Regional Rugby, NWQs, Development & The Way Forward

by thespreys Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:18 pm

First topic message reminder :

Nice to see the DRAGONS continue to supply welsh players of the future,bit of a joke 4 non welsh in one swoop,its time to cut their funding as they do nothing for the welsh cause.

by ScarletSpiderman Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:30 am

Kingshu wrote:
Stone Motif wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:Also is it just me or does anyone else always read Ladbrokes as Ladyblokes?
Er, that's never happened to me, no...
Me neither, but worried that, thats the way I'll see it from now on.

I am a bit worried it is only me that had that problem Sad

, but glad that it will plague you now too.

P.S. Stone that is the best 'reason for editing I have ever, or probably will ever, see.

by pioden gorllewin Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:37 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Here but just a thought, if all the regions are strapped for cash, then how can they afford to send their vast scouting networks to places like Italy, France, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Eastern Europe or Argentina to "scout" these players, which I would assume is not cheap as they must surley watch these players more than once . Or do they just sign these players after watching video clips and here say from other people ? I hope they at least do some sort of research before they sign these players up.

At the moment it looks like they go to this website

www.worldartists.co.za and then just look for a position and size they want, and then bobs your uncle a visa is sorted out and over comes another Saffer (p.s. the Scaretls were the worst for this last season)

Thats a little worrying.

I said it in jest, but they did send of Chavanga, Earle, Snyman, Adriaanse, and now Muller.

plus another utility back for that agency will be joining the dragons shortly. just few visa issues at present I believe.

by ScarletSpiderman Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:38 am

Pioden - fair play to the bloke who's agency that is, he has certainly done a decent enough marketing job down here with it.

by pioden gorllewin Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:47 am

ha they have an office in bath, so they constantly have someone based over here. guess he's never been so busy!

although he's mainly a 6, I wish we signed strauss instead of vallejos. Hindsight hey!

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:48 am

I always read Bet Victor as Big Todger.

Shocked

by ScarletSpiderman Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:58 am

pioden gorllewin wrote:ha they have an office in bath, so they constantly have someone based over here. guess he's never been so busy!

although he's mainly a 6, I wish we signed strauss instead of vallejos. Hindsight hey!

To be fair I wish we signed Lee Rees as a lock/backrow instead of Vallejos, but to be fair at the time he did seem to be a good option furious

by Stone Motif Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I always read Bet Victor as Big Todger.

Freud would have a field day on yur, fair play

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:44 pm

This is helpful:

The Welsh Rugby Union has alleged Wales' rugby regions want to play a part in appointing future national coaches and WRU bosses.

The claim was made in a letter sent to WRU member clubs following the recent rows between the WRU and the Ospreys, Blues, Dragons and Scarlets.

"It seemed as if they [the regions] wanted to gain considerable control of Welsh rugby," read the letter.

The regions, represented by Regional Rugby Wales, have been asked to reply.

And the WRU have declined to discuss the letter's content.

Wales were coached to 2013 Six Nations success by interim coach Rob Howley,

Warren Gatland is expected to return from 2013 British and Irish Lions duty in Australia to guide Wales into the 2015 World Cup, and his contract ends after that.

In the latest twist in their continuing row, the letter to member clubs from the WRU, claims the reason negotiations over the participation agreement with regions had foundered was because "it seemed as if they [the regions] wanted to gain considerable control of Welsh rugby".

The letter continues: "For instance they wanted to be involved in the appointment of the Head Coach of Wales, the WRU Head of Rugby and the WRU Group Chief Executive."

The four Welsh regions recently declined a WRU invitation to attend a meeting to discuss the central contracting of players.

Regional Rugby Wales said it would only discuss the future of the game through the Professional Regional Game Board.

The PRGB , comprising the four regions, the WRU and an independent chairman, was set up following a professional review of the game in Wales by accountants PriceWaterhouseCoopers that questioned the regions' future.

It has met only once since being formed, in December 2012, with presiding judge Sir Wyn Williams appointed as chairman of the PRGB.

Amid what is says is an attempt to help member clubs "understand the true position", the WRU letter seeks to focus on "fundamental issues which have been misreported and misinterpreted in the press".

The letter says a perception that the WRU has sought to stifle plans to set up a PRGB is incorrect.

It adds: "The WRU cannot an will not agree with the establishment of any body which seeks to control Welsh rugby and effectively removes the ultimate control from the full board of the WRU as the governing body."

The row between the four regions was triggered by the Wales wing George North's move from Scarlets to Northampton.

That prompted the WRU to issue an invitation through a media release for the four regions to attend a "summit meeting" to discuss central contracts.

But at a media conference RRW chairman Stuart Gallacher said the regions would not be attending.

In the letter to the clubs, the WRU says it has re-issued an invitation to a meeting with the regions and awaits a response

The letter also says Cardiff Blues were the only Welsh team North would have joined on leaving the Scarlets and that "the WRU did try to keep him in Wales".

However, it is claimed, the bid to prevent North moving outside Wales failed because the regions "had signed an agreement which prevented any of them from signing a player who was contracted to the WRU".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22120320

steam

by thebluesmancometh Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:52 pm

The letter also says Cardiff Blues were the only Welsh team North would have joined on leaving the Scarlets and that "the WRU did try to keep him in Wales".

Well of clurse he wlouldn't have wanted to go to the local rivals, or the Dragons, but why does it not mention why they didn't help to keep him at the Scarlets???

There is only so much guff the WRU can spout...

by Stone Motif Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:25 pm

How dare the regions ask for some say in the running of the tier they provide the players for at their own expense.

Courts will be busy this summer if Rog can't back up some of these accusations he's throwing around.

by Allty Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:36 pm

Stone Motif wrote:How dare the regions ask for some say in the running of the tier they provide the players for at their own expense.

Courts will be busy this summer if Rog can't back up some of these accusations he's throwing around.

If the WRU has told porkies the regions have to take legal action. If they do not the WRU will be seen as truthful

I wonder if they will Very Happy

The WRU have now put the ball so deep into the regional court the truth has to emerge.

To be fair if it goes legal the only winners are the guys in fancy suits

by Stone Motif Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:49 pm

I agree, the best solution would be a vote of no confidence in Princess Rog from the clubs. Gwent have already made noises about this over any threat to downgrade the Dragons, no wonder Rog doesn't like the regions forging links to clubs.

If the WRU don't roll Andrew Hore and the Gallachersaurus into court over the summer does that mean their accusations are true as well?

by thebluesmancometh Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:09 pm

hahaha

Allty you just never give up...

Gwent clubs have been rumbling for a while now, lets see if some of the other clubs start to pick up and all get to vote...

by Jhamer25 Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:04 pm

JHammer - Chris Kamana has been mentioned on Scarletfever but I believe he is from the same agency that send Earle and Co. so it seems to be clutching at straws. Pioden Gorllewin's thread about Welsh Regions Ins/Outs/Rumours is probably the best place to find out (the thread I split this topic from to stop it being derailed) https://www.606v2.com/t41519-welsh-regions-signings-departures-rumours-2013-scarlets-announce-north-s-departure-to-saints.

Haha thanks, just need to know if anyone knew anything. it's driving me mad. As all i seem to here is players leaving or being linked to others lately. Nothing on our end though.

by Allty Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:01 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:hahaha

Allty you just never give up...

Gwent clubs have been rumbling for a while now, lets see if some of the other clubs start to pick up and all get to vote...

I got to 70 by not giving up BM.

I'm sure we both want to know the truth

The constant childlike bickering is doing Welsh rugby no good whatsoever and if I was a young pro I would be looking to play just about anywhere other than Wales.

by Guest Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:10 pm

I think the WRU vs Regions bickering is expertly replicated on these boards!

by Cardiff Dave Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:26 pm

Griff wrote:I think the WRU vs Regions bickering is expertly replicated on these boards!

This message board is lightweight compared to others with regards to regionalism/WRU etc.

by Cardiff Dave Fri Apr 12, 2013 10:43 pm

This evening, RRW respond to the WRU's "It seemed" letter sent to all clubs.
This is all out war folks.

Statement from Regional Rugby Wales
12 April 2013 18:30pm
By Ospreys Rugby

http://www.ospreysrugby.com/news/6254.php#.UWh5kkr7BdB

"It is regretful that on the very day and weekend that our regional rugby supporters and players have come together to enjoy a thrilling weekend of RaboDirect PRO12 action, that once again we have been forced into position of having to respond to what we consider to be misleading communication in the public domain.

"Unfortunately, it is just not acceptable to our beliefs and shared philosophy as Regions and with responsibility to all the many rugby supporters, players and clubs we work with and represent - to just ignore the seemingly sustained programme of spin that is being fed into the public domain.

"As we have maintained, our collective view is that we have confidence in the scrutiny and process of the independent PwC report, the PRGB and the Memorandum of Understanding which was agreed to and signed by the four regions and WRU.

"We have said, we are only happy to rely upon the judgement of the voting independent chairman at the head of the PRGB, to act logically in assisting the parties to move forward.

"We repeat our call for independent arbitration to find a clear path through the current debates and to scrutinise documentation, process and communication regarding the setting up of the PRGB and the terms of reference of the signed memorandum of understanding.

"We seek independent arbitration because it is clearly a much more appropriate way to conduct discussions - keeping any debate away from the public arena and through a rightful independent process.

"We maintain our view that the PRGB is the most effective vehicle to undertake the discussion and debate to identify the right solutions for Welsh professional rugby and that it is not constructive to conduct that debate in the public domain.

"We would like to make very clear that the Regions are not interested in "control" of the national game as they unanimously outlined in correspondence to the WRU in a letter to the Chief Executive on 7th February 2013 - excerpt as follows:

Unanimously, the Regions view is:

It is fundamental that the interests of the WRU and the Regions are better aligned and that a more healthy working relationship based on trust and respect is fostered.
The Regions do not expect the PRGB to have power or control over or to impinge on the international game, which is properly the concern and prerogative of the WRU but if it is to achieve the mutually agreed aims and objectives it does need to have a meaningful status and position.
We have subsequently discussed your concerns and remain very comfortable with the concept of having reserved matters, which explicitly protect the WRU position in those areas which potentially overlap with the international game such as international player release. I am sure there are others but do not believe it is an insuperable task to compile this list (which is mostly in respect of the provisions of the Rugby Charter).

You declined our offer to meet to address those concerns. We are at a loss to understand why

This position was once again confirmed in a letter from the Four Regions to the WRU of the 14th February which was circulated to the Board of the WRU making clear:

"The Regions fully accept that the WRU has the full responsibility for the game in Wales. We have consistently and repeatedly state this and did so again in our previous note."

"Any amendments to the Participation Agreement suggested by the regions were purely to identify the framework for the PRGB and were part of the constitution of the new body not for the regions alone as suggested in the WRU's communication to the community clubs.

"We fully understand and respect that Welsh Rugby enthusiasts and families would prefer to simply enjoy their weekend of rugby action rather than be subjected to the in's and out's of the debate surrounding the need for change to the structure of the game.

"However, we want to deal in facts and cannot also just sit by and watch the Welsh rugby public subjected to misleading spin."

by Scrumdown Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:14 pm

Regions are unloved because they do nothing in their region. Nobody in the valleys cares about the dragons or Newport as they prefer to be known. The same can be said about the blues.

The public don't care if it is WRU spin or not. We've all had enough of these super clubs begging for more power and money whilst they refuse to engage their region.

Reep what you sow.

by Cardiff Dave Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:33 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Regions are unloved because they do nothing in their region. Nobody in the valleys cares about the dragons or Newport as they prefer to be known. The same can be said about the blues.

The public don't care if it is WRU spin or not. We've all had enough of these super clubs begging for more power and money whilst they refuse to engage their region.

Reep what you sow.

Who's your team Scrumdown?

by Stone Motif Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:41 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Regions are unloved because they do nothing in their region. Nobody in the valleys cares about the dragons or Newport as they prefer to be known. The same can be said about the blues.

The public don't care if it is WRU spin or not. We've all had enough of these super clubs begging for more power and money whilst they refuse to engage their region.

Reep what you sow.

Jesus wept.

This is the same 'NEWPORT' whose district has threatened a vote of no confidence in the WRU in part over the threat of any down-grade to the Dragons?

Try to keep up champ.

by Stone Motif Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:45 pm

Cardiff Dave wrote:
Who's your team Scrumdown?

Scrumdown wrote: Team Wales.

Give it to Shane!

by Scrumdown Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:45 pm

Cardiff dave,

Team is scarlets. They obtained regional status by promising to make north wales a priority. If they had developed something significant in north wales eg say they owned rgc 1404, then they would be in a much stronger position.

Say the cardiff blues asked pontypridd what they wanted out of regional rugby. Even if they said they wanted their own valkeys region, then prhomas could say that blues will play lv cup games at sardis riad and team will be named valleys rugby.

by Stone Motif Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:50 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Cardiff dave,

Team is scarlets. They obtained regional status by promising to make north wales a priority. If they had developed something significant in north wales eg say they owned rgc 1404, then they would be in a much stronger position.

Say the cardiff blues asked pontypridd what they wanted out of regional rugby. Even if they said they wanted their own valkeys region, then prhomas could say that blues will play lv cup games at sardis riad and team will be named valleys rugby.

Hic. Someone's been at the Felinfoel mug

by Guest Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:30 am

Stone Motif wrote:
Scrumdown wrote:Cardiff dave,

Team is scarlets. They obtained regional status by promising to make north wales a priority. If they had developed something significant in north wales eg say they owned rgc 1404, then they would be in a much stronger position.

Say the cardiff blues asked pontypridd what they wanted out of regional rugby. Even if they said they wanted their own valkeys region, then prhomas could say that blues will play lv cup games at sardis riad and team will be named valleys rugby.

Hic. Someone's been at the Felinfoel

by 2ndtimeround Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:00 am

Stone Motif wrote:
Scrumdown wrote:Cardiff dave,

Team is scarlets. They obtained regional status by promising to make north wales a priority. If they had developed something significant in north wales eg say they owned rgc 1404, then they would be in a much stronger position.

Say the cardiff blues asked pontypridd what they wanted out of regional rugby. Even if they said they wanted their own valkeys region, then prhomas could say that blues will play lv cup games at sardis riad and team will be named valleys rugby.

Hic. Someone's been at the Felinfoel

by 2ndtimeround Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:23 am

Back on topic.
So in response to the request from RRW to face the full panel of the WRU Roger Lewis chooses to try to cast a pre-emptive strike by telling the member clubs that the Regions are trying to take full control of everything!!!!
Has he already forgoten that he is actually the person that has PUBLICLY stated he wants full control................
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20836386
Bet he wishes he hadn't come up with that statement now.
At least just calling the meeting of the full WRU would have resulted in a set date to finally iron out all the differences, preferably behind a closed door, unfortunately Poltician Roger thinks he needs to try to stack the deck before playing a hand.

The way this fiasco is unfolding at present I can see only losers, at least in Wales that is.
I have to say though I now agree with Altty on something, RRW should take the matter to court! Not the court that costs millions though, the one that controls our game. Its time to ask the IRB to step in as this farce is going to make a mockery of the entire game.
If all the men that run the game in Wales cant act like adults and talk to each other in open forum without acting like children at a conker fight then let the headmaster step in..........

by Luckless Pedestrian Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:44 am

Of everything contained in that shameful letter, am I wrong in thinking that something significant may have slipped out?

"it seemed as if they [the regions] wanted to gain considerable control of Welsh rugby".

The letter continues: "For instance they wanted to be involved in the appointment of the Head Coach of Wales, the WRU Head of Rugby and the WRU Group Chief Executive."

Is self-preservation the name of the game here?

by thebluesmancometh Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:38 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Of everything contained in that shameful letter, am I wrong in thinking that something significant may have slipped out?

"it seemed as if they [the regions] wanted to gain considerable control of Welsh rugby".

The letter continues: "For instance they wanted to be involved in the appointment of the Head Coach of Wales, the WRU Head of Rugby and the WRU Group Chief Executive."

Is self-preservation the name of the game here?

Isn't it always???

Maybe we should ask Sean Holley to step in...

by Scrumdown Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:47 am

What about peter thomas, martyn hazell etc. These man have bought permanent control at the blues and the dragons. If they had control over the wru then they would also have permanent control over welsh rugby.

If the welsh rugby clubs wish, roger lewis could be removed at any time. No one can remove peter thomas from the blues unless he agrees to be removed.

by Stone Motif Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:03 am

Scrumdown wrote:What about peter thomas, martyn hazell etc. These man have bought permanent control at the blues and the dragons. If they had control over the wru then they would also have permanent control over welsh rugby.

If the welsh rugby clubs wish, roger lewis could be removed at any time. No one can remove peter thomas from the blues unless he agrees to be removed.

The regions haven't asked for that control though. They've just suggested such things should be under the remit of the PRGB.

by thebluesmancometh Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:19 am

Plus Hazell would love to control what goes on at the Dragons, let alone WRU...

by Luckless Pedestrian Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:18 pm

Stone Motif wrote:
Scrumdown wrote:What about peter thomas, martyn hazell etc. These man have bought permanent control at the blues and the dragons. If they had control over the wru then they would also have permanent control over welsh rugby.

If the welsh rugby clubs wish, roger lewis could be removed at any time. No one can remove peter thomas from the blues unless he agrees to be removed.

The regions haven't asked for that control though. They've just suggested such things should be under the remit of the PRGB.

Exactly right. And Scrumdown: you say that the clubs could have Roger Lewis removed at any time. Damn right they could and the PRGB have asked to speak to the full board of the WRU. The executive haven't allowed that, for some strange reason...

Let's not pretend that the clubs are foursquare behind the executive in all this. If they were, there'd be no need for this shameful letter to have been written.

by Scrumdown Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:47 pm

Luckless pedestrian,

What is the point of getting rid of roger lewis if all it does is empower someone like peter thomas at the blues who clearly does not have the necessary skill set to run a successful professional rugby team.

The regions in wales are controlled by 3 or 4 wealthy individuals who have generally failed to embrace the regional concept.

Yet you wish to give these same individuals even greater influence over the whole of welsh rugby!

If RRW have one vote, WRU one vote and chairman one vote on the PGRB then we are only one step away from peter thomas having the power to employ a yes man, maybe holland as the CEO of the WRU. Is that really in the interest of welsh rugby as a whole?

by Luckless Pedestrian Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:55 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Luckless pedestrian,

What is the point of getting rid of roger lewis if all it does is empower someone like peter thomas at the blues who clearly does not have the necessary skill set to run a successful professional rugby team.

The regions in wales are controlled by 3 or 4 wealthy individuals who have generally failed to embrace the regional concept.

Yet you wish to give these same individuals even greater influence over the whole of welsh rugby!

If RRW have one vote, WRU one vote and chairman one vote on the PGRB then we are only one step away from peter thomas having the power to employ a yes man, maybe holland as the CEO of the WRU. Is that really in the interest of welsh rugby as a whole?

Not over 'the whole of Welsh rugby' at all. The regions want to be allowed to work with the clubs in their regions - but they're told repeatedly by the executive of the WRU that they're not allowed. Now you tell me: how are the regions supposed to 'embrace the regional concept', which you claim they haven't done, if the WRU won't let them develop better ties with their clubs?

by Stone Motif Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:52 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Luckless pedestrian,

What is the point of getting rid of roger lewis if all it does is empower someone like peter thomas at the blues who clearly does not have the necessary skill set to run a successful professional rugby team.

The regions in wales are controlled by 3 or 4 wealthy individuals who have generally failed to embrace the regional concept.

Yet you wish to give these same individuals even greater influence over the whole of welsh rugby!

If RRW have one vote, WRU one vote and chairman one vote on the PGRB then we are only one step away from peter thomas having the power to employ a yes man, maybe holland as the CEO of the WRU. Is that really in the interest of welsh rugby as a whole?

Clueless. Absolutely clueless post.

by Scrumdown Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:01 pm

Luckless pedestrian,

WRU cannot just give the regions, in their current form, control over the community game.

Over time there would be too much temptation for regional owners to divert funds away from the grass roots and towards the first team squad.

by Stone Motif Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:22 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Luckless pedestrian,

WRU cannot just give the regions, in their current form, control over the community game.

Over time there would be too much temptation for regional owners to divert funds away from the grass roots and towards the first team squad.

It'd be like the Wru cannibalising the regions to get Team Wales on the pitch so it would. Comedy gold me Scarlet chum, keep it up Laugh

by 2ndtimeround Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:59 pm

Scrumdown, Have you actually read the reply from RRW, specifically the part where they clearly state they have no intention to attempt to take over the WRU.

"We would like to make very clear that the Regions are not interested in "control" of the national game as they unanimously outlined in correspondence to the WRU in a letter to the Chief Executive on 7th February 2013 - excerpt as follows:

Unanimously, the Regions view is:

It is fundamental that the interests of the WRU and the Regions are better aligned and that a more healthy working relationship based on trust and respect is fostered.
The Regions do not expect the PRGB to have power or control over or to impinge on the international game, which is properly the concern and prerogative of the WRU but if it is to achieve the mutually agreed aims and objectives it does need to have a meaningful status and position.
We have subsequently discussed your concerns and remain very comfortable with the concept of having reserved matters, which explicitly protect the WRU position in those areas which potentially overlap with the international game such as international player release. I am sure there are others but do not believe it is an insuperable task to compile this list (which is mostly in respect of the provisions of the Rugby Charter).

You declined our offer to meet to address those concerns. We are at a loss to understand why

The fact that the Executive of the WRU are doing everything they can to create a public scene rather than hold the requested meeting with member clubs simply says to me that the WRU are obviously not confident they have the backing of their members.
The Gwent clubs have already threatned a vote of no confidence so how many other clubs can no longer be kept silent simply with their little allocation of MS tickets.
If the regions stick together as they have so far then the WRU will have to call a meeting sooner rather than latter as they are now looking like causing the demise of the game in Wales rather than been the body entrusted with the future of the game.

by Scrumdown Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:13 pm

2ndtimeround wrote:Scrumdown, Have you actually read the reply from RRW, specifically the part where they clearly state they have no intention to attempt to take over the WRU.

"We would like to make very clear that the Regions are not interested in "control" of the national game as they unanimously outlined in correspondence to the WRU in a letter to the Chief Executive on 7th February 2013 - excerpt as follows:

Unanimously, the Regions view is:

It is fundamental that the interests of the WRU and the Regions are better aligned and that a more healthy working relationship based on trust and respect is fostered.
The Regions do not expect the PRGB to have power or control over or to impinge on the international game, which is properly the concern and prerogative of the WRU but if it is to achieve the mutually agreed aims and objectives it does need to have a meaningful status and position.
We have subsequently discussed your concerns and remain very comfortable with the concept of having reserved matters, which explicitly protect the WRU position in those areas which potentially overlap with the international game such as international player release. I am sure there are others but do not believe it is an insuperable task to compile this list (which is mostly in respect of the provisions of the Rugby Charter).

You declined our offer to meet to address those concerns. We are at a loss to understand why

The fact that the Executive of the WRU are doing everything they can to create a public scene rather than hold the requested meeting with member clubs simply says to me that the WRU are obviously not confident they have the backing of their members.
The Gwent clubs have already threatned a vote of no confidence so how many other clubs can no longer be kept silent simply with their little allocation of MS tickets.
If the regions stick together as they have so far then the WRU will have to call a meeting sooner rather than latter as they are now looking like causing the demise of the game in Wales rather than been the body entrusted with the future of the game.

What you seem to fail to grasp is the fact that the interests of say cardiff blues (25% of RRW) are those of Peter Thomas who is the ultimate controller of that entity. What is in the interest of peter thomas may not be in the interest of the cardiff blues region. For example, it may be in peter thomas personal financial interests that any additional funding provided by the wru be used to repay loans that he has previously made to the cardiff blues. However, other stakeholders such as the supporters would prefer that funding to be spent on the academy or the playing squad.

So when RRW talk of the interests of the regions, they don't mean the clubs in the region or the regional academy or the supporters or the players, what they mean is the owners of the regions, whose interests as I have explained above are not necessarily aligned to those of the region itself. And for this reason I have a mojor issue with RRW.

by thebluesmancometh Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:25 pm

Scrumdown wrote:
2ndtimeround wrote:Scrumdown, Have you actually read the reply from RRW, specifically the part where they clearly state they have no intention to attempt to take over the WRU.

"We would like to make very clear that the Regions are not interested in "control" of the national game as they unanimously outlined in correspondence to the WRU in a letter to the Chief Executive on 7th February 2013 - excerpt as follows:

Unanimously, the Regions view is:

It is fundamental that the interests of the WRU and the Regions are better aligned and that a more healthy working relationship based on trust and respect is fostered.
The Regions do not expect the PRGB to have power or control over or to impinge on the international game, which is properly the concern and prerogative of the WRU but if it is to achieve the mutually agreed aims and objectives it does need to have a meaningful status and position.
We have subsequently discussed your concerns and remain very comfortable with the concept of having reserved matters, which explicitly protect the WRU position in those areas which potentially overlap with the international game such as international player release. I am sure there are others but do not believe it is an insuperable task to compile this list (which is mostly in respect of the provisions of the Rugby Charter).

You declined our offer to meet to address those concerns. We are at a loss to understand why

The fact that the Executive of the WRU are doing everything they can to create a public scene rather than hold the requested meeting with member clubs simply says to me that the WRU are obviously not confident they have the backing of their members.
The Gwent clubs have already threatned a vote of no confidence so how many other clubs can no longer be kept silent simply with their little allocation of MS tickets.
If the regions stick together as they have so far then the WRU will have to call a meeting sooner rather than latter as they are now looking like causing the demise of the game in Wales rather than been the body entrusted with the future of the game.

What you seem to fail to grasp is the fact that the interests of say cardiff blues (25% of RRW) are those of Peter Thomas who is the ultimate controller of that entity. What is in the interest of peter thomas may not be in the interest of the cardiff blues region. For example, it may be in peter thomas personal financial interests that any additional funding provided by the wru be used to repay loans that he has previously made to the cardiff blues. However, other stakeholders such as the supporters would prefer that funding to be spent on the academy or the playing squad.

So when RRW talk of the interests of the regions, they don't mean the clubs in the region or the regional academy or the supporters or the players, what they mean is the owners of the regions, whose interests as I have explained above are not necessarily aligned to those of the region itself. And for this reason I have a mojor issue with RRW.

Firstly the academies are WRU funded.

Secondly that is exactly what the WRU are doing with the fans money now, paying off debts to the bank and not spending it on Welsh rugby, so whats the difference???

by Scrumdown Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:43 pm

Difference is that the bank loans have to be repaid or the bank will come knocking at the wru door asking for the keys to the millenium stadium. I.E. the loans provided by the banks are secured on the assets of the wru and have terms and conditions attached to them.

The loans provided by Peter Thomas and co were, presumably not made to make a profit. The wru did not ask them to invest in the regions. They did so out of their own choice. So why should funds generated by the wru be used to repay debts of individuals who are already some of the wealthiest in wales and were never asked to part with their cash by the wru in the first place.

by thebluesmancometh Sat Apr 13, 2013 7:57 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Difference is that the bank loans have to be repaid or the bank will come knocking at the wru door asking for the keys to the millenium stadium. I.E. the loans provided by the banks are secured on the assets of the wru and have terms and conditions attached to them.

The loans provided by Peter Thomas and co were, presumably not made to make a profit. The wru did not ask them to invest in the regions. They did so out of their own choice. So why should funds generated by the wru be used to repay debts of individuals who are already some of the wealthiest in wales and were never asked to part with their cash by the wru in the first place.

The regions were never asked to part with any cash???

The WRU generates all funds???

The bank loabs beed to be repayed at twice the rate of agreement???

You are deluded mate.

by Scrumdown Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:48 pm

Bluesman

It is the OWNERS of the regions who were never asked to part with cash by the wru. The owners of the regions and the REGIONS themselves are separate legal entities.

The regions do not generate funds, they make losses which is why the owners are having to part with their personal cash to keep these entities afloat. This, in spite of the fact that, as you point out, their academies are wru owned and financed and they receive £6million additional funding from wru for player release etc

Repaying loans at a slower rate would be more attractive if the regions were run effectively and efficiently by professionals. However, we know from the pwc report that the regions currently are anything but professionally run.

The regions do not even represent regions. They are superclubs and their owners have failed to embrace the regional concept which has left large areas of the valleys totally disenfranchised with regional rugby. If they want to ge superclubs then maybe we should go back to clubs and split the funding accordingly.

by Cardiff Dave Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:07 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Bluesman

It is the OWNERS of the regions

Who owns Cardiff Blues?

by Scrumdown Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:09 pm

Cardiff Dave wrote:
Scrumdown wrote:Bluesman

It is the OWNERS of the regions

Who owns Cardiff Blues?

Cardiff rfc which is owned by Peter Thomas so Peter Thomas is the ultimate owner and controller of the blues.

by thebluesmancometh Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:37 pm

Scrumdown wrote:Bluesman

It is the OWNERS of the regions who were never asked to part with cash by the wru. The owners of the regions and the REGIONS themselves are separate legal entities.

The regions do not generate funds, they make losses which is why the owners are having to part with their personal cash to keep these entities afloat. This, in spite of the fact that, as you point out, their academies are wru owned and financed and they receive £6million additional funding from wru for player release etc

Repaying loans at a slower rate would be more attractive if the regions were run effectively and efficiently by professionals. However, we know from the pwc report that the regions currently are anything but professionally run.

The regions do not even represent regions. They are superclubs and their owners have failed to embrace the regional concept which has left large areas of the valleys totally disenfranchised with regional rugby. If they want to ge superclubs then maybe we should go back to clubs and split the funding accordingly.

Where does this magical 6million magically come from though scrumdown? Maybe HC participation for the regions, TV deals for regional rugby, and maybe international games played by regionally developed players???

The Academies are contracted into the funding also, not as as well as!!

And as regards to your superclub comment, why is that? Why havn't the regions binded with prem clubs? have the WRU tried to help, or told the regions not to??

You are a typical 'swallow what the WRU puts in your mouth' fan, and the more you say the less there is to listen to!!!

by Shifty Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:56 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:To be fair I wish we signed Lee Rees as a lock/backrow instead of Vallejos, but to be fair at the time he did seem to be a good option

You want to sign Lee Rees from Llandovery as a lock/ Back row?
He's a wing who got converted to Full Back this season, and He's 5'6" and 11 stone 6 lbs?

I know the Scarlets don't have the biggest of packs but he's not going to do much of a job for you in the pack!

Your not thinking of Haydn Pugh from Carmarthen Quins by any chance? Headscratch

by Scrumdown Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:02 pm

Participation agreement signed in 2009 was for 5 years and comprised of:

£9million per year sponsorship and tv money from competitions that regions participate in: total of £45million over 5 years.

£6million per year for player release, nwq player limits: total of £30 million over 5 years.

£3million per year direct funding into wru academies. Total of £15 million over 5 years. So this is in addition!

total funding over 5 years per participation agreement is nearly £80million!!

That is a staggering amount of money and the regioms are still begging for more financial support and your saying YES lets give them more....no questions asked, no conditions!! MUG!!!

by Shifty Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:02 pm

thebluesmancometh wrote:Where does this magical 6million magically come from though scrumdown? Maybe HC participation for the regions, TV deals for regional rugby, and maybe international games played by regionally developed players???

The Academies are contracted into the funding also, not as as well as!!

And as regards to your superclub comment, why is that? Why havn't the regions binded with prem clubs? have the WRU tried to help, or told the regions not to??

You are a typical 'swallow what the WRU puts in your mouth' fan, and the more you say the less there is to listen to!!!

Right:

Each region gets a total of £3.5m per season off the WRU, it's broken down in this way:

£2m for each region which is money from TV and sponsorship, i.e. LV Cup, Rabo direct, Heinaken Cup, Amlin Cup, tv contracts etc)

Then £1.55m for each region (4 regions x £1,55m each = £6.2m), £400k is apparently money from the WRU for the use of the players during international windows, a further £150k goes towards the academies, while the rest of the the Non Welsh qualified player limit.

by Sponsored content