsh regions are united in expressing how staggered and bitterly disappointed they all are with the nature, intent and content of the public statement made by the WRU this morning on a number of issues affecting Welsh rugby.
As the governing body that should lead and set the standards and platform for the profile of the game in Wales, the regions are surprised at the WRU's seemingly defensive reaction to some of the media reporting particularly given the success of yesterday's Welsh derby double-header.

As a celebration of regional rugby that attracted close to 37,000 supporters of our game, it was a clear example of the benefits of a partnership approach between the four regions to create fresh opportunities to promote the regional game in Wales and enjoyed by both regional players and spectators.

There are a number of significant comments made within the WRU statement, that the four regions will now need to consider very seriously and with the appropriate amount of time and discussion before making a full and united response.

The Professional Regional Game Board (PRGB) was proposed to ensure that Welsh rugby had a joint collaborative body, with an independent chairman, with the remit and authority to find solutions for some of the issues affecting Welsh rugby.

Had the PRGB been implemented as originally agreed by the WRU, it would be addressing the exact issues that it has now raised in its statement including the important objective of how best to retain Welsh players like George North.

The four regions and WRU signed and agreed a Memorandum of Understanding in November 2012 that outlined the creation of the PRGB. On the basis of this agreement, the PRGB met once on December 17th 2012.

The Regions have not changed or altered in any way their interpretation, understanding, intent or commitment to the agreements reached since the first proposals were made in May 2012.

The only queries raised subsequently, which have affected the establishment of the PRGB and the memorandum of understand signed by all five parties, have been made by the WRU which has in turn delayed the process.

The four Welsh regions have been committed and open in providing full and detailed information for the PwC report and its recommendations and have been consistent in their aims to work in partnership for successful establishment of the PRGB."

EDIT #2

Further WRU statement:

"WELSH RUGBY UNION STATEMENT

The WRU invites representatives from each of the four regional organisations to a meeting at the Millennium Stadium to discuss the contracting centrally of key Welsh rugby talent.

The WRU asks the four regional organisations to put aside their agreement not to play centrally contracted players and work with the Union to help secure the future of our young players in Wales.

The WRU will table, in advance of the meeting, a range of detailed options to be discussed, in addition to those already proposed, so that the four regional organisations are fully prepared to take part in a meaningful debate.

The WRU would also welcome suggestions from the four regional organisations on how best a centrally contracted player system would work to help safeguard Welsh rugby.

The WRU will be formally writing to the four regional organisations this morning, Tuesday April 2nd."

wayne wrote:So scrumdown you want the benefactors to leave Welsh rugby and then you want the WRU to have central contracts for, what the top 30 players in Wales, how do you then pay the aprox 100 other players in Regional rugby plus the Acadamies, plus premiership and junior rugby, do you think they will want any less than they recieve at the moment, because I can assure you the Ospreys who are this season averaging about 9000 a game, will not be getting half that if the WRU take control

Leinster average 18k with union control. You can still have a strong independent identity with union control.

Regions have received £75million of funding via WRU over the last 5 years before ticket sales are even taken into account. I know the majority of this is tv money etc but this funding is available whomever owns the regions.

Regions are not well run under current ownership as evidenced by the Independent PWC report.

Also why would you only support the ospreys as long as R Davies owns the shares! Or you only support the blues as long as P Thomas is in charge!

Scrumdown wrote:

wayne wrote:So scrumdown you want the benefactors to leave Welsh rugby and then you want the WRU to have central contracts for, what the top 30 players in Wales, how do you then pay the aprox 100 other players in Regional rugby plus the Acadamies, plus premiership and junior rugby, do you think they will want any less than they recieve at the moment, because I can assure you the Ospreys who are this season averaging about 9000 a game, will not be getting half that if the WRU take control

Leinster average 18k with union control. You can still have a strong independent identity with union control.

Regions have received £75million of funding via WRU over the last 5 years before ticket sales are even taken into account. I know the majority of this is tv money etc but this funding is available whomever owns the regions.

Regions are not well run under current ownership as evidenced by the Independent PWC report.

Also why would you only support the ospreys as long as R Davies owns the shares! Or you only support the blues as long as P Thomas is in charge!

Fixed that for you mate, after all it wasn't sanctioned independantly, and didn't cover the entirity of Welsh professional rugby now did it?

We are at civil war,all as bad as each other and quite frankly embarrassing

Bluesman,

Regions have accepted the findings of the PWC report.

Gwent Dragons did not even have a budget prepared and in effect no control therefore over their finances. Amateurish.

Scrumdown wrote:

wayne wrote:So scrumdown you want the benefactors to leave Welsh rugby and then you want the WRU to have central contracts for, what the top 30 players in Wales, how do you then pay the aprox 100 other players in Regional rugby plus the Acadamies, plus premiership and junior rugby, do you think they will want any less than they recieve at the moment, because I can assure you the Ospreys who are this season averaging about 9000 a game, will not be getting half that if the WRU take control

Leinster average 18k with union control. You can still have a strong independent identity with union control.

Regions have received £75million of funding via WRU over the last 5 years before ticket sales are even taken into account. I know the majority of this is tv money etc but this funding is available whomever owns the regions.

Regions are not well run under current ownership as evidenced by the Independent PWC report.

Also why would you only support the ospreys as long as R Davies owns the shares! Or you only support the blues as long as P Thomas is in charge!

Leinster have only had that since they started to win the HC, their International record is not very good compared to say ours, they have not had £75 mill, the extra £3.75 mill has only been in 2 seasons, as you say the majority of that money is the Regions own money, according to reports I've read that report said that the Ospreys were run very well and that one region had no business plan, the Ospreys are not owned by R Davies they are owned by Llandarcy Holdings of which R Davies is one director, the reason I would not support the region is not because of who owned it, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT THE WRU, for as long as the Dodger is still there

Can i just say i can't stand Stuart Gallagher , he seems nothing more than a gossiping old woman who loves making drama.
Also his complete lack of intelligence is nauseating to watch,he tries to act like he is some sort of big shot but the reality is,he is just a dimwit in a suit

thebluesmancometh wrote:Surely the WRU know they will never get their hands on the regions as they are now, they won't be able to afford to buy the benefactors out, if they however downgrade a region or 2 they could have way for 2 new regions, but they wouldn't be sly enough to get another 'region' up and running before they decide to...

OH

The WRU won't give the regions more funding as they fear that the owners will use that money to offset their loans rather than invest it in the region.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

wayne wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:It will have to be discussed now, everyone is at loggerheads.

I think you are totally delusional, the HC debacle is also at loggerheads for nearly a year now, are they talking NO
this has so much animosity running through it, it will take a long time before anything constructive comes out of it.

No I think this will bring everything to the table very quickly, thing is the regions won't win, they will have to back down. Not really sure there is a debate here.

You cant run a successful business constantly asking an organising body to fund you, if the regions want to exist they have to stop begging and address their financial issues. they know that, we know that and the WRU has told them that.

What will be interesting in this is whether the Scarlets admit to dealing payers without players knowing about it...! They and RRW have not denied the accusation.

Well you kinda can when the majority of the pot the WRU gets is directly or indirectly attributed to the regions!!

Maes the WRU have done hell of a job on you and knowsit, there is so much non sensical Lewis talk falling from your mouths I'm not ruse either of you have optinions any more!!

I'm also not sure why you duck perfectly valid questions and keep rallying the same tired WRU appointed comments over and over. I have no motive to bash the WRU at all, I just attribute blame where I see it!

Lets break this down to a few key issues?

Maes you are now head of the Ospreys, Biggar says he will not accept your best offer to renew his contract and that he's off end of next season, but Northampton offer you 250k to take him this season. The other option you have is allowing the WRU to pay him and ship him to the Scarlets, which do you take?

Am I right in assuming you still have no evidence to back up your claims of the WRU's supposed malevolence towards the regions then?

And there's more:

"WELSH RUGBY UNION STATEMENT

The WRU invites representatives from each of the four regional organisations to a meeting at the Millennium Stadium to discuss the contracting centrally of key Welsh rugby talent.

The WRU asks the four regional organisations to put aside their agreement not to play centrally contracted players and work with the Union to help secure the future of our young players in Wales.

The WRU will table, in advance of the meeting, a range of detailed options to be discussed, in addition to those already proposed, so that the four regional organisations are fully prepared to take part in a meaningful debate.

The WRU would also welcome suggestions from the four regional organisations on how best a centrally contracted player system would work to help safeguard Welsh rugby.

The WRU will be formally writing to the four regional organisations this morning, Tuesday April 2nd."

Glas a du wrote:And there's more:

"WELSH RUGBY UNION STATEMENT

The WRU invites representatives from each of the four regional organisations to a meeting at the Millennium Stadium to discuss the contracting centrally of key Welsh rugby talent.

The WRU asks the four regional organisations to put aside their agreement not to play centrally contracted players and work with the Union to help secure the future of our young players in Wales.

The WRU will table, in advance of the meeting, a range of detailed options to be discussed, in addition to those already proposed, so that the four regional organisations are fully prepared to take part in a meaningful debate.

The WRU would also welcome suggestions from the four regional organisations on how best a centrally contracted player system would work to help safeguard Welsh rugby.

The WRU will be formally writing to the four regional organisations this morning, Tuesday April 2nd."

Sounds like a good plan...

It would be wonderful to think that the Regions could just get on with rugby.

Knowsit

Stop ducking the issues and regurgatating a non sensical evidence line you!!!

Scrumdown

You mean paying off debt and not focusing on the rugby is a bad thing? Can you please go highlight that to Lewis please as all of his bonus scheme is based around debt reduction!!

No offence boys but neither of you or maes have offered a tangible argument for the WRU's actions here, you all just repeating what the WRU have spouted!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Knowsit

Stop ducking the issues and regurgatating a non sensical evidence line you!!!

Scrumdown

You mean paying off debt and not focusing on the rugby is a bad thing? Can you please go highlight that to Lewis please as all of his bonus scheme is based around debt reduction!!

No offence boys but neither of you or maes have offered a tangible argument for the WRU's actions here, you all just repeating what the WRU have spouted!

Blues,

Im heading out for a walk, its a dark cold murky day in Glyncorrwg why would i want to miss that. Ill have a good think about this whole situation, my point of view on it and will reply to you later.

One thing I will say, no matter how frustrating you feel our disagreement with you and a few others over these matters is, there is no need to be uncouth. We all want the same thing, success for Welsh rugby as a whole.

I really want to enjoy debating the pros and cons of one sides argument vs the others, but I implore that in doing so we ALL try very hard to not through even the slightest insult each others way.

Insults lead to irate responses and before you know it the whole things is some pathetic bunfight.

So lads, please can we try and debate this without getting angry? Without trying to insult other people. Without using antagonising language?

See if we can actually come to some well rounded and interesting points and maybe some sensible conclusions?


Thanks, I really want to enjoy a good read later. And hopefully I can contribute something insightful and useful too.

Maes

Now I found that post the most antagonising thing I have ever read on these boards!

You seem to forget again that I am not for the regions, and will not defend them until my dying breathe unlike a certain few will with the WRU, I am merely attributing blame over recent events to where I see is the true problem, and the recent antics of the WRU are to blame.

Responded with the same old 'WRU are all wise and all powerfull' line will get us nowhere!

If we're going to assess which party has the moral high ground here, let's not forget the interview Roger Lewis gave last year, talking about the possibility of going to two or three regions.

I believe that the regions want something like a dual contract on any player in the welsh squad with the current arrangement of access to them as there is now. The WRU get the player for the same allotted time as they always have and then the regions don't have to pay 6+ weeks wages to a player who is not training with or playing for them.

It's what should happen because it frees up that extra bit of wage budget under the cap which could fund another player, in some cases. Jamie Roberts, Cuthbert & 1/2p are on a good wage, yet during the six nations weekends where there wasn't a game..they didn't play for the blues. Yet the french based players, like mike phillips, went back to their clubs and played - The regions are currently paying for players they have no access during international periods. It's not value for money and i can see why they are refuses central contracts, that would restrict access even further.

Not that i'm saying that the WRU cover the players wages, they will give them their own contract based on how the WRU value them. Otherwise you'd get the situation where the pie man offering someone £350,000 a year...because he knows the WRU will have to pick up a sizeable chunk of that...

maestegmafia wrote:its a dark cold murky day in Glyncorrwg

As is every day in Glyncorrwg

gcBlues wrote:I believe that the regions want something like a dual contract on any player in the welsh squad with the current arrangement of access to them as there is now. The WRU get the player for the same allotted time as they always have and then the regions don't have to pay 6+ weeks wages to a player who is not training with or playing for them.

It's what should happen because it frees up that extra bit of wage budget under the cap which could fund another player, in some cases. Jamie Roberts, Cuthbert & 1/2p are on a good wage, yet during the six nations weekends where there wasn't a game..they didn't play for the blues. Yet the french based players, like mike phillips, went back to their clubs and played. The regions are currently paying for players they have no access during international periods. It's not value for money and i can see why they are refuses central contracts, that would restrict access even further.

It's not just the window themselves that are the problem though, there is the lead up to the window, the recovery after the window, and each international players season would be personalised around peaking for Wales and not for the club, similarly to the like of Ma Nonu, hasn't been able to string 3 good performances together for club then is a bit of a star for NZ!

Please elaborate bluesman, what issues am I ducking? Though it is not the first time I've said so on this thread, I have presented my reasons for criticising the regions. Perhaps you think constructive reasoning takes a back seat and that sensationalist anti-WRU propaganda should be at the fore in this debate. Perhaps you're Gallacher's or Peter Thomas' wife. Whatever the case it might disappoint you to know that people are generally expected to back up their claims with arguments for it nowadays. That's not nonsense as you claim, in fact it's the opposite, it's common sense.

At it again Knowsit...

Which of the 3 options stated clearly above is fair to the Scarlets cause???

How can you justify the WRU's offer to pay North if he goes to direct rivals?

How does Lewis talk about reducing to 2 or 3 regions and expect it not to effect the regions actions?

How can you justify Scarlets trying to auction off North behind everyone's backs? Let's not lose sight of the issues, it was that from which everything else sprang and that which I have been trying to get people to answer for all along.

Knowsit17 wrote:How can you justify Scarlets trying to auction off North behind everyone's backs? Let's not lose sight of the issues, it was that from which everything else sprang and that which I have been trying to get people to answer for all along.

I will not respond to any of your ramblings until you answer my questions!

Knowsit17 wrote:How can you justify Scarlets trying to auction off North behind everyone's backs? Let's not lose sight of the issues, it was that from which everything else sprang and that which I have been trying to get people to answer for all along.

No it wasn't. The WRU said nothing in December. It was Scrum V and Western Mail digging around the PRGB which set this off. Commercial confidentiality means nothing to the WRU. It raises a simple question; as a top flight player would you be happy about contracting directly with the WRU (who have been prepared to put the boot in to all and sundry) in order to get International game time?

Knowsit17 wrote:How can you justify Scarlets trying to auction off North behind everyone's backs? Let's not lose sight of the issues, it was that from which everything else sprang and that which I have been trying to get people to answer for all along.

Both the regions and wru need to take the blame.

The Scarlets apparently offered George the best contrct they could, and it was not signed. So therefore the Scarlets needed to do what Roger Lewis has been asking for and make themselves as self dependent as possible, which would be selling George to free up best part of £0.5m (transfer fee and years wages) which would be used to retain other players like Priestland, Owens, J Davies etc. The WRU are supposedly willing to pay a transfer fee and centrally contract George, supposedly to the Blues, so why not just assist the Scarlets to keep him.

The Blues and Dragons have made similar gambits with Lydiate and Roberts (talk of Faletau too), but with the players being out of contract so there was less financial gai from it.

IMO the regions and WRU need to sort out assistance for international players, and more important stop first team players moving from region to region. That would help to improve union and regional relationship, as the regions should not lose fans, and should really gain them, leading to bigger attendances etc, an hopefully making them less dependent on private backing for rich businessmen.

The WRU are supposedly willing to pay a transfer fee and centrally contract George, supposedly to the Blues, so why not just assist the Scarlets to keep him.

Catch up will you, the Scarlets are NOT the Blues

Go on Glas - I like it when you're serious

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:How can you justify Scarlets trying to auction off North behind everyone's backs? Let's not lose sight of the issues, it was that from which everything else sprang and that which I have been trying to get people to answer for all along.

I will not respond to any of your ramblings until you answer my questions!

I have posed you the same set of questions since yesterday or the day before and time and time again you have refrained from answering directly...not unlike the Scarlets. So no, I owe you no explanation until you answer first. Who are you to think that others should give way to you when you yourself ignore the bulk of other people's queries and instead reform the questions at hand to a manner more convenient for you?

I do that!

What, reform questions? I'm sure we all do sometimes, whether deliberately or unwittingly. It's hard not to fall into it when one's point of view is naturally the opposite from the person we're talking to

Knowsit17 wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:How can you justify Scarlets trying to auction off North behind everyone's backs? Let's not lose sight of the issues, it was that from which everything else sprang and that which I have been trying to get people to answer for all along.

I will not respond to any of your ramblings until you answer my questions!

I have posed you the same set of questions since yesterday or the day before and time and time again you have refrained from answering directly...not unlike the Scarlets. So no, I owe you no explanation until you answer first. Who are you to think that others should give way to you when you yourself ignore the bulk of other people's queries and instead reform the questions at hand to a manner more convenient for you?

I'm willing to answer any question you have knowsit, I have said so, so go on pose me a question, please, then I will pose you one!

Okay, let's start over, I'll answer as objectively as I can if you do *deep breath*
What are your thoughts on the Scarlets negotiating with other clubs concerning the sale of one of their best players without the knowledge of said player? (Baring in mind of course that this is not confirmed but let's speak theoretically for a moment)

Bluesman,

After a long hard thought about this and a good read of the comments left after my last and a few before I consider this thread is still getting far too cajoled away from the actual debate which I think is a very simple one.

The regions want more money because they feel they can't be competitive with rival clubs in the competitions they participate in.

So what are the options for the regions to find finances?

Knowsit17 wrote:Okay, let's start over, I'll answer as objectively as I can if you do *deep breath*
What are your thoughts on the Scarlets negotiating with other clubs concerning the sale of one of their best players without the knowledge of said player? (Baring in mind of course that this is not confirmed but let's speak theoretically for a moment)

Good start.

Firstly I think as North has rejected what is meant to be the Scarlets best offer, and the WRU have said they will not help Scarlets keep him, he and his agents will be searching for clubs/drum up interest in him now while his form is blistering and his reputation sky high.

I'm not a huge fan of the Scarlets reportedly touting him about like a commodity, but his agent will be doing pretty much the same thing don't you think. It was always a matter of time before we started to see transfer fee's in rugby (despite the under the table stuff) and this is a pretty sad day for the sport.

If I was the Scarlets owner however I would consider Lewis's words hinting to downgrading of 2 regions, the PWC report, and the flak I was taking for not being sustainable, and then take the WRU's example and focus on the monetary side of things. If that meant offloading some of the talent I cultivated for transfer fee's and reducing my wage bill then so be it, it is after all the WRU's wish and example.

That OK

What do you think of the same question?

My turn mate...

What do you think of the WRU's supposed offer of paying Norths contract but only if he is moved to direct competition (people keep mentioning the Blues but I think the Ospreys would be more suitable to the WRU)?

Ipersonally think it's a slap in the face of the Scarlets, and a bully boy tactic with no real intention of keeping him in Wales.

I think it's something of a last-gasp attempt by the WRU to keep North in Wales full stop, regardless of what region. That'll be their priority I'm sure and if they have an easier time pulling the strings with one region than with another they are probably going to take that chance. For that reason it might also be interpreted as an attempt to lure the Blues from the RRW over to their (the WRU's) camp and thus up their negotiating power while putting a wedge between the regions. Divide and conquer tactics, though that might just be me getting paranoid.

I'm not sure it's a tactic taken against the Scarlets in particular but something resultant from the regions original refusal of central contracts. The details behind the original discussions I would not be aware of of course.

bluesman, did you hear if there was any 'reasons' actually given to Scarlets by the WRU as to why they'd only pay to keep North in Wales if he went to Blues?

Surely the first question on Scarlet's lips, IF they were all having an adult discussion, would have been "Why?"

Did Scarlets ask "Why?"

Did they get an answer if they did ask "Why?"

and.... if they didn't even ask "Why?"...then why didn't they?

Knowsit17 wrote:I think it's something of a last-gasp attempt by the WRU to keep North in Wales control North full stop, regardless of what region. That'll be their priority I'm sure and if they have an easier time pulling the strings with one region than with another they are probably going to take that chance. For that reason it might also be interpreted as an attempt to lure the Blues from the RRW over to their (the WRU's) camp and thus up their negotiating power while putting a wedge between the regions. Divide and conquer tactics, though that might just be me getting paranoid.

I'm not sure it's a tactic taken against the Scarlets in particular but something resultant from the regions original refusal of central contracts. The details behind the original discussions I would not be aware of of course.

Then it appears we virtually agree, (aside from the crossed out) except I would probably have said the same thing more agressively and evoked a negative reaction.

If you put yourself in the Scarlets shoes though you could understand why they would be frustrated, and lash out. But lets be honest there aren't many who have handled this in a dignified manner!

SecretFly wrote:bluesman, did you hear if there was any 'reasons' actually given to Scarlets by the WRU as to why they'd only pay to keep North in Wales if he went to Blues?

Surely the first question on Scarlet's lips, IF they were all having an adult discussion, would have been "Why?"

Did Scarlets ask "Why?"

Did they get an answer if they did ask "Why?"

and.... if they didn't even ask "Why?"...then why didn't they?

Lines of communication are dire at present mate, the RRW and WRU only seem to communicate via press statements these days. I get the feeling the Scarlets saw the offer and just saw red (partially understandably) but the WRU have close ties and links with the Blues, and as knowsit has said quite astutely getting the Blues onside would do the WRU wonders at the negotiating table!!!

In this situation I like to think that I can put myself in both positions...

If I were the Scarlets I would be outraged, and rather 'sell' North to Northampton than let the WRU place him at a direct rival.

If I were the WRU I would be desperate to keep him in Wales, and the easiest and best way to do that is to part fund his wage, and ammend his contract favourably for the WRU, or just centrally contract him at the Scarlets but take total control over him.

Thats why I don't understand this move by the WRU, they have been immensely clumsy at best, and really underhand at worst!!

Now I really think about it the Scarlets are in a bit of a real pickle, tyhey devoted the best part of 2 seasons on refusing to sign foreign players and stuck with local talent, this cost them dearly and just as that development is about to pay off the wage bill has gone through the roof, and they are forced to offload the players they invested so much in at a rate of knots!!

They also have a number of young about to be very very good club players developing that will only compound the problem, the likes of Williams, North, JD2, Williams, RP, Knoyle, Mccusker, Shingler, Rees and Owens are all in or around the Welsh squad, with growing reputations and demands, then there are another half a dozen players who have graduated from the U20's and will soon be in the same situation.

This all highlights how development of home grown talent offers little to the region, and a balance must be struck between development and competitiveness.

So to clarify and make sure I understand the politics behind it, the WRU will only give the regions further funding to help pay player wages in return for the regions complying to central contracts. The regions are (for the time being) against this as they fear they'll lose control of their best players almost entirely to the WRU. Am I right in saying that in a centralised structure you sign your contracts with the governing body and they decide which team you play for? Or do you sign two separate contracts, one keeping you in the country and one for whichever team of that country you want to play for? If it isn't the former option then I don't really see what the regions have to be afraid of, that is to say if players would still have autonomy to decide which region they want to play for. They're already obligated to release players for national duty a fixed number of days before an international fixture, so I'm not entirely certain what would change from now.

Knowsit17 wrote:So to clarify and make sure I understand the politics behind it, the WRU will only give the regions further funding to help pay player wages in return for the regions complying to central contracts. The regions are (for the time being) against this as they fear they'll lose control of their best players almost entirely to the WRU. Am I right in saying that in a centralised structure you sign your contracts with the governing body and they decide which team you play for? Or do you sign two separate contracts, one keeping you in the country and one for whichever team of that country you want to play for? If it isn't the former option then I don't really see what the regions have to be afraid of, that is to say if players would still have autonomy to decide which region they want to play for. They're already obligated to release players for national duty a fixed number of days before an international fixture, so I'm not entirely certain what would change from now.

Problem with the central contract proposal is that is what a feign by the WRU, there was no extra funds offered, just a restructure of what they already get, and signing the rights to the best players over to the WRU.

I would be very wary of central contracts that allowed the WRU do what they want with the player, as they can seem very volatile, and Lewis has already mentioned reducing the regions to 2 or 3. If the regions lose control over their international players they may as well hand the keys to the club to the WRU too. We would see the likes of North, Falatau, JD2 all shipped to the Blues, and Williams, Lee, and Williams shipped to the Ospreys, with numerous kids going the other way.

I always assumed the WRU chipping in to help pay player wages was an ethical accompanying condition to a centralised structure being imposed, at least while some of the regions are struggling to pay wages in full by themselves. Otherwise why bother offering them at all if there isn't a sweetener enclosed for the regions, that is to say that it doesn't take a genius to work out that the regions wouldn't give ground without something in it for them. And even if they were to cede power unconditionally it wouldn't change much, instead of refusing contracts with the regions the players involved would simply be saying no to the WRU instead. Same situation as now, you're just declining contracts from a different group of people than before. Seems rather nonsensical to me.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:So to clarify and make sure I understand the politics behind it, the WRU will only give the regions further funding to help pay player wages in return for the regions complying to central contracts. The regions are (for the time being) against this as they fear they'll lose control of their best players almost entirely to the WRU. Am I right in saying that in a centralised structure you sign your contracts with the governing body and they decide which team you play for? Or do you sign two separate contracts, one keeping you in the country and one for whichever team of that country you want to play for? If it isn't the former option then I don't really see what the regions have to be afraid of, that is to say if players would still have autonomy to decide which region they want to play for. They're already obligated to release players for national duty a fixed number of days before an international fixture, so I'm not entirely certain what would change from now.

Problem with the central contract proposal is that is what a feign by the WRU, there was no extra funds offered, just a restructure of what they already get, and signing the rights to the best players over to the WRU.

I would be very wary of central contracts that allowed the WRU do what they want with the player, as they can seem very volatile, and Lewis has already mentioned reducing the regions to 2 or 3. If the regions lose control over their international players they may as well hand the keys to the club to the WRU too. We would see the likes of North, Falatau, JD2 all shipped to the Blues, and Williams, Lee, and Williams shipped to the Ospreys, with numerous kids going the other way.

Yes, and hopefully this time the WRU revise their central contract proposal. They aren't bad if they are closer to the NZ model. If they were already in place guys like Craig Mitchell could be playing in Wales, perhaps at the Blues or Dragons. He would have certainly strengthened those two teams.

"Regions to say no to WRU’s contracts summit";

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/sport/10328310.Regions_to_say_no_to_WRU___s_contracts_summit/

Yet the article doesn't contain any new info.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Problem with the central contract proposal is that is what a feign by the WRU, there was no extra funds offered, just a restructure of what they already get, and signing the rights to the best players over to the WRU.

I dont see the WRU really offering much more money because there is little point in doing so. Though the regions and the players have to compete with the current market place that market place is not set by Wales or the WRU, it is set by the bigger budget top clubs of England, France and Japan, which we can't compete with.

The argument for central contracting is that the WRU could determine what a player does and where he plays and most importantly legally bind that player to staying in Wales which is what we all want.

Though unfortunately from all my reading up on central contracting it doesn't seem to work, countries that have it, like New Zealand are suffering just as much as Wales is from the sheer fact that as a professional game smaller economies can not compete with large ones. Ireland have recently lost two of their most influential players, Ferris and Sexton. Despite central contracting Ireland's future looks to be going the same way as the rest of us, despite the advantage of the nation governing their own taxes.

We can't compete financially. It is a never ending arms race that large economies can constantly reinvent and escalate.

There is a good argument for the WRU and the regions to combine both letting high profile players go to other countries to raise revenue and central contracting.

If players centrally contracted for, lets say, five years to the WRU when that contract is up those players could go abroad and that would let the Regions cash in on their investment.

I'm not so sure about that maes. NZ still maintain the finest national side around currently and their Super Rugby record has never looked too shabby either. And that's with a population barely bigger than ours and with an even stricter policy on overseas players, as in not a single one is allowed to don the black jersey whereas Wales only favours home-based players slightly ahead of expats.

Knowsit17 wrote:I'm not so sure about that maes. NZ still maintain the finest national side around currently and their Super Rugby record has never looked too shabby either. And that's with a population barely bigger than ours and with an even stricter policy on overseas players, as in not a single one is allowed to don the black jersey whereas Wales only favours home-based players slightly ahead of expats.

Problems with central contracting are not at the top they are lower down in the Provincial ITM cup which many over there believe is dying. It is the equivalent to our premiership and we have experienced similar. Good provincial players that wont make the All Blacks are leaving NZ in their droves signing for anyone who will pay more money.

Even the top tier Super XV level are losing younger players to other countries that the NZRFU can not financially compete with.

I agree there are aspects that work well, NZ hold on to some seriously talented guys, much more than than they lose, but the NZRFU can see the drain affecting their set up in the future, as the lower levels weaken and the stakes abroad are raised constantly higher.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Knowsit

Stop ducking the issues and regurgatating a non sensical evidence line you!!!

Scrumdown

You mean paying off debt and not focusing on the rugby is a bad thing? Can you please go highlight that to Lewis please as all of his bonus scheme is based around debt reduction!!

No offence boys but neither of you or maes have offered a tangible argument for the WRU's actions here, you all just repeating what the WRU have spouted!

The debt the regions are paying off is that which they owe to their owners i.e. Peter Thomas, Huw Evans, Cuddy etc who are Millionaires and were never asked by the WRU to loan any amounts to the regions in the first place. It was their choice.

The WRU are paying off a debt owed to the bank which must be paid.

Partly through poor management, the owners have incurred losses on their investments in the regions running into the millions. Their only hope of recovering any of these losses is to keep control of welsh rugby's main assets i.e the the players, and either sell them on whilst under contract to foreign clubs or use them as a bargaining tool to receive more handouts from the welsh rugby union.

Central contracts would be good for welsh rugby but it won't boost the bank balance of PThomas and co and this is what this is all about.

As much as I don't trust Roger Lewis, I trust P Thomas and co even less and any well informed fan would too.

Scrumdown wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Knowsit

Stop ducking the issues and regurgatating a non sensical evidence line you!!!

Scrumdown

You mean paying off debt and not focusing on the rugby is a bad thing? Can you please go highlight that to Lewis please as all of his bonus scheme is based around debt reduction!!

No offence boys but neither of you or maes have offered a tangible argument for the WRU's actions here, you all just repeating what the WRU have spouted!

The debt the regions are paying off is that which they owe to their owners i.e. Peter Thomas, Huw Evans, Cuddy etc who are Millionaires and were never asked by the WRU to loan any amounts to the regions in the first place. It was their choice.

The WRU are paying off a debt owed to the bank which must be paid.

Partly through poor management, the owners have incurred losses on their investments in the regions running into the millions. Their only hope of recovering any of these losses is to keep control of welsh rugby's main assets i.e the the players, and either sell them on whilst under contract to foreign clubs or use them as a bargaining tool to receive more handouts from the welsh rugby union.

Central contracts would be good for welsh rugby but it won't boost the bank balance of PThomas and co and this is what this is all about.

As much as I don't trust Roger Lewis, I trust P Thomas and co even less and any well informed fan would too.

As I mentioned before you really have to question why these people are so forthcoming with their cash, an investment that had no realistic gain, no real opportunity to capitalise unless they were incredibly poorly informed prior to their involvement or just so rugby mad it didn't matter.

Even taking return on investment in its broadest of contexts I can't see how the regions were ever a feasible or welcoming investment.