Gwent Dragons 2015/16 thread

[dragon4life]

First topic message reminder :

3 in Wales squad that would have been 4 if tyler was fit

[Stone Motif]

One man's opinion. And I don't get why by marketing ro Gwent you automatically alienate Newport. Only sad, narrow minded parochial people stuck in the amateur era mindset would see gwent as something in direct competition to newport.

However, I do wish the board would show some balls and make a decision one way or the other. The fudge just continues to divide

Like Stade Francais, Newcastle, Wasps and our main sponsors, BT frickin' Sport?

I think what is sad, narrow minded parochial and amateurish is slavishly assuming that selling a few extra tickets in Senghenydd is the only way pro rugby at Rodney Parade can achieve commercial success.

it obviously isn't. But I also doubt that there are thousands of fans from Newport who don't turn up each week because there is Gwent in the title

Don't care either way to be honest. Ticket sales are not the business we're in.

[Stone Motif]

I don't get why by marketing ro Gwent you automatically alienate Newport.

That's what I don't understand. Newport is (or was) part of Gwent. It's included. And the Dragons play in Newport, so it's not as though Newport die-hards have further to travel now.

That'll be the point missed then

Excuse me, I'm from Newport and I don't feel the slightest bit alienated by the Dragons embracing Gwent. I know others from Newport who feel the same. Please, explain to me what point I'm missing and why I should feel alienated. And try to do it without the completely unnecessary haughtiness.

That it doesn't matter a bit which NP postcode buys the most tickets, it's about establishing what brand generates the most investment and hopefully access to bigger competitions.

[Luckless Pedestrian]

Thanks. I do think the current halfway-house setup isn't the best, but if we were more successful on the pitch, that would be much less of an issue.

[Stone Motif]

I know what you're saying. That's why we should forget about this 'regional' side show and start behaving like a pro rugby business.

[Guest]

Funny really, as a Sunday game or even a Saturday (now I'm injured and can't play) would be spot on for me this weekend. Can't make tomorrow.

Saw a preview of the new first choice kit today. Tiny bit more amber, which will probably get some excited about black and amber, but it actually adds to it (in my opinion) how they've done it. For a Gilbert one I really like it. Just happy to have it out on time and pretty much before the other pro teams too. Looks like the tag line I liked on the collar is gone now too.

where did you see this rev?

Just did. I am working and won't get to skive when it's officially unveiled, otherwise I'd probably have waited and got involved in the buzz. Bottom half is really no change, top half has more going on with a bit more colour on the sleeves and shoulders and an amber collar. I don't think many (if any will be disappointed), especially seeing as it's a Gilbert shirt.

[Guest]

Unless there's too much red and amber and people just like the black, of course

[munkian]

Love the home kit, the change kit doesn't really look different to the last one.

[Guest]

Really like the home one. The away one I prefer too, even with the slight difference.

As I said yesterday, think the red and the amber really adds to the kit here. I quite liked last season's and didn't think I would change from that for a while, but this has forced my hand somewhat. Fair play to Gilbert.

Got to skive for a bit in work (even though I saw the home kit yesterday), but it was nice of the Dragons to release the pics at about half six anyway. No big release, just dump the pics on social media

[munkian]

Yeah, earlier than expected. Im off to the game tonight but forgot my blyddi voucher book - would have picked one up otherwise

[GavinDragon]

it is an improvement on last years. I would really like red amber and black hoops

[munkian]

it is an improvement on last years. I would really like red amber and black hoops

Isn't that already taken by a Premiership team ? Carmarthen Quins ?

[GavinDragon]

and Croesyceiliog, Waikato and probably others

the supporters kits that are on sale are slightly different to the ones in the picture they showed earlier

[munkian]

Yup - have scales on them, change strip is slightly different too

[PhilBB]

I don't get why by marketing ro Gwent you automatically alienate Newport.

That's what I don't understand. Newport is (or was) part of Gwent. It's included. And the Dragons play in Newport, so it's not as though Newport die-hards have further to travel now.

In which case, you're both missing the point.

As it stands, the NGD are actively moving away from its Newport base. Directors Davies and Godfrey confirmed this at the recent Newport RFC GM and, of course, Godfrey and Hazell are the cause of the non-Newport chants when noting to supporters that 'we are not a Newport team'.

By doing so, those who support / have supported Newport RFC are alienated.

What those guys want is the recognition, a la Cardiff and Llanelli, that the pro team of today is Newport RFC expanded. That the history of that club goes forward with the NGD in their role of running the Development Pathway is a key consideration of theirs. The basis for this belief is twofold: 1) the asset of Newport RFC is being used as security for loans to prop up the NGD, 2) the original team of 'Gwent Dragons' went into administration shortly into the season as Newport supporters did not buy into it.

The third reason is less tangible: the belief that marketing on the rugby name of Newport will bring in more revenue than will using the bland and meaningless term 'Dragons'. I think that we can all see a value in that argument, even if we don't fully subscribe to it. Of course, revenue is far more than ticket sales and, in that context, we must see how the 14/15 NGD sold fewer season tickets than the 01/02 Newport RFC did. Make of that what you will.

So, by writing off these opinions as 'stuck in the amateur era' or anything similar, the point is spectacularly missed. Those who favour the Newport name do so because they believe it will generate more income for the team, which is the very lifeline of professional rugby, and will therefore lead to a more successful team.

[GavinDragon]

Did Cardiff and Llanelli not pay a nominal fee, to the WRU, for the privilege of remaining stand alone? And the latter since rebranded to the Scarlets anyway?

And since you seem to be in the know Phil, for what purpose was the loan against RP taken out, how much was it for? When does it need to be paid back?

[PhilBB]

Did Cardiff and Llanelli not pay a nominal fee, to the WRU, for the privilege of remaining stand alone? And the latter since rebranded to the Scarlets anyway?

And since you seem to be in the know Phil, for what purpose was the loan against RP taken out, how much was it for? When does it need to be paid back?

Llanelli and Cardiff paid £1m to standalone. It was a 'payment' afforded to the others as they were seen to be incurring costs whilst merging (redundancies etc.) that the other two wouldn't have to meet.

Llanelli have been know as Scarlets for 40 years at least. You can see lots of evidence on eBay for that.

There are multiple mortgages taken out on Rodney Parade. The last was by Godfrey (last in as much as I haven't checked to see if there are any since taken out) on September 29th, 2014, repayable on demand, for £175,000. The money was used to prop up Newport Rugby Football Club limited, which is the company into which the costs of the NGD (and its income) fall.

Last year's accounts show a further loan of £435,000 from Tony Brown (meaning that he is now owed £2,777,000). Bisley loaned £200,000 at 3.5% above BoE base. Bisley also sponsor the company to the tune of £100,000 per annum.

Hazell loaned £425,000. So he is now owed £1,425,000. His company is owed £710,813. He also personally guaranteed the £300,000 overdraft.

Godfrey is owed the £175,000.

There was talk at the recent Newport GM of all / some of these debts being converted to some form of equity but that remains to be clarified. It may have been these debts or a commitment that any future loans wouldn't be secured on Rodney Parade.

So, it's perfectly obvious as to why Newport RFC followers are a little upset at their club solely carrying the financial liability for the professional team that they only 50% own and whose Directors wish to distance from Newport RFC's heritage.

[doctornickolas]

I don't get why by marketing ro Gwent you automatically alienate Newport.

That's what I don't understand. Newport is (or was) part of Gwent. It's included. And the Dragons play in Newport, so it's not as though Newport die-hards have further to travel now.

In which case, you're both missing the point.

As it stands, the NGD are actively moving away from its Newport base. Directors Davies and Godfrey confirmed this at the recent Newport RFC GM and, of course, Godfrey and Hazell are the cause of the non-Newport chants when noting to supporters that 'we are not a Newport team'.

By doing so, those who support / have supported Newport RFC are alienated.

What those guys want is the recognition, a la Cardiff and Llanelli, that the pro team of today is Newport RFC expanded. That the history of that club goes forward with the NGD in their role of running the Development Pathway is a key consideration of theirs. The basis for this belief is twofold: 1) the asset of Newport RFC is being used as security for loans to prop up the NGD, 2) the original team of 'Gwent Dragons' went into administration shortly into the season as Newport supporters did not buy into it.

The third reason is less tangible: the belief that marketing on the rugby name of Newport will bring in more revenue than will using the bland and meaningless term 'Dragons'. I think that we can all see a value in that argument, even if we don't fully subscribe to it. Of course, revenue is far more than ticket sales and, in that context, we must see how the 14/15 NGD sold fewer season tickets than the 01/02 Newport RFC did. Make of that what you will.

So, by writing off these opinions as 'stuck in the amateur era' or anything similar, the point is spectacularly missed. Those who favour the Newport name do so because they believe it will generate more income for the team, which is the very lifeline of professional rugby, and will therefore lead to a more successful team.

But is 'Newport' really a big brand in the rugby world. A read of their history on their website almost starts off as an apology for never having won much. In fact much of their success is pre war. And when I say pre war I mean Boer war  .

Newport haven't been a big club for about 50 years.

[PhilBB]

But is 'Newport' really a big brand in the rugby world. A read of their history on their website almost starts off as an apology for never having won much. In fact much of their success is pre war. And when I say pre war I mean Boer war  .

Newport haven't been a big club for about 50 years.

That's a fair question, hence my point above about whether 'Dragons' will attract more income. So far, of course, it hasn't. In fact, it's lost support in the key measure of season ticket sales.

Some would say that this is an unfair comparison as the Newport comparative sales were when the club was successful at the turn of the century (winning the Welsh cup, having star name players) whilst the NGD are nowhere as successful or attractive to watch.

However the team is branded must, of course, be a decision for its owners. And, at present, its ownership is a total shambles so the clear thing to do is to get that straight and then let the shareholders dictate thereafter. What cannot be right is for all of the risk to be burdened by only a 50% owner, for starters.

[GavinDragon]

Did Cardiff and Llanelli not pay a nominal fee, to the WRU, for the privilege of remaining stand alone? And the latter since rebranded to the Scarlets anyway?

And since you seem to be in the know Phil, for what purpose was the loan against RP taken out, how much was it for? When does it need to be paid back?

Llanelli and Cardiff paid £1m to standalone. It was a 'payment' afforded to the others as they were seen to be incurring costs whilst merging (redundancies etc.) that the other two wouldn't have to meet.

Llanelli have been know as Scarlets for 40 years at least. You can see lots of evidence on eBay for that.

There are multiple mortgages taken out on Rodney Parade. The last was by Godfrey (last in as much as I haven't checked to see if there are any since taken out) on September 29th, 2014, repayable on demand, for £175,000. The money was used to prop up Newport Rugby Football Club limited, which is the company into which the costs of the NGD (and its income) fall.

Last year's accounts show a further loan of £435,000 from Tony Brown (meaning that he is now owed £2,777,000). Bisley loaned £200,000 at 3.5% above BoE base. Bisley also sponsor the company to the tune of £100,000 per annum.

Hazell loaned £425,000. So he is now owed £1,425,000. His company is owed £710,813. He also personally guaranteed the £300,000 overdraft.

Godfrey is owed the £175,000.

There was talk at the recent Newport GM of all / some of these debts being converted to some form of equity but that remains to be clarified. It may have been these debts or a commitment that any future loans wouldn't be secured on Rodney Parade.

So, it's perfectly obvious as to why Newport RFC followers are a little upset at their club solely carrying the financial liability for the professional team that they only 50% own and whose Directors wish to distance from Newport RFC's heritage.

So, unless I am misunderstanding you, the loans that are secured against RP are loans from individuals and Companies that have supported professional rugby at Rodney Parade since before the dragons were born? Am I correct in my understanding?

[PhilBB]

So, unless I am misunderstanding you, the loans that are secured against RP are loans from individuals and Companies that have supported professional rugby at Rodney Parade since before the dragons were born? Am I correct in my understanding?

You are quite right. All moneys into the team (bar a £25,000 Director's loan - now repaid - from a new Director) are from those heavily associated with Newport RFC.

It is, undoubtedly, Newport RFC keeping the NGD afloat (and only barely at that).

[GavinDragon]

Well as those individuals are the biggest creditors to the business, if they felt that the current marketing direction of the pro team, being propped up by NRFC, was harming the business. Would they not use their, I imagine, considerable weight and influence to alter the course?

And I don't doubt that it is the individuals who used to keep Newport RFC afloat are now doing the same with the Dragons.

[Stone Motif]

But is 'Newport' really a big brand in the rugby world. A read of their history on their website almost starts off as an apology for never having won much. In fact much of their success is pre war. And when I say pre war I mean Boer war  .

Newport haven't been a big club for about 50 years.

The aforementioned Stade Francis Wasps and BT Sport must have long memories then.

Anyway, instead of 'big' how about 'big enough to sustain pro rugby, unlike 98.7% of Welsh Rugby clubs'

[PhilBB]

Well as those individuals are the biggest creditors to the business, if they felt that the current marketing direction of the pro team, being propped up by NRFC, was harming the business. Would they not use their, I imagine, considerable weight and influence to alter the course?  

And I don't doubt that it is the individuals who used to keep Newport RFC afloat are now doing the same with the Dragons.

You're conflating the marketing of a business 50% owned, but 100% financed, with the desire of the supporters to own 100%. You see, that 'considerable weight and influence' hits a stone wall when you realise that they don't have a controlling interest.

The point I'm not sure that you've addressed is that it is the asset of Newport RFC (the club itself and its ground) that is being used to financially prop up the NGD.

Surely you'll agree that this is manifestly unfair. Yes?

[PhilBB]

Anyway, instead of 'big' how about 'big enough to sustain pro rugby, unlike 98.7% of Welsh Rugby clubs'

Indeed.

[GavinDragon]

But is 'Newport' really a big brand in the rugby world. A read of their history on their website almost starts off as an apology for never having won much. In fact much of their success is pre war. And when I say pre war I mean Boer war  .

Newport haven't been a big club for about 50 years.

The aforementioned Stade Francis Wasps and BT Sport must have long memories then.

Anyway, instead of 'big' how about 'big enough to sustain pro rugby, unlike 98.7% of Welsh Rugby clubs'

was that not the whole point of regional rugby? Many clubs - with the exception or perhaps cardiff - couldn't afford pro rugby without benefactors.

So was it not the plan to create regional entities which fans of each club could buy into? Thus creating larger fan bases, more income and also meant the WRU had to fund less teams. Was it not under that pretence that clubs such as Caerphilly, Ebbw Vale, Swansea, Neath and more surrendered there (at the time) earned right to top flight rugby? Yes I appreciate in the case of the Dragons, Ebbw Vale owners walked away, leaving Newport to pick up the pieces. But is that not why Newport is now in the NGD name? And will probably continue to be forever and a day?

[GavinDragon]

Well as those individuals are the biggest creditors to the business, if they felt that the current marketing direction of the pro team, being propped up by NRFC, was harming the business. Would they not use their, I imagine, considerable weight and influence to alter the course?  

And I don't doubt that it is the individuals who used to keep Newport RFC afloat are now doing the same with the Dragons.

You're conflating the marketing of a business 50% owned, but 100% financed, with the desire of the supporters to own 100%. You see, that 'considerable weight and influence' hits a stone wall when you realise that they don't have a controlling interest.

The point I'm not sure that you've addressed is that it is the asset of Newport RFC (the club itself and its ground) that is being used to financially prop up the NGD.

Surely you'll agree that this is manifestly unfair. Yes?

Oh so now it is about supporter ownership? Hang on I thought it was all about branding and the reason why many want it to be just Newport?

And just how would a fan owned Newport club survive without people like Brown, Hazell et al propping it up?

[PhilBB]

was that not the whole point of regional rugby? Many clubs - with the exception or perhaps cardiff - couldn't afford pro rugby without benefactors.

So was it not the plan to create regional entities which fans of each club could buy into? Thus creating larger fan bases, more income and also meant the WRU had to fund less teams. Was it not under that pretence that clubs such as Caerphilly, Ebbw Vale, Swansea, Neath and more surrendered there (at the time) earned right to top flight rugby? Yes I appreciate in the case of the Dragons, Ebbw Vale owners walked away, leaving Newport to pick up the pieces. But is that why Newport is now in the NGD name? And will probably continue to be forever and a day?

No, the plan wasn't to do that at all. The plan was for the then professional clubs, who lacked the finances to continue, to merge in order to try to survive.

Neath and Swansea surrendered nothing. Those who owned Swansea at the time now owned 75%+ of the Ospreys (if not more).

Newport had to be in the name else it wouldn't have come out of administration. All they need now is either 100% ownership or for their asset to no longer be used to prop up the Pro Team (as Pro Rugby Wales like to point out).

[doctornickolas]

But is 'Newport' really a big brand in the rugby world. A read of their history on their website almost starts off as an apology for never having won much. In fact much of their success is pre war. And when I say pre war I mean Boer war  .

Newport haven't been a big club for about 50 years.

The aforementioned Stade Francis Wasps and BT Sport must have long memories then.

Anyway, instead of 'big' how about 'big enough to sustain pro rugby, unlike 98.7% of Welsh Rugby clubs'

What are the list of requirements to be 'big enough to sustain pro rugby' ?

[PhilBB]

Oh so now it is about supporter ownership? Hang on I thought it was all about branding and the reason why many want it to be just Newport?

And just how would a fan owned Newport club survive without people like Brown, Hazell et al propping it up?

Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly here.

There is a swell of opinion that, as Newport RFC are wholly funding the NGD, Newport RFC should wholly own the NGD. That's it in a nutshell.

If they are not to 100% own the NGD, surely it is manifestly unfair for the assets of Newport RFC (its club and its ground) to be used to financially prop up the NGD.

Do you not agree?

[PhilBB]

What are the list of requirements to be 'big enough to sustain pro rugby' ?

A sufficient ground, a 365 days of the year business operation and a collection of chaps willing to underwrite seven figure a year losses, if necessary.

[PhilBB]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Who-Let-Dogs-Out-Professionalism/dp/1904091016/ref=sr_1_23?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440172741&sr=1-23&keywords=rugby

Might be worth 1p for some reading this thread.

[Stone Motif]

But is 'Newport' really a big brand in the rugby world. A read of their history on their website almost starts off as an apology for never having won much. In fact much of their success is pre war. And when I say pre war I mean Boer war  .

Newport haven't been a big club for about 50 years.

The aforementioned Stade Francis Wasps and BT Sport must have long memories then.

Anyway, instead of 'big' how about 'big enough to sustain pro rugby, unlike 98.7% of Welsh Rugby clubs'

What are the list of requirements to be 'big enough to sustain pro rugby' ?

How's about sustaining pro rugby for two decades?

Kind of qualifies them to me.

[GavinDragon]

Again if those who sustained pro rugby for two decades had an issue with the teams direction, surely they would decide to change it

[Stone Motif]

Again if those who sustained pro rugby for two decades had an issue with the teams direction, surely they would decide to change it

Can they? They no longer 100% own the business

[doctornickolas]

But is 'Newport' really a big brand in the rugby world. A read of their history on their website almost starts off as an apology for never having won much. In fact much of their success is pre war. And when I say pre war I mean Boer war  .

Newport haven't been a big club for about 50 years.

The aforementioned Stade Francis Wasps and BT Sport must have long memories then.

Anyway, instead of 'big' how about 'big enough to sustain pro rugby, unlike 98.7% of Welsh Rugby clubs'

What are the list of requirements to be 'big enough to sustain pro rugby' ?

How's about sustaining pro rugby for two decades?

Kind of qualifies them to me.

But if another club had the opportunity to play in the same competitions and get the same pro level funding from the WRU then do you not think they could have done the same? NGD have only really produced 1 player of note for Wales, crowds are consistently low and they have achieved nothing on the field other than being cannon fodder. I think many clubs could have done that.

[GavinDragon]

Given the sum of money they are owed they I would say they could.

Anyways enough politics, off to watch the game. I trust I will actually be able to discuss some rugby with you on here Phil?

[Stone Motif]

But is 'Newport' really a big brand in the rugby world. A read of their history on their website almost starts off as an apology for never having won much. In fact much of their success is pre war. And when I say pre war I mean Boer war  .

Newport haven't been a big club for about 50 years.

The aforementioned Stade Francis Wasps and BT Sport must have long memories then.

Anyway, instead of 'big' how about 'big enough to sustain pro rugby, unlike 98.7% of Welsh Rugby clubs'

What are the list of requirements to be 'big enough to sustain pro rugby' ?

How's about sustaining pro rugby for two decades?

Kind of qualifies them to me.

But if another club had the opportunity to play in the same competitions and get the same pro level funding from the WRU then do you not think they could have done the same? NGD have only really produced 1 player of note for Wales, crowds are consistently low and they have achieved nothing on the field other than being cannon fodder. I think many clubs could have done that.

WRU funding

Rest of the post pure comedy, well done

[PhilBB]

Again if those who sustained pro rugby for two decades had an issue with the teams direction, surely they would decide to change it

Again, you're ignoring the lack of a controlling share. Why?

[PhilBB]

But if another club had the opportunity to play in the same competitions and get the same pro level funding from the WRU then do you not think they could have done the same? NGD have only really produced 1 player of note for Wales, crowds are consistently low and they have achieved nothing on the field other than being cannon fodder. I think many clubs could have done that.

Please name them.

[PhilBB]

Given the sum of money they are owed they I would say they could.

Anyways enough politics, off to watch the game. I trust I will actually be able to discuss some rugby with you on here Phil?

Given that they don't own a controlling share to make such changes and, in the recent meeting of the Newport GM, noted that any such change would be blocked by the owner of the other half, why do you say they could?

Maybe we can discuss some rugby when you've finally addressed the point of the fairness of the 50% owners bearing 100% of the costs.

[GavinDragon]

I don't need to address anything, I am one fan with an opinion the same as you and any other fan.

Anyway we lost 29-20 after being up 20-5 at HT. We gifted them two interception tries in second half and used 38 players.

Positives - scrum and lineout looked solid throughout. We won a raft of penalties at scrum and scored two tries from lineouts. Hewitt looked very hungry as did Dixon. We also were very competitive at the breakdown and turned over a few balls.

Negatives - too many subs. We also lack a big ball carrier at centre and generally lack in composure when going through phases

Onto the blues where I hope we select a settled 23

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=60328

[Sponsored content]