Merthyr RFC set to become new force in Welsh Rugby

First topic message reminder :

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/merthyr-rfc-set-become-new-9377183

Thoughts?

PhilBB wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

We've done this before with him.

Sorry, I've no real exposure to that.

I can share his frustration, I can understand his ire at the NGD, but I can't understand the achievement bar he has set.

Yes, but the biggest problem the "Newport V2 mafia" has with him is that he rather arrogantly suggests that we as supporters are happy with how things are there. We've all got our head in the sand etc. Here's a post I highlighted to him by the way, about how he uses budgets when it suits and you can see his reply (or lack thereof). But now, budgets and finances are just an "excuse"

LordDowlais wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:Dowlais in Dec. The Pro 12 teams (thus including the Regions) can't be expected to compete with the Aviva.

https://www.606v2.com/t61526-the-pro12-teams-need-to-do-something-or-else

Dowlais in October.

https://www.606v2.com/t60973-irfu-to-spend-even-more-money-on-their-wages

LordDowlais wrote:Spend,spend,spend. If you cant beat em, join em.

It just goes to show the disparity in the Pro12. There really should be a salary cap in our league. At the moment the Irish are spending more than the French.

Dowlais in July

https://www.606v2.com/t59768-irish-big-spenders

In a nutshell, how are we supposed to compete in the league or the Europe when in his own words, we are being outspent?

But then, his solution is go back to clubs. So he either means, a name change is going to make a difference or he means more Welsh clubs which will dilute our talent pool further and mean less of a budget per team.

To knock the Dragons for getting out of a group containing two big spending French teams is a bit much too. Does make it seem like you have some sort of agenda. If I were you, I would stick to generating clicks for Walesonline, as you are good at that.

New name, same old risca.

Do me a favour, instead of just coming on here to bitch every time somebody had a go at your beloved Dragons, why don't you start a topic, or contribute with something worth talking about ? No, you would rather just come on here and act all high and mighty and telling people him wrong and stupid they are.

You never start a topic, I wonder why.

PS I know why you have changed your username.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Faletau first had offers from Bath and a French club in 2013, but chose to extend his stay at NGD. So your rumour source isn't that great, in fact I'd stop referencing it altogether. I believe that both parties (WRU and NGD) could have forked out a better deal for Faletau, but it was widely known that Gats didn't want him to play in Wales. Quite shocking really but it wouldn't be the first time that players of this region have been ill treated. Morgan and Amos might not be here at their contract expiry date, but are they going anywhere any time soon, or this your rumour mill again?

Why shouldn't they? If front line players are injured then we need the next available player to step in. If that player is playing in England or France it causes issues, which has previously been well documented BTW, go look it up because I know you disagree. Amos and Morgan did deserve it and have shown that they do, unlike others . And also falling back on previous trends, Morgan and Amos would have been sought after by many richer clubs. The WRU (with Gatland as well probably) made a good move to offer these players NDCs.

It isn't solely the fault of NGD.

2013 is two years before he made up his mind to go. My source is from 2015, not 2013. It was Faletau who wanted out.

Only front line players should get NDC because the pot is so very limited. It shouldn't be wasted on 'what if' players. By your logic, the greater issue is caused if the first choice player is not playing in Wales, hence NDC should be spent on them. By. Your. Logic.

Morgan and Amos are both looking at moving Westwards in the Summer, Mikey, not Eastwards.

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:WRUs prerogative doesn't seem to want 4 strong teams.

Yep, it's all the fault of the WRU.

Is it? Well they did form and help fund/run the 4 teams. Unless growing welsh rugby has suddenly not been their prerogative since last night. Can anyone confirm this?

It has been since November 1st, 2015.

How so, have they withdrawn all funding?

WTF are you on about?

Christ, so are you or are you not responding to "Unless growing welsh rugby has suddenly not been their prerogative since last night. Can anyone confirm this?" ? You seem to be saying that it has not been their prerogative since said date, and for that to be true then I assume that in doing so the union (I refer you back to my earlier post which states the purpose of the WRU) would have withdrawn all funding into welsh rugby. That is WTF I'm on about.

RiscaGame wrote:

Yes, but the biggest problem the "Newport V2 mafia" has with him is that he rather arrogantly suggests that we as supporters are happy with how things are there. We've all got our head in the sand etc. Here's a post I highlighted to him by the way, about how he uses budgets when it suits and you can see his reply (or lack thereof). But now, budgets and finances are just an "excuse"

I can see that he's not a clear and consistent thinker.

But it does make me wonder as to why there is no NDG supporters group doing something about the situation at DP.

mikey_dragon wrote:That is WTF I'm on about.

Cheers, makes a little more sense now.

mikey_dragon wrote:Yes I think I did miss Lewis' attempts to shut down the four teams - willing to be enlightened but certainly will not be taking your word as gospel.

He really did.

mikey_dragon wrote:
Players were practically given to other teams, and always have been. It will be to a greater extent when more sign up to a NDC. Your history must be a little hazy to not realise, but never mind.
Their 50% owners don't plow in money. It's their job if they own that great a share.

Four multi millionaire backers and 4 years in this slump? It's even worse than I thought. Your board brought in those players and coaches after Dai Young. They're boneheads getting involved in the rugby side of things and went on to prove how clueless they are. When you actually brought in a good coach from NZ they fired him. And yes I think I did miss Lewis' attempts to shut down the four teams - willing to be enlightened but certainly will not be taking your word as gospel.

Shareholders do not have an obligation, beyond their initial purchase, to plough in money. That's not how a business works.

You're right to point out that there have been a series of poor coach choices at Cardiff but, to mitigate, the 2009 PA noted that Level 5 WRU coaches had to be employed. You can thank Roger for that one.

Hammett wasn't fired.

You seriously missed Lewis going public, for months, about the consequences of not rolling the 2009 PA or signing a new one? Dear Christ alive.

Thanks for that last clause, it's very telling. Lose the chip off your shoulder, Champ, and you might learn something.

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Right so basically what you're moving towards is what I said, more intervention because it should be the WRU's prerogative to strengthen the game across the board. Does "so it's all the WRUs fault then " not apply here? Why am I not surprised to see you contradict yourself time and again!

WTF? The WRU has neither the financial nor human resource for 'more intervention'.

The best foot forward, as Phillips is showing, is for less WRU intervention.

You misunderstand me again. You will need to analyse the last couples weeks discussions with LD, and read what I am replying to in order to understand. However; increased funding in grass roots, increased profits, increased salary cap and less stadium debt each suggests that you are wrong.

Is it? Again willing to be enlightened with this rumour.

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:
Yes. They were able to improve through more union intervention. And in this scenario the union had them down as a development province so it was the union's fault. Connacht sure a patient bunch. Why do I get the feeling this is what the union has wanted to do to the Dregs for over a decade?

Wrong.

Connacht were able to improve through having more MONEY.

The WRU doesn't have in its power to make the NGD a 'development' team.

IRFU increased their funding, therefore union intervention. If Connacht have external investors or sponsors in addition to this then even better. FYI I have never once suggested that the WRU be the sole funder and boss of each of the welsh teams, I realise we need additional support too.

If you're convinced of that then you've been away for a while, since like 2006.

LordDowlais wrote:
But has Phil as pointed out, at least the Cardiff Blues are playing better rugby, evne if he point blank refuses to see that Cardiff are in the same position in the league they have been for the last 4 years, and they did worst in Europe this year than they did last year, but hey, they are improving.

So you do recognise that they have improved. Well, well, after all that.

PhilBB wrote:

Griff wrote:

I would completely agree with this point if we still had the full pro club rugby structure in Wales like in England and France, based on promotion and relegation, competition between sides, club based academies, capitalist approaches (i.e. sink or swim, generate money and spend or die, etc.), looking out for number one only.  Then, the people in charge are the ones that have to get it right, and if they don't then they get relegated and someone else with the money and resources can be promoted and can perhaps take their place, take their players, etc.

However, since the WRU forced through their quasi-provincial model, ring fenced the 5 (now 4) sides, fund them £x million per year, receive all of the TV monies rather than the regions receiving it, send WRU coaches out to the regions to work with players, etc. they are demonstrated that they are very much involved and as such they should be involved when the chips are down too.  They can't just dip in and out.  Take the credit for the structure when the times are good but bail out when sides are struggling.  They created this.  They're funding it (largely).  They're saying who the regions can sign a lot of the time.  They should therefore be involved in the solution to some problems too.

The WRU don't 'fund' these teams. What is this crazy rhetoric that exists on this message board?

The agreement is for the WRU to pass through (as the Annual Report dictates) the TV money as it has to reach an annual turnover figure in order to meet its covenants with Barclays. What WRU coaches work with the pro teams?? Any more than RFU coaches work with PRL teams?

The WRU are NOT funding it. You've got that fundamentally wrong.

The WRU are not 'saying who the regions can sign', either. That is also fundamentally wrong.

Where are you getting this drivel from?

On the first point, it is my understanding that the amount the regions receive each year from the WRU is greater than the TV and competitions money generated by them, plus player release monies. Therefore the extra is put in by the WRU. Happy to be proven wrong as I've argued that the WRU doesn't put in enough. If they're putting in £0 then I'll be happy to learn that, especially in light of the ongoing arguments with Irish posters on here who say we're funded just as much as they are by their union.

My other points were about control and involvement. Since regional rugby was introduced the WRU seem to have much more involvement and control. The regions seem less autonomous. The TV monies not going directly to the clubs was an example of this. The fact they all get an even split amount from the WRU suggests a centralised control of some sort too. If they were fully autonomous then they'd generate different amounts I'd guess. So again, regional rugby for me has brought more involvement and control from the union. There have also been examples (which I can't think of off the top of my head) where regions have had to make a request to sign a player from overseas, and have on occasion (if memory serves) been denied. That doesn't sound like an organization in full control of their destiny or decision making.

Are you saying that the WRU does not have control or influence? That the regions are fully autonomous?

mikey_dragon wrote:

You misunderstand me again. You will need to analyse the last couples weeks discussions with LD, and read what I am replying to in order to understand. However; increased funding in grass roots, increased profits, increased salary cap and less stadium debt each suggests that you are wrong.

Is it? Again willing to be enlightened with this rumour.

I'm really struggling to understand what the hell you are on about.

My point was about WRU intervention in the professional game. The WRU had no say over the salary cap.

Griff wrote:

On the first point, it is my understanding that the amount the regions receive each year from the WRU is greater than the TV and competitions money generated by them, plus player release monies.  Therefore the extra is put in by the WRU.  Happy to be proven wrong as I've argued that the WRU doesn't put in enough.  If they're putting in £0 then I'll be happy to learn that, especially in light of the ongoing arguments with Irish posters on here who say we're funded just as much as they are by their union.

My other points were about control and involvement.  Since regional rugby was introduced the WRU seem to have much more involvement and control.  The regions seem less autonomous.  The TV monies not going directly to the clubs was an example of this.  The fact they all get an even split amount from the WRU suggests a centralised control of some sort too.  If they were fully autonomous then they'd generate different amounts I'd guess.  So again, regional rugby for me has brought more involvement and control from the union.  There have also been examples (which I can't think of off the top of my head) where regions have had to make a request to sign a player from overseas, and have on occasion (if memory serves) been denied.  That doesn't sound like an organization in full control of their destiny or decision making.

Are you saying that the WRU does not have control or influence?  That the regions are fully autonomous?

You're understanding is wrong, in that case. The competition money is greater than any WRU payment for player access etc. The WRU Annual Reports will prove this to you.

The TV pass though money, again noted as such in the AR, is because of the covenant. The equality in that payment is because of the equal involvement in the competitions that generate the cash. It's a collective bargaining, as many sports use, and has nothing to do with WRU involvement.

As the Union, the WRU has the right to block international transfers but, from memory, has never done so.

They never used to have the right to block transfers though, under the old 9 club pro structure. Obviously with the participation agreement there is a limit on volume of players, but not who those players are, which is where the WRU has blocked. Can someone provide an example? I remember Lyn saying that they'd been blocked from signing someone not so long ago.

On the TV monies thing - don't the regions get something like over £5m now from the WRU? TV monies are only something like £2.5m aren't they? I've looked at the accounts and can't seem to split the amounts out. I'm therefore jumping to conclusions, which is not an accurate way of working out the finances. Detailed breakdown would be good if someone had them?

Wow, thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread, off work sick but this has cheered me up.

From my view I think Lord dowlais is too quick do judge the pro teams when the season is not even over. Also the 'war', as he put it, only finished a year or so ago so surely the 4 need a little time to recover, get their houses in order and then move on.

As a Blues fan I won't comment too much on to others but I can see improvement in the blues. Wilson is the right man and with the signings made (and to be made) for the next 2 years I can certainly see us getting back to the top 6 soon.

If we're sat 9th in the league in 2/3 years with no progression in any cups then fair enough Lord Dowlais can moan. The Blues never fully recovered after 2011 when a whole host of quality players retired or left (and the CCS fiasco before that), then we got cought up in the WRU 'war' and had to make do with some players who were simply not good enough for this level. Now the war is over, budgets have increased andsome quality can be signed.

Hope this makes sense through my coughing and spluttering typing while dosed up on lemsip!!

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Faletau first had offers from Bath and a French club in 2013, but chose to extend his stay at NGD. So your rumour source isn't that great, in fact I'd stop referencing it altogether. I believe that both parties (WRU and NGD) could have forked out a better deal for Faletau, but it was widely known that Gats didn't want him to play in Wales. Quite shocking really but it wouldn't be the first time that players of this region have been ill treated. Morgan and Amos might not be here at their contract expiry date, but are they going anywhere any time soon, or this your rumour mill again?

Why shouldn't they? If front line players are injured then we need the next available player to step in. If that player is playing in England or France it causes issues, which has previously been well documented BTW, go look it up because I know you disagree. Amos and Morgan did deserve it and have shown that they do, unlike others . And also falling back on previous trends, Morgan and Amos would have been sought after by many richer clubs. The WRU (with Gatland as well probably) made a good move to offer these players NDCs.

It isn't solely the fault of NGD.

2013 is two years before he made up his mind to go. My source is from 2015, not 2013. It was Faletau who wanted out.

Only front line players should get NDC because the pot is so very limited. It shouldn't be wasted on 'what if' players. By your logic, the greater issue is caused if the first choice player is not playing in Wales, hence NDC should be spent on them. By. Your. Logic.

Morgan and Amos are both looking at moving Westwards in the Summer, Mikey, not Eastwards.

You said before the RWC, when it wasn't actually announced that he'd signed up after the RWC. So I assumed you were talking a bit further back. Up until this point contract negotiations were on going and an agreement that would see him stay couldn't be made whilst extra money was available to put him on a NDC. The offer never came to Faletau decided a move to Bath was best for him. Somehow I don't think the move will work out.

True it is limited. There should be around 25 - 30 front line players on one. That would have included extra backs because it was an area we were getting a bit thin on the ground (long before the RWC injuries), hence form players like Amos and Morgan signed up.

I always assumed it would be eastward, but need a little more than your word for it.

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

You misunderstand me again. You will need to analyse the last couples weeks discussions with LD, and read what I am replying to in order to understand. However; increased funding in grass roots, increased profits, increased salary cap and less stadium debt each suggests that you are wrong.

Is it? Again willing to be enlightened with this rumour.

I'm really struggling to understand what the hell you are on about.

My point was about WRU intervention in the professional game. The WRU had no say over the salary cap.

Well you've even lost me now. As for talking about chips on shoulders, I find it very rich coming from the likes of you. It would be best to leave that turd on twitter where you have a god-like status among Cardiff RFC fans still stuck in time warp.

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:
Players were practically given to other teams, and always have been. It will be to a greater extent when more sign up to a NDC. Your history must be a little hazy to not realise, but never mind.
Their 50% owners don't plow in money. It's their job if they own that great a share.

Four multi millionaire backers and 4 years in this slump? It's even worse than I thought. Your board brought in those players and coaches after Dai Young. They're boneheads getting involved in the rugby side of things and went on to prove how clueless they are. When you actually brought in a good coach from NZ they fired him. And yes I think I did miss Lewis' attempts to shut down the four teams - willing to be enlightened but certainly will not be taking your word as gospel.

Shareholders do not have an obligation, beyond their initial purchase, to plough in money. That's not how a business works.

You're right to point out that there have been a series of poor coach choices at Cardiff but, to mitigate, the 2009 PA noted that Level 5 WRU coaches had to be employed. You can thank Roger for that one.

Hammett wasn't fired.

You seriously missed Lewis going public, for months, about the consequences of not rolling the 2009 PA or signing a new one? Dear Christ alive.

Thanks for that last clause, it's very telling. Lose the chip off your shoulder, Champ, and you might learn something.

Pal this isn't the NHS or LD's carpet fitting firm. We're talking about a non-profit organisation set up to serve specific purposes. If like me you want to see 4 or more strong teams in Wales then you would agree with what I believe should happen.

Are you referring to laurel and hardy? Wasn't their predecessor Phil Davies, a man who was wanted by your board?

I do remember the scenario, but it's been one of many hence my asking. It's not quite as you described either, is it?

Griff wrote:They never used to have the right to block transfers though, under the old 9 club pro structure.  Obviously with the participation agreement there is a limit on volume of players, but not who those players are, which is where the WRU has blocked.  Can someone provide an example?  I remember Lyn saying that they'd been blocked from signing someone not so long ago.

On the TV monies thing - don't the regions get something like over £5m now from the WRU?  TV monies are only something like £2.5m aren't they?  I've looked at the accounts and can't seem to split the amounts out.  I'm therefore jumping to conclusions, which is not an accurate way of working out the finances.  Detailed breakdown would be good if someone had them?

They have the same right now to block registration as they always have done. Nothing has changed.

There is no limit on the number of non-Welsh players as the Ospreys have shown this season. What there is in place is a payment for minimising the use of non-Welsh players. As more are used, less is paid. There has been no WRU block.

http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU_ARA_2015.pdf That will show the finances to you for the last Lewis year. Under him, it was £9m 'from' the WRU and £8.2m competition income. See Note 2 to the accounts.

However, those are challengeable based on the fact that the WRU withheld the ERC payments to PRW. Had Note 2 been accurate, that payment would have been paid by the WRU to PRW regardless. As the payment was not made, Note 2 is challengeable.

mikey_dragon wrote:
You said before the RWC, when it wasn't actually announced that he'd signed up after the RWC. So I assumed you were talking a bit further back. Up until this point contract negotiations were on going and an agreement that would see him stay couldn't be made whilst extra money was available to put him on a NDC. The offer never came to Faletau decided a move to Bath was best for him. Somehow I don't think the move will work out.

True it is limited. There should be around 25 - 30 front line players on one. That would have included extra backs because it was an area we were getting a bit thin on the ground (long before the RWC injuries), hence form players like Amos and Morgan signed up.

I always assumed it would be eastward, but need a little more than your word for it.

Faletau agreed the deal with Bath before the RWC. The offer of the NDC was just window dressing (clue: see Thomas getting involved by offering a transfer fee to his mate Hazell).

There is no money for 25 'front line' players to have an NDC. There should be no NDC at all.

Even Robin Davey was tweeting yesterday about that pair moving Westwards. He had it confirmed from Godfrey that the moves were being started.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Well you've even lost me now. As for talking about chips on shoulders, I find it very rich coming from the likes of you. It would be best to leave that turd on twitter where you have a god-like status among Cardiff RFC fans still stuck in time warp.

Terrific.

Remind me again who you are?

'The likes of you'. Rightio.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Pal this isn't the NHS or LD's carpet fitting firm. We're talking about a non-profit organisation set up to serve specific purposes. If like me you want to see 4 or more strong teams in Wales then you would agree with what I believe should happen.

Are you referring to laurel and hardy? Wasn't their predecessor Phil Davies, a man who was wanted by your board?

I do remember the scenario, but it's been one of many hence my asking. It's not quite as you described either, is it?

WTF?

What is this 'non-profit organisation set up to serve specific purposes'?

Burnell and Davies: Level 5 Welsh coaches as wished for by Lewis. Both didn't work out. Hammett wasn't sacked.

And what isn't as I described? Try being coherent, if you can.

I never thought the day would come where are thread about Merthyr RFC would result in a slanging match between Cardiff and Newport supporters

Makes a change from all the Ponty bashing I guess



And good entertainment

PhilBB wrote:

Griff wrote:They never used to have the right to block transfers though, under the old 9 club pro structure.  Obviously with the participation agreement there is a limit on volume of players, but not who those players are, which is where the WRU has blocked.  Can someone provide an example?  I remember Lyn saying that they'd been blocked from signing someone not so long ago.

On the TV monies thing - don't the regions get something like over £5m now from the WRU?  TV monies are only something like £2.5m aren't they?  I've looked at the accounts and can't seem to split the amounts out.  I'm therefore jumping to conclusions, which is not an accurate way of working out the finances.  Detailed breakdown would be good if someone had them?

They have the same right now to block registration as they always have done. Nothing has changed.

There is no limit on the number of non-Welsh players as the Ospreys have shown this season. What there is in place is a payment for minimising the use of non-Welsh players. As more are used, less is paid. There has been no WRU block.

http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU_ARA_2015.pdf That will show the finances to you for the last Lewis year. Under him, it was £9m 'from' the WRU and £8.2m competition income. See Note 2 to the accounts.

However, those are challengeable based on the fact that the WRU withheld the ERC payments to PRW. Had Note 2 been accurate, that payment would have been paid by the WRU to PRW regardless. As the payment was not made, Note 2 is challengeable.

Thanks Phil.

Phil, does the RCC competition money flow through the WRU to PRW and if so, why?

Also, the £9.1m of direct investment, does this include NDC money?

If not, what is it for? Player release?

GavinDragon wrote:Phil, does the RCC competition money flow through the WRU to PRW and if so, why?

Yes, I believe so.

Why? To meet the WRU covenants with Barclays. It requires a certain income into the WRU. It will be interesting to see what happens once that debt is repaid.

But, and please correct me if I am wrong, didnt PRW negotiate directly with PRL and LNR over the RCC comp? If they did, why did they allow the funds to flow through WRU accounts?

GavinDragon wrote:Also, the £9.1m of direct investment, does this include NDC money?

If not, what is it for? Player release?

The bottom of Page 83 is your friend on this.

Competition Money £8,129,000
NDC £2,000.000
From WRU £7,034,000

Now, interestingly (or boring, dependent upon your view), it is reported that the WRU holds primacy of contract over the NDC players. This, by law, would make them WRU employees. However, on the bottom of page 85 is notes that 'Staff Costs' EXCLUDES NDC costs whereby, legally, it should include those costs IF the NDC player is a WRU employee.

In that financial year, only £1.3m of the £2m was spend on NDC contracts and so the balance was spread evenly between PRW teams.

As for what the money is for, it's best explained in the RRW Press Conference at CAP where Gallacher explained it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxN5azRtUOA

It's about player release, limiting nWq players and what's called a 'core grant'. That's who Lewis worded it in the 2009 Agreement and I don't know if the RSA has it worded in the same manner.

GavinDragon wrote:But, and please correct me if I am wrong, didnt PRW negotiate directly with PRL and LNR over the RCC comp? If they did, why did they allow the funds to flow through WRU accounts?

No, PRW and the WRU are equal shareholders in EPCR. The agreements that FFR and RFU have with their clubs is that competition money is paid directly to their umbrella organisations. That isn't the case in Wales.

Why isn't it the case? I can only guess by noting that the loss of £8m+ from the WRU turnover would see it invoke increased interest charges from Barclays and that would benefit nobody.

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:Also, the £9.1m of direct investment, does this include NDC money?

If not, what is it for? Player release?

The bottom of Page 83 is your friend on this.

Competition Money £8,129,000
NDC £2,000.000
From WRU £7,034,000

Now, interestingly (or boring, dependent upon your view), it is reported that the WRU holds primacy of contract over the NDC players. This, by law, would make them WRU employees. However, on the bottom of page 85 is notes that 'Staff Costs' EXCLUDES NDC costs whereby, legally, it should include those costs IF the NDC player is a WRU employee.

In that financial year, only £1.3m of the £2m was spend on NDC contracts and so the balance was spread evenly between PRW teams.

As for what the money is for, it's best explained in the RRW Press Conference at CAP where Gallacher explained it.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/15/julian-assange-allowed-questioned-swedish-prosecutors-london

It's about player release, limiting nWq players and what's called a 'core grant'. That's who Lewis worded it in the 2009 Agreement and I don't know if the RSA has it worded in the same manner.

Not necessarily, they could have a contract for service with the WRU and a contract of employment with the region. Meaning they are still "employed" by the region, but perform services (namely representing Wales) for the WRU. I imaging a written agreement could be put in place to assure the WRU primacy as you suggest.

And ok, so lets say we move to a system where the union pay each region per player released as you suggest. You would assum that the budget for such release would be similar:-

£9.1 million / 35 players = 260,000 per player

Current Welsh Squad:-

Rob Evans (Scarlets) Paul James (Ospreys) Gethin Jenkins (Blues) Tomas Francis (Exeter Chiefs) Aaron Jarvis (Ospreys), Samson Lee (Scarlets), Scott Baldwin (Ospreys), Kristian Dacey (Cardiff Blues), Ken Owens (Scarlets), Jake Ball (Scarlets), Luke Charteris (Racing 92), Bradley Davies (Wasps), Dominic Day (Bath Rugby), Alun Wyn Jones (Ospreys), Josh Turnbull (Cardiff Blues), Taulupe Faletau (Newport Gwent Dragons), James King (Ospreys), Dan Lydiate (Ospreys), Ross Moriarty (Gloucester Rugby), Justin Tipuric (Ospreys), Sam Warburton (Cardiff Blues, captain).

Aled Davies (Scarlets), Gareth Davies (Scarlets), Lloyd Williams (Cardiff Blues) Dan Biggar (Ospreys), Rhys Priestland (Bath Rugby), Cory Allen (Cardiff Blues), Jonathan Davies (Clermont Auvergne), Tyler Morgan (Newport Gwent Dragons), Jamie Roberts (Harlequins), Hallam Amos (Newport Gwent Dragons), Alex Cuthbert (Cardiff Blues), Tom James (Cardiff Blues), George North (Northampton Saints), Gareth Anscombe (Cardiff Blues), Matthew Morgan (Bristol Rugby), Liam Williams (Scarlets).

Scarlets - 7 x 260,000 = 1,820,000
Ospreys - 8 x 260,000 = 2,080,000
Blues - 9 x 260,000 = 2,340,000
Dragons - 3 x 260,000 = 780,000
Exiles - 10 (do clubs in Eng and France receive money from WRU for player release?)

Is that roughly how it would work? What is the situation with exiled players?

Have to agree even though that will shaft the dragons financially, it does incentivise the right behaviours across regional rugby.

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:But, and please correct me if I am wrong, didnt PRW negotiate directly with PRL and LNR over the RCC comp? If they did, why did they allow the funds to flow through WRU accounts?

No, PRW and the WRU are equal shareholders in EPCR. The agreements that FFR and RFU have with their clubs is that competition money is paid directly to their umbrella organisations. That isn't the case in Wales.

Why isn't it the case? I can only guess by noting that the loss of £8m+ from the WRU turnover would see it invoke increased interest charges from Barclays and that would benefit nobody.

Didn't realise that. Thought PRW held all the power from that angle.

GavinDragon wrote:

Not necessarily, they could have a contract for service with the WRU and a contract of employment with the region. Meaning they are still "employed" by the region, but perform services (namely representing Wales) for the WRU. I imaging a written agreement could be put in place to assure the WRU primacy as you suggest.

That would make them self employed, but they are not as social security payments are made by both employers.

GavinDragon wrote:

And ok, so lets say we move to a system where the union pay each region per player released as you suggest. You would assum that the budget for such release would be similar:-

£9.1 million / 35 players = 260,000 per player

Current Welsh Squad:-

Rob Evans (Scarlets) Paul James (Ospreys) Gethin Jenkins (Blues) Tomas Francis (Exeter Chiefs) Aaron Jarvis (Ospreys), Samson Lee (Scarlets), Scott Baldwin (Ospreys), Kristian Dacey (Cardiff Blues), Ken Owens (Scarlets), Jake Ball (Scarlets), Luke Charteris (Racing 92), Bradley Davies (Wasps), Dominic Day (Bath Rugby), Alun Wyn Jones (Ospreys), Josh Turnbull (Cardiff Blues), Taulupe Faletau (Newport Gwent Dragons), James King (Ospreys), Dan Lydiate (Ospreys), Ross Moriarty (Gloucester Rugby), Justin Tipuric (Ospreys), Sam Warburton (Cardiff Blues, captain).

Aled Davies (Scarlets), Gareth Davies (Scarlets), Lloyd Williams (Cardiff Blues) Dan Biggar (Ospreys), Rhys Priestland (Bath Rugby), Cory Allen (Cardiff Blues), Jonathan Davies (Clermont Auvergne), Tyler Morgan (Newport Gwent Dragons), Jamie Roberts (Harlequins), Hallam Amos (Newport Gwent Dragons), Alex Cuthbert (Cardiff Blues), Tom James (Cardiff Blues), George North (Northampton Saints), Gareth Anscombe (Cardiff Blues), Matthew Morgan (Bristol Rugby), Liam Williams (Scarlets).

Scarlets - 7 x 260,000 = 1,820,000
Ospreys - 8 x 260,000 = 2,080,000
Blues - 9 x 260,000 = 2,340,000
Dragons - 3 x 260,000 = 780,000
Exiles - 10 (do clubs in Eng and France receive money from WRU for player release?)

Is that roughly how it would work? What is the situation with exiled players?

Have to agree even though that will shaft the dragons financially, it does incentivise the right behaviours across regional rugby.

No money leaves the country for player release, no, as you'll see the likes of Moriarty on duty this weekend.

With the exiled players, I would split that fee equally between the four.

I'd also not make the entire payment for the full squad, meaning I'd also financially reward / compensate for providing players to the u20.

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

Not necessarily, they could have a contract for service with the WRU and a contract of employment with the region. Meaning they are still "employed" by the region, but perform services (namely representing Wales) for the WRU. I imaging a written agreement could be put in place to assure the WRU primacy as you suggest.

That would make them self employed, but they are not as social security payments are made by both employers.

It would make them employed by the region and providing a service to the WRU. You are right though, if they PAYE on their earnings from the union it is likely that they are employees of the union also. Depends on what is in the contract thought - have you seen one?

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

And ok, so lets say we move to a system where the union pay each region per player released as you suggest. You would assum that the budget for such release would be similar:-

£9.1 million / 35 players = 260,000 per player

Current Welsh Squad:-

Rob Evans (Scarlets) Paul James (Ospreys) Gethin Jenkins (Blues) Tomas Francis (Exeter Chiefs) Aaron Jarvis (Ospreys), Samson Lee (Scarlets), Scott Baldwin (Ospreys), Kristian Dacey (Cardiff Blues), Ken Owens (Scarlets), Jake Ball (Scarlets), Luke Charteris (Racing 92), Bradley Davies (Wasps), Dominic Day (Bath Rugby), Alun Wyn Jones (Ospreys), Josh Turnbull (Cardiff Blues), Taulupe Faletau (Newport Gwent Dragons), James King (Ospreys), Dan Lydiate (Ospreys), Ross Moriarty (Gloucester Rugby), Justin Tipuric (Ospreys), Sam Warburton (Cardiff Blues, captain).

Aled Davies (Scarlets), Gareth Davies (Scarlets), Lloyd Williams (Cardiff Blues) Dan Biggar (Ospreys), Rhys Priestland (Bath Rugby), Cory Allen (Cardiff Blues), Jonathan Davies (Clermont Auvergne), Tyler Morgan (Newport Gwent Dragons), Jamie Roberts (Harlequins), Hallam Amos (Newport Gwent Dragons), Alex Cuthbert (Cardiff Blues), Tom James (Cardiff Blues), George North (Northampton Saints), Gareth Anscombe (Cardiff Blues), Matthew Morgan (Bristol Rugby), Liam Williams (Scarlets).

Scarlets - 7 x 260,000 = 1,820,000
Ospreys - 8 x 260,000 = 2,080,000
Blues - 9 x 260,000 = 2,340,000
Dragons - 3 x 260,000 = 780,000
Exiles - 10 (do clubs in Eng and France receive money from WRU for player release?)

Is that roughly how it would work? What is the situation with exiled players?

Have to agree even though that will shaft the dragons financially, it does incentivise the right behaviours across regional rugby.

No money leaves the country for player release, no, as you'll see the likes of Moriarty on duty this weekend.

With the exiled players, I would split that fee equally between the four.

I'd also not make the entire payment for the full squad, meaning I'd also financially reward / compensate for providing players to the u20.

What fee?

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

And ok, so lets say we move to a system where the union pay each region per player released as you suggest. You would assum that the budget for such release would be similar:-

£9.1 million / 35 players = 260,000 per player

Current Welsh Squad:-

Rob Evans (Scarlets) Paul James (Ospreys) Gethin Jenkins (Blues) Tomas Francis (Exeter Chiefs) Aaron Jarvis (Ospreys), Samson Lee (Scarlets), Scott Baldwin (Ospreys), Kristian Dacey (Cardiff Blues), Ken Owens (Scarlets), Jake Ball (Scarlets), Luke Charteris (Racing 92), Bradley Davies (Wasps), Dominic Day (Bath Rugby), Alun Wyn Jones (Ospreys), Josh Turnbull (Cardiff Blues), Taulupe Faletau (Newport Gwent Dragons), James King (Ospreys), Dan Lydiate (Ospreys), Ross Moriarty (Gloucester Rugby), Justin Tipuric (Ospreys), Sam Warburton (Cardiff Blues, captain).

Aled Davies (Scarlets), Gareth Davies (Scarlets), Lloyd Williams (Cardiff Blues) Dan Biggar (Ospreys), Rhys Priestland (Bath Rugby), Cory Allen (Cardiff Blues), Jonathan Davies (Clermont Auvergne), Tyler Morgan (Newport Gwent Dragons), Jamie Roberts (Harlequins), Hallam Amos (Newport Gwent Dragons), Alex Cuthbert (Cardiff Blues), Tom James (Cardiff Blues), George North (Northampton Saints), Gareth Anscombe (Cardiff Blues), Matthew Morgan (Bristol Rugby), Liam Williams (Scarlets).

Scarlets - 7 x 260,000 = 1,820,000
Ospreys - 8 x 260,000 = 2,080,000
Blues - 9 x 260,000 = 2,340,000
Dragons - 3 x 260,000 = 780,000
Exiles - 10 (do clubs in Eng and France receive money from WRU for player release?)

Is that roughly how it would work? What is the situation with exiled players?

Have to agree even though that will shaft the dragons financially, it does incentivise the right behaviours across regional rugby.

No money leaves the country for player release, no, as you'll see the likes of Moriarty on duty this weekend.

With the exiled players, I would split that fee equally between the four.

I'd also not make the entire payment for the full squad, meaning I'd also financially reward / compensate for providing players to the u20.

I wonder whether, rather than a flat sum for each player, it would be more cost effecting to only compensate for each player the value of their salary for the period that they are away from their employer. Like being on secondment, the WRU would take on each player's wages pro rata for the period they are with Wales.

GavinDragon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:But, and please correct me if I am wrong, didnt PRW negotiate directly with PRL and LNR over the RCC comp? If they did, why did they allow the funds to flow through WRU accounts?

No, PRW and the WRU are equal shareholders in EPCR. The agreements that FFR and RFU have with their clubs is that competition money is paid directly to their umbrella organisations. That isn't the case in Wales.

Why isn't it the case? I can only guess by noting that the loss of £8m+ from the WRU turnover would see it invoke increased interest charges from Barclays and that would benefit nobody.

Didn't realise that. Thought PRW held all the power from that angle.

Votes are:

FFR 1, LNR 4, FIR 2, IRFU 2, RFU 1, PRL 4, SRU 2, WRU 1 and PRW 1

So France has 5
Italy 2
Ireland 2
England 5
Scotland 2
Wales 2

There are 18 in total. The Blazers control 9, the clubs control 9.

World Rugby Regulation 16 prevents club owned competitions.

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:But, and please correct me if I am wrong, didnt PRW negotiate directly with PRL and LNR over the RCC comp? If they did, why did they allow the funds to flow through WRU accounts?

No, PRW and the WRU are equal shareholders in EPCR. The agreements that FFR and RFU have with their clubs is that competition money is paid directly to their umbrella organisations. That isn't the case in Wales.

Why isn't it the case? I can only guess by noting that the loss of £8m+ from the WRU turnover would see it invoke increased interest charges from Barclays and that would benefit nobody.

Didn't realise that. Thought PRW held all the power from that angle.

Votes are:

FFR 1, LNR 4, FIR 2, IRFU 2, RFU 1, PRL 4, SRU 2, WRU 1 and PRW 1

So France has 5
Italy 2
Ireland 2
England 5
Scotland 2
Wales 2

There are 18 in total. The Blazers control 9, the clubs control 9.

World Rugby Regulation 16 prevents club owned competitions.

Thanks.

Surely with the clubs financial clout in England and France they could choose to ignore that regulation if they so wished?

GavinDragon wrote:
It would make them employed by the region and providing a service to the WRU. You are right though, if they PAYE on their earnings from the union it is likely that they are employees of the union also. Depends on what is in the contract thought - have you seen one?

No, but the primacy is held by the WRU.

The theory of the statement in the AR is that a covenant prevents total wage spending going over a certain figure, or percentage of turnover. Supposedly this is common in these kind of bank loans, so I'm told.

That's why Lewis' last AR is quite contentious in areas, if you really want it to be.

GavinDragon wrote:

What fee?

The £260,000 per player.

GavinDragon wrote:
I wonder whether, rather than a flat sum for each player, it would be more cost effecting to only compensate for each player the value of their salary for the period that they are away from their employer. Like being on secondment, the WRU would take on each player's wages pro rata for the period they are with Wales.

That would encourage PRW teams to offer mega contracts to known Wales squad members and end up costing the WRU significantly more. You'd then have the issue of the WRU being unable to select some players as they couldn't afford them.

It wouldn't work.

It also wouldn't compensate for the required employment of cover for that missing player.

GavinDragon wrote:

Surely with the clubs financial clout in England and France they could choose to ignore that regulation if they so wished?

That would immediately see them, as the Irish used to put it during the ERC sham, 'going outside of rugby' as they'd be breaking WR regulations.

That would mean no Union involvement at all, no referees, no chance of club employees playing international rugby. It would, in essence, be a new sport. It would mean no involvement from Ireland or Scotland, at least.

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:
I wonder whether, rather than a flat sum for each player, it would be more cost effecting to only compensate for each player the value of their salary for the period that they are away from their employer. Like being on secondment, the WRU would take on each player's wages pro rata for the period they are with Wales.

That would encourage PRW teams to offer mega contracts to known Wales squad members and end up costing the WRU significantly more. You'd then have the issue of the WRU being unable to select some players as they couldn't afford them.

It wouldn't work.

It also wouldn't compensate for the required employment of cover for that missing player.

It wouldn't as they couldn't afford them if they were only being compensated for the time away.

If Ospreys offered AWJ £1m per annum, and lets say he is away 15 weeks with Wales, they would receive £300k from the WRU (which I agree may discourage the union from selecting him), but they would still have to find £700k which, given their current revenue streams, would be unlikely.

So I think it may be cost effective, and it would certainly would be the fairest way of compensating individual businesses for providing internationals. However, I suppose while they would be compensated evenly, they would not benefit from the situation and may seek to stop players playing for Wales.

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

Surely with the clubs financial clout in England and France they could choose to ignore that regulation if they so wished?

That would immediately see them, as the Irish used to put it during the ERC sham, 'going outside of rugby' as they'd be breaking WR regulations.

That would mean no Union involvement at all, no referees, no chance of club employees playing international rugby. It would, in essence, be a new sport. It would mean no involvement from Ireland or Scotland, at least.

Referee's wouldnt be a problem for a league as wealthy as the Top 14 and PRL. But I agree the lack of international rugby would be the major issue.

GavinDragon wrote:

It wouldn't as they couldn't afford them if they were only being compensated for the time away.

If Ospreys offered AWJ £1m per annum, and lets say he is away 15 weeks with Wales, they would receive £300k from the WRU (which I agree may discourage the union from selecting him), but they would still have to find £700k which, given their current revenue streams, would be unlikely.

So I think it may be cost effective, and it would certainly would be the fairest way of compensating individual businesses for providing internationals. However, I suppose while they would be compensated evenly, they would not benefit from the situation and may seek to stop players playing for Wales.

The contracts would be unaffordable to the WRU as they spend so much time with them. It's 6 weeks in the Autumn, 8 weeks for the 6N and then another 6 for the summer. That's 20 weeks of the year.

Player contracts would be written in a way that would make it unaffordable.

You'd also have the crazy issue whereby it would cost the WRU less to play, say, Thornton than AWJ. Trying to administer that would be a nightmare.

The fairest way is the French way, a lump sum plus a fee per day.

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

It wouldn't as they couldn't afford them if they were only being compensated for the time away.

If Ospreys offered AWJ £1m per annum, and lets say he is away 15 weeks with Wales, they would receive £300k from the WRU (which I agree may discourage the union from selecting him), but they would still have to find £700k which, given their current revenue streams, would be unlikely.

So I think it may be cost effective, and it would certainly would be the fairest way of compensating individual businesses for providing internationals. However, I suppose while they would be compensated evenly, they would not benefit from the situation and may seek to stop players playing for Wales.

The contracts would be unaffordable to the WRU as they spend so much time with them. It's 6 weeks in the Autumn, 8 weeks for the 6N and then another 6 for the summer. That's 20 weeks of the year.

Player contracts would be written in a way that would make it unaffordable.

You'd also have the crazy issue whereby it would cost the WRU less to play, say, Thornton than AWJ. Trying to administer that would be a nightmare.

The fairest way is the French way, a lump sum plus a fee per day.

The WRU would only have to pay for the time they are away from their pro team, therefore they would only have to pay the player the same salary as what their pro team pays them for the time they are with Wales, therefore the cost to the WRU would depend on the cost of the contract, and the cost of the contract would be based on what the pro team could afford, and therefore it would be affordable as the pro teams, in the grand scheme of things, are £ poor and cannot afford massive contracts across their whole squad.

You say the strength of the game is independence - well that is what true independence looks like, and lets face it, the numbers wouldn't stack up. Now don't get me wrong, the above scenario would also destroy the international level too and so is undesirable, but it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it.

Anyways, upon reflection, I agree that it is not a desirable solution for the good of the game at both levels (pro and int), and a flat fee probably would be best as it incentivises and adequately compensates those who develop the players for Wales. I understand you have Martyn Phillips' ear, can you put in a word?

GavinDragon wrote:
The WRU would only have to pay for the time they are away from their pro team, therefore they would only have to pay the player the same salary as what their pro team pays them for the time they are with Wales, therefore the cost to the WRU would depend on the cost of the contract, and the cost of the contract would be based on what the pro team could afford, and therefore it would be affordable as the pro teams, in the grand scheme of things, are £ poor and cannot afford massive contracts across their whole squad.

You say the strength of the game is independence - well that is what true independence looks like, and lets face it, the numbers wouldn't stack up. Now don't get me wrong, the above scenario would also destroy the international level too and so is undesirable, but it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it.  

Anyways, upon reflection, I agree that it is not a desirable solution for the good of the game at both levels (pro and int), and a flat fee probably would be best as it incentivises and adequately compensates those who develop the players for Wales. I understand you have Martyn Phillips' ear, can you put in a word?

True independence means that the supplier can charge whatever he likes for supplying his asset to a third party. No business allows another to take an employee on secondment at cost. None. That's what you're suggesting here.

Agreed, though, that it wouldn't work.

I've only met Phillips once. I did stress the importance of splitting the roles of the WRU between amateur and professional, but it was like pushing an open door as doing that was so blindingly obvious.

PhilBB wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:
The WRU would only have to pay for the time they are away from their pro team, therefore they would only have to pay the player the same salary as what their pro team pays them for the time they are with Wales, therefore the cost to the WRU would depend on the cost of the contract, and the cost of the contract would be based on what the pro team could afford, and therefore it would be affordable as the pro teams, in the grand scheme of things, are £ poor and cannot afford massive contracts across their whole squad.

You say the strength of the game is independence - well that is what true independence looks like, and lets face it, the numbers wouldn't stack up. Now don't get me wrong, the above scenario would also destroy the international level too and so is undesirable, but it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it.  

Anyways, upon reflection, I agree that it is not a desirable solution for the good of the game at both levels (pro and int), and a flat fee probably would be best as it incentivises and adequately compensates those who develop the players for Wales. I understand you have Martyn Phillips' ear, can you put in a word?

True independence means that the supplier can charge whatever he likes for supplying his asset to a third party. No business allows another to take an employee on secondment at cost. None. That's what you're suggesting here.

Agreed, though, that it wouldn't work.

I've only met Phillips once. I did stress the importance of splitting the roles of the WRU between amateur and professional, but it was like pushing an open door as doing that was so blindingly obvious.

Good point, but if the businesses' recruitment strategy, and people's decision to join that business was heavily influenced by being able to go on 'secondment', that also must be taken into consideration.

Do you think he is keen for the pro entities to market themselves as they see fit? Do you think he has a preference either way? And what do you make of a certain indivisual's assertion that Phillips is keen for the valleys to 'engage'?

Either something huge is happening in Merthyr or this thread has strayed a tad off-piste somewhat.

Cardiff Dave wrote:Either something huge is happening in Merthyr or this thread has strayed a tad off-piste somewhat.

Have you not heard? There will be a new super valleys region based there that we sweep all before them and never concede more than 3 tries in a game especially away from home and they will do this on a modest budget as you don't need a big budget to compete at the top table in rugby these days? They'll be winning the Chamions cup within a year of creation too! Anything less will be considered a failure by the fans.

Or what will really happen is that they'll get in the Premiership and forge string links with the Cardiff Blues as a pathway for pro players. Hopefully the link/partnership will be fruitful for both parties and a more civilised than the one with Ponty? (Runs and ducks for cover!!)