Regional Rugby Wales to hold 4pm press conference

As the title says, hope its something positive. It probabaly won't be

'Major News' apparently

Should be a scream.

Meanwhile Moffett puts the boot in;

"The Welsh Rugby Union off the field at the moment are the laughing stock of world rugby."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22028771

Moffett doesn't hold back in that interview, does he?

"They [the WRU], under this regime, have never liked the idea that the regions were separate entities and could control the buying and selling of players. I suppose the George North incident is a perfect example of that.

"But until they come clean, and actually say that's what they want to achieve, this will go on and on until there is a change in the management of the WRU.

"I hate to think of the idea of the Welsh Rugby Union owning the franchises or owning the regions as they do here in New Zealand because I think under the current regime that would be an absolute disaster.

"I think it's very very sad for Welsh rugby that the default position by the WRU in one of confrontation and if they don't get their way then they are like kids throwing their toys out of the cot and they go off to the media."

Moffet is a complete funknuckle mind

Any moment now.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radiowales/on-air

"Regions Call for Independent Arbitrator to assess why PRGB has been stalled."

http://www.cardiffblues.com/news/6337.php

It turn out to be nothing,

may be to do with central contracts;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21999766

The statement added: "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."

If the WRu kept the funding as is, and centrally contracted the top 20 players I think that would be fair. The regions funding stays as is, and any International talent they develop would then be a bonus when they play.

IE Dragons would not have to pay Faletau (as the WRU would) and they would be able to use what they prev paid him to strengthen thier squad, he would prob play a few games less a year for Dragons, but that what happens.


To be honest to have this I think that the WRU will turn one region into a development region, and concentrate all the central contracts between 3 regions (using the some of the funding the development team prev got to put central contracts in place).

So what do yous think, central funding stays the same, but you don't have to pay your top players, meaning increased funds for the squad, but one region becomes a development region, and if it develops an international, he will be moved to one of the big 3?

Regional Rugby Wales, the organisation which represents the four Welsh regions, the Scarlets, the Ospreys, Newport Gwent Dragons and Cardiff Blues has issued the following joint statement in response to recent communication from the WRU
Regional Rugby Wales (RRW) calls on the Chief Executive of the WRU, as the leader of the Executive of Welsh rugby's governing body, not to stall the rightful purpose and direction of the agreed and democratic PRGB (Professional Regional Game Board).
RRW urges the WRU not to side-track discussions or detract from the recommendations of the WRU's own independent report undertaken by PWC and completed in October 2012.

The Regions would question why the PRGB has not been taken forward by the WRU and request that it is formally submitted to arbitration to see where the fault lies in this process.

The Regions would question why the WRU is now seemingly ignoring its own independent report and the proper process of the Professional Regional Game Board (PRGB) that it signed up to, to take things forward - choosing instead to revert to an historical debate on central contracts.

The Regions would equally question why that at the formal monthly meeting of the Management Board the Tuesday prior to Judgement Day no mention was made of the letter of invitation to a WRU 'Summit' on central contracts. No mention was made at the double-header event when the four Regions were with the WRU Chief Executive at the Millennium Stadium. The invitation was instead issued by press release.

RRW deplores the seemingly cynical way that a talented young home-grown Welsh international has been placed into the centre of high profile public debate as part of a public statement by the WRU to highlight issues in Welsh rugby.

The Regions worked in a spirit of unity and purpose and with clear trust, good will and openness during the process of the PWC report and the subsequent establishment of PRGB; sharing sensitive financial information with the sole desire to improve the state of the game in Wales, something all four regions passionately support and believe in.

The findings of the independent report made it clear there was no one bullet solution; including disregarding central contracts as an initiative which would not address the key fundamental issues facing Welsh rugby as a whole.

Central contracts for individual players is a knee-jerk reaction - it will not help nurture the whole game in Wales including community rugby and the important role that our clubs play in helping develop young talent for Wales.

The Regions confidence in the scrutiny and process of the independent PWC report, the PRGB and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) remains unchanged.

The Regions summarise and outline their position as follows:

"It is clear from PWC that a clear strategy is required for Welsh Rugby if it is to survive and prosper.

"All of us in Welsh Rugby need that strategy, so we can determine our own respective progression and work together with best effect for the benefit of Welsh Rugby.

"This is what we have been saying for years. The WRU has chosen to ignore our pleas for rationale debate and the WRU Chief Executive has been prepared to oversee the decline of Welsh rugby outside the international tier.

"The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the WRU and Four Regions in November 2012 agreed democratic representation on a newly established PRGB with an independent chairman with a casting vote.

"After the first meeting of the PRGB; the WRU have withdrawn from negotiations and made an alternative offer to continue with the existing management board with a non-voting chairman and to rename it PRGB.

"This creates a false impression that something has changed. We do not want to be part of something that is not transparent or democratic.
"We are now only happy to rely upon the judgement of the voting independent chairman at the head of PRGB, to act logically in assisting the parties to move forward.

"We have confidence in the WRU's choice of Chairman of the PRGB, as we are confident he will act with logic and integrity for the benefit of Welsh rugby. We were very happy with how he chaired the first meeting and the support and advice he has provided outside that meeting.

"We note that the request at the first and only meeting of the PRGB on December 17th 2012 the independent chairman of the PRGB requested that Roger Lewis and his WRU executives to put forward a clear strategy to take the game forward in Wales. This has never been produced.

"For the WRU to conduct itself in this way in the public domain, under the leadership of the Chief Executive, is in our view, not acceptable for a governing body which is ultimately responsible for the state of Welsh rugby and which sets the standards for and leads the promotion of our game across the world.

"The Professional game in Wales is in decline. We need solid, democratic action to halt that. Continuing to reduce bank debt, investing in hospitality boxes and other capital scheme are strategic choices made by the WRU, which may or may not be the best use of resources; and we are not in a position to judge.

"However, it is all about strategic choice. We continue to uphold the PWC report that clearly states: "greater collaboration is required between the WRU and the Regions, as currently the structure is not viable."

"We do not believe that this should just be about control of the "elite" game in Wales. PWC recommended better collaboration on how finances are used for the protection and development of Welsh rugby including the international game, professional game, premiership and community game.

"It would seem the voices and pleas for help from the grassroots of Welsh rugby are not being heard as the WRU's preoccupation continues with the elite headline tier of the game.

"We share the Welsh rugby public's frustration and dismay about the state of Welsh rugby and the way that these discussions are being played out in the media.

"We want to act with a sense of maturity, purpose and unity and ensure that Welsh rugby does survive and prosper."

In light of the Region's position, RRW would challenge the WRU and ask a series of fundamental questions to be answered for transparency and purpose:

• Why is the WRU Executive now not comfortable with having an independent chairman with voting rights to preside over the PRGB?

• When will the WRU put forward its strategy for the future of the game in Wales to the PRGB members as requested at the first meeting of the Board?

• Does the WRU consider it is acting with integrity as it seeks to play out its position in the public arena first without reference or discussions with the Four Regions and an opportunity to discuss privately?

• Why are the WRU focusing primarily on central contracts when its own independent report highlighted this was not the solution for Welsh rugby?

• Have the statements that have been issued been fully supported and endorsed by the Board of the WRU?

They're having a fancy moan then really?

Seems to me to be a classic case of Animal farm politics. The RRW seem to be practicing and becoming exactly what they hate about the WRU. All extremely boring. Are Northampton hiring ball boys?

I did seriously try to read all that.................... but it's so stuffed with Initials of Groupings and sheer "You said that when you shouldn't have" rhetoric that it seems it's going to be a long, long time before there is a meeting of minds.

It seems to be worded in such a way that if one concession is made by either side, there will always be a few thousand extra bits and pieces to go.

In the region's defence, it does seem the WRU have backtracked and flip flopped a fair old bit

This is schoolboy nonsense.

He said you said they said ..and nobody does anything.

Paul Thorburn has just said Ego's rule

Allty wrote:This is schoolboy nonsense.

He said you said they said ..and nobody does anything.

Paul Thorburn has just said Ego's rule

Going by your age, I thought you might be one of the WRU blazers who appointed this crook to fleece Welsh rugby to keep Barclays happy, but you're too young. It's top stuff from the regions. Why won't he follow the recommendations of the PWC report? Why chase after central contracts when PWC rejected the entire possibility? Why is he spending money on corporate fat cats posh seats when the club game is dying? Why drag George North into it so publically? Why won't Rog attend the PRGB? Why doesn't he want independent arbitration on these issues? Because he's a ffecyn shyster, that's why

Sounds fun... Perhaps they could agree to some sort of dual contract system and gradually contract players over the years.

The regions are correct, the PWC report said
An option of the WRU centrally contracting players and reducing the £6m they give to the regions for Test players "does not address the structural funding gap" they are operating under.

So why do the WRU keep pushing it forward

also,

The report states: "The historical financial performance shows the four regional businesses are not sustainable on a standalone basis in their current form without continued additional funding from benefactors or alternative funding sources."

November was when the report came out, and nothing has been done yet:

The seventh - and seemingly favoured option in the report - is for the WRU and regions to "adopt a closer collaborative approach" with the formation of a management board to enforce it. The report says this "requires a positive change in the WRU-regions relationship."

The report says the advantage of such a move would maintain regional identity and benefactor involvement and "can be implemented quickly", but adds the solutions being considered should be "evolutionary, not revolutionary, so as not to jeopardise current income streams."


Come on WRU/regions hurry up and sort it out.


The seventh - and seemingly favoured option in the report - is for the WRU and regions to "adopt a closer collaborative approach" with the formation of a management board to enforce it. The report says this "requires a positive change in the WRU-regions relationship."

Stone Motif wrote:

Allty wrote:This is schoolboy nonsense.

He said you said they said ..and nobody does anything.

Paul Thorburn has just said Ego's rule

Going by your age, I thought you might be one of the WRU blazers who appointed this crook to fleece Welsh rugby to keep Barclays happy, but you're too young. It's top stuff from the regions. Why won't he follow the recommendations of the PWC report? Why chase after central contracts when PWC rejected the entire possibility? Why is he spending money on corporate fat cats posh seats when the club game is dying? Why drag George North into it so publically? Why won't Rog attend the PRGB? Why doesn't he want independent arbitration on these issues? Because he's a ffecyn shyster, that's why

Yeah, but why didn't they just publish your synopsis instead? At least I read all of yours. And understood it!

Going back to
"An option of the WRU centrally contracting players and reducing the £6m they give to the regions for Test players "does not address the structural funding gap" they are operating under. "

Now if they were to centrally contract players and do not reduce the £6m they give to the regions for Test players, would the regions find this acceptable?

as I said above I think the WRU will offer this, but one region will become a development region. The 3 regions would then be on a level akin to top Jeff sides.

Kingshu wrote:Going back to
"An option of the WRU centrally contracting players and reducing the £6m they give to the regions for Test players "does not address the structural funding gap" they are operating under. "

Now if they were to centrally contract players and do not reduce the £6m they give to the regions for Test players, would the regions find this acceptable?

as I said above I think the WRU will offer this, but one region will become a development region. The 3 regions would then be on a level akin to top Jeff sides.

That's what I had in mind. But perhaps they should reduce that sum slightly. Doesn't the £6m include compensation for international call-ups? Wouldn't make sense if the players were contracted by the WRU.

munkian wrote:"In light of the Region's position, RRW would challenge the WRU and ask a series of fundamental questions to be answered for transparency and purpose:

• Why is the WRU Executive now not comfortable with having an independent chairman with voting rights to preside over the PRGB?

• Does the WRU consider it is acting with integrity as it seeks to play out its position in the public arena first without reference or discussions with the Four Regions and an opportunity to discuss privately?

• Have the statements that have been issued been fully supported and endorsed by the Board of the WRU?

These are the three key questions for me. The third could be the one that lands Roger in trouble. A possible vote of no confidence in the offing?

To be honest I really need hate all of this public bickering, however I am so glad RRW exist, otherwise the WRU would have just trampled the regions into submission over all this and managed to come out of all of this looking like the good guys to the average fan.

munkian wrote:In the region's defence, it does seem the WRU have backtracked and flip flopped a fair old bit

Totally agree. Why spend all that money on PwC to produce a report. Then both bodies sign the memo of understanding only for the WRU to renage on it.
It would appear to me the WRU don't want an independent Chairman with a casting vote. Why bother signing it in the first place if all the WRU wanted was total control?

The WRU should have kept to the agreement - both sides would then have had a proper forum in private.

Have the WRU reneged on anything????

We don't have all of the facts and the WRU have now invited the Board to talks for the 3rd time.

I again ask why should failing businesses be repeatedly bailed out and the money continually spent on often second rate imports.

Millions have already been wasted.

It remains my opinion that the fiasco is and remains Ego driven

Its also worth remembering what the word Union means

Allty wrote:Have the WRU reneged on anything????

We don't have all of the facts and the WRU have now invited the Board to talks for the 3rd time.

I again ask why should failing businesses be repeatedly bailed out and the money continually spent on often second rate imports.

Millions have already been wasted.

It remains my opinion that the fiasco is and remains Ego driven

Its also worth remembering what the word Union means

Yes they have - they haven't implemented the PRGB as agreed & signed by both parties in the memo of understanding. As I stated above why sign it in the first place? Why don't the WRU want an independent Chair as also agreed?
I think most observers can conclude that the WRU want total control. In which case why bother with the memo in the first place?

Yes, they've reneged - they've reneged on the terms of the PRGB, the very PRGB whose formation was trumpeted by Roger Lewis as a major breakthrough only a few months ago. It has met once and now the WRU doesn't want to know. So the regions are quite right to ask:

• Why is the WRU Executive now not comfortable with having an independent chairman with voting rights to preside over the PRGB?

Yes, the WRU has called the regions to a meeting for the third time, but not under the guise of the PRGB, and the regions are right to stick to their guns. Also, the chairmen of all four regions were at the Millennium with Roger Lewis on Saturday and rather than talking to them, the WRU decided to release that inflammatory and deeply unhelpful press release. What does the WRU have to say now that couldn't have been said last Saturday, or indeed be said now at a meeting of the PRGB?

"The regions would question the tactics of the WRU executive, led by Roger Lewis, in bringing what was a democratic and agreed process via the PRGB and memorandum of understanding to a grinding halt.

"The four regions and the WRU signed and agreed a memorandum of understanding in November 2012 that outlined the creating of the PRGB.

"On the basis of that agreement the PRGB met once on 17 December 2012. The regions have not changed or altered in any way their interpretation, understanding or intent or commitment to the agreements reached since the first proposals were made in May 2012.

"We are therefore calling for an independent arbitrator to assess why this duly agreed democratic process has been halted."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22028777

The ball's in Roger Lewis's court, and inviting the regions to meet outside the agreed framework, without even saying what their problem is with that framework, is no good at all.

Alty, to be fair your right the word unions meaning seems to have been forgotten in this whole farce. However in this case its 4 to 1 so you could say the people at the very top of the union are the ones guilty of that.

On the subject of union, to what extent have the member clubs been consulted by the executive of the WRU in all this?

Rob Andrew, in about the only decent thing he has done at the RFU, managed to broker a workable deal between the clubs and the RFU.

We can let you borrow him if you want.

Let's not forget also that the call 'to the table' issued to the 'four regional organisations' and not RRW, is expressly to discuss central contracts. The same central contracts which the Union, as was clarified it the PWC report, cannot even deliver on.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On the subject of union, to what extent have the member clubs been consulted by the executive of the WRU in all this?

When you are appointed Union leader and have paid advisors you do not have to call an AGM/EGM every time decisions have to be made.

This fiasco is about money, regional failure, and Ego's.

Please remember the stance of the Money men over the last 10 or so years.

They thought they could buy success and have failed.

Allty wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On the subject of union, to what extent have the member clubs been consulted by the executive of the WRU in all this?

When you are appointed Union leader and have paid advisors you do not have to call an AGM/EGM every time decisions have to be made.

I'm not suggesting you do; but it's pertinent to ask whether the first the clubs or the full board are hearing of the executive's decisions is when they read the press releases on the website.

Allty wrote:
This fiasco is about money, regional failure, and Ego's.

Well you've got that right, at least. The WRU contribute little money to the game beyond Team Wales, directly cause the regions failure to grow, and Princess Rog must have the biggest ego in Wales. Scratch that - universe.

Stone Motif wrote:

Allty wrote:
This fiasco is about money, regional failure, and Ego's.

Well you've got that right, at least. The WRU contribute little money to the game beyond Team Wales, directly cause the regions failure to grow, and Princess Rog must have the biggest ego in Wales. Scratch that - universe.

Sadly you fail to notice the Egos were around way before RL came onto the scene.

Who was it ..and.. when was it the Regions/i.e Old clubs demanded stand alone status.

Far to much blame is being attributed to the WRU

Stone Motif wrote:Let's not forget also that the call 'to the table' issued to the 'four regional organisations' and not RRW, is expressly to discuss central contracts. The same central contracts which the Union, as was clarified it the PWC report, cannot even deliver on.

Not quite the pwc report had
"An option of the WRU centrally contracting players and reducing the £6m they give to the regions for Test players "does not address the structural funding gap" they are operating under. "

But centrally contracting players and NOT reducing the £6m would still be an option.
It may be what the WRU what to discuss but I don't know why they are not doing it through the PRGB.
I think the WRU want to centrally contract players, keep the funding the same for three regions, and have the internations spread in these three, and drop a team to development statis and reduce its funding.

After all the WRU have been making noises about reducing the status of one region for a while, and have been on a mission to have central contracts, this is prob how they want to do it.

It would create 3 very strong regions (equal to the 3 provinces, top English teams) and one poor region, would Welsh rugby fans accept it? (the region that is going to be reduced prob won't)

Personally from an outside point of view it may be worth it, 3 teams that would be on a par with the top in Europe. However I would like to see a plan in place for the development team, will they get equal funding as the other when the WRU has debts paid down more? will it increase each year untill debts are paid? will they be replaced by RGC1404?
I would hate for the developemnt team to be bottom of the table, each year, getting hidings from everyone, a fan has to be in place to give them some hope, of battling wins out.

Allty wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On the subject of union, to what extent have the member clubs been consulted by the executive of the WRU in all this?

When you are appointed Union leader and have paid advisors you do not have to call an AGM/EGM every time decisions have to be made.

This fiasco is about money, regional failure, and Ego's.

Please remmember the stance of the Money men over the last 10 or so years.

They thought they could buy success and have failed.

Certainly is a fiasco and i'm afraid Dodger must take the lion's share of the blame in my opinion.

More from yesterday's nuclear strike, Peter Thomas says;

WRU accused of 'power, divide, conquer, wipe-out' strategy

"At a press conference at Cardiff's Arms Park, the base for the WRU, Peter Thomas, the chairman of Cardiff Blues, did not mince his words. "I sum it up with the words power, divide, conquer, wipe-out, that's the agenda for certain people across the way. The means to sort out our problems exists in the professional regional game board but it has not met since it was set up last December and we need to start talking."

"A good way to keep players here is not to pick them for Wales if they go to England or France," Thomas said.

http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/story/179928.html

Far too much blame is being attached to the WRU over historical stuff. Current argument though - not so sure. It seems as though the WRU comissioned an expensive and extensive piece of work by PWC, publicly accepted the recommendations, but are actually trying to implement what they wanted all along.

WRU want central contracts and control of the regions it seems. I am in no place to deem whether that aim is right or wrong, but the way in which they are behaving seems improper.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Allty wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:On the subject of union, to what extent have the member clubs been consulted by the executive of the WRU in all this?

When you are appointed Union leader and have paid advisors you do not have to call an AGM/EGM every time decisions have to be made.

This fiasco is about money, regional failure, and Ego's.

Please remmember the stance of the Money men over the last 10 or so years.

They thought they could buy success and have failed.

Certainly is a fiasco and i'm afraid Dodger must take the lion's share of the blame in my opinion.

More from yesterday's nuclear strike, Peter Thomas says;

WRU accused of 'power, divide, conquer, wipe-out' strategy

"At a press conference at Cardiff's Arms Park, the base for the WRU, Peter Thomas, the chairman of Cardiff Blues, did not mince his words. "I sum it up with the words power, divide, conquer, wipe-out, that's the agenda for certain people across the way. The means to sort out our problems exists in the professional regional game board but it has not met since it was set up last December and we need to start talking."

"A good way to keep players here is not to pick them for Wales if they go to England or France," Thomas said.

http://www.espnscrum.com/wales/rugby/story/179928.html

A few players will always follow the money. I don't blame them they have a short career add to that the lure of Mediterranean sunshine.

As I have said many times "We are now well down the Footy route" and my prediction remains We will eventually have 2 clubs called Swansea Ospreys and Cardiff Blues both run by the WRU

LondonTiger wrote:It seems as though the WRU comissioned an expensive and extensive piece of work by PWC, publicly accepted the recommendations, but are actually trying to implement what they wanted all along.

Bingo.

Allty wrote:A few players will always follow the money. I don't blame them they have a short career add to that the lure of Mediterranean sunshine.

As I have said many times "We are now well down the Footy route" and my prediction remains We will eventually have 2 clubs called Swansea Ospreys and Cardiff Blues both run by the WRU

Agreed and i'd love to know how much players can benefit from turning out for Wales. In total it must be a tidy sum, so maybe if this was denied to those plying their trade abroad they may be persuaded to stay home for less salary. It's one of the issues that needs addressing in my view.

Here are the rewards available to English players;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9928809/Six-Nations-2013-England-squad-on-course-for-2.3m-Grand-Slam-jackpot-in-decider-against-Wales.html

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It seems as though the WRU comissioned an expensive and extensive piece of work by PWC, publicly accepted the recommendations, but are actually trying to implement what they wanted all along.

Bingo.

Yep.

An old article, but worth another read;

"We are at a critical stage and that's what is so exciting because if we get this right we will come up with something in world rugby that will be the envy of the world."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17251795

If you have 40mins to waste......

"Watch the Regional Rugby Wales Press Conference held at Cardiff Arms Park on Thursday 4th April 2013"
http://www.ospreysrugby.com/matchdaytv/?play=media&id=14932

The opening 10min is Gallacher reading the RRW press release followed thereafter by Q&As.
Gallacher replies to a question 15mins in and speaks of the £6m shared between the 4 regions. Apparently less than £1.5m of that money is for player release.

Cardiff Dave wrote:If you have 40mins to waste......

"Watch the Regional Rugby Wales Press Conference held at Cardiff Arms Park on Thursday 4th April 2013"
http://www.ospreysrugby.com/matchdaytv/?play=media&id=14932

The opening 10min is Gallacher reading the RRW press release followed thereafter by Q&As.
Gallacher replies to a question 15mins in and speaks of the £6m shared between the 4 regions. Apparently less than £1.5m of that money is for player release.

Not going to bother watching it. But what of this solution. The WRU contract the big name internationals whom are out of contract with their region. Then the WRU starts to reduce the player release money. So effectively they aren't overrunning costs and still providing the usual amount of funds to the regions. Or am I being simple?

Also, should the regions govern their premiership clubs? It might prevent the union from getting the choke hold they want.

mikey_philVIII wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:If you have 40mins to waste......

"Watch the Regional Rugby Wales Press Conference held at Cardiff Arms Park on Thursday 4th April 2013"
http://www.ospreysrugby.com/matchdaytv/?play=media&id=14932

The opening 10min is Gallacher reading the RRW press release followed thereafter by Q&As.
Gallacher replies to a question 15mins in and speaks of the £6m shared between the 4 regions. Apparently less than £1.5m of that money is for player release.

Not going to bother watching it. But what of this solution. The WRU contract the big name internationals whom are out of contract with their region. Then the WRU starts to reduce the player release money. So effectively they aren't overrunning costs and still providing the usual amount of funds to the regions. Or am I being simple?

It might prevent the union from getting the choke hold they want.

You should watch it as the "central contracts" issue is talked about frequently. IMO if CCs give the WRU more control over players then i'm not so sure that would be a good thing for the regions or their supporters. Again we don't know the details of Dodger's CC offer as he hasn't said, so it's impossible to make a judgement at this time.
As for reducing player release money - well according to Gallacher the figure is less than £1.5m in total ie around £350k-ish per region. That aint going to pay for many top players.

"Also, should the regions govern their premiership clubs?" - you mean Cardiff govern Ponty for example? Can't see that ever happening.

Why should a small group of money men hold the rest of Welsh rugby to ransom.

The Welsh game is about every club be it Pro or amateur.

The Regions benefactors have proved in 10 years they are incapable of running a pro sports business

Their ideas of buying success has been a disaster.

At least that small group of money men are willing to use their own money in very significant amounts.
Roger Lewis wants to take full control of the regions without any form of compensation for the current owners of the clubs.
Once he achieves this it wont only be the Valleys without a region the only place in Wales with a truly competetive region will be Cardiff as it is where he will centralise all the assets.

2ndtimeround wrote:At least that small group of money men are willing to use their own money in very significant amounts.
Roger Lewis wants to take full control of the regions without any form of compensation for the current owners of the clubs.
Once he achieves this it wont only be the Valleys without a region the only place in Wales with a truly competetive region will be Cardiff as it is where he will centralise all the assets.

Got to agrer there. We will end up with mini team wales playing at cap, and a development team playing at the liberty and pys, until the swans kick them out of the liberty meaning they will be at pys.

2ndtimeround wrote:At least that small group of money men are willing to use their own money in very significant amounts.
Roger Lewis wants to take full control of the regions without any form of compensation for the current owners of the clubs.
Once he achieves this it wont only be the Valleys without a region the only place in Wales with a truly competetive region will be Cardiff as it is where he will centralise all the assets.

Why shouldn't the WRU control Welsh rugby.

Do you honestly think that RL makes these decisions unilaterally or do you think discussion with his executive takes place.

I dont believe there is much consultation with the full board of the WRU, the executive are strangely silent with everything going on at the moment. This is evident by the calls from RRW to meet the full panel.
The comments coming from RRW are visibly coming from all members of RRW as was apparent in the press confrence, all we have seen so far from the WRU is Roger Lewis.
My personal opinion is there are others at the WRU that support Roger Lewis's vision but do not have the courage to risk their comfy positions and expense accounts on the WRU to publicly say so.
As for why the WRU should not have complete control of Welsh Rugby?
I dont believe the power brookers in Cardif can be trusted to worry about anything other than Cardiff. They already own 50% of the Dragons and have done nothing to help with the development of Rodney Parade, however they own nothing of the Blues but are willing to buy the Arms Park from Cardiff Athletics club to develop it as a home for Cardiff Blues.
The WRU's own sustainability study suggested closer links that the WRU where to implement in the form of the PRGB with a chair with a casting vote, all agreed last year, however once Roger discovered the Chair really was Neutral he wants nothing more to do with the PRGB. Really shows they can be trusted that doesn't it