The Welsh Regions and the URC

First topic message reminder :

I was reading the latest article on WOL the other day titled How to save Welsh rugby - The uncomfortable truth facing our game and the difficult solutions that need to be explored. There was the usual nonsense spouted, and the demonising of the semi pro game getting too many votes and the what not, but it did get me thinking, especially the bit about reducing the waste and fixing the pathways. Here is the link if any of you are interested:-

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/how-save-welsh-rugby-uncomfortable-23671119

What started me thinking was how the regions could live within their means and still be competitive, and to be honest, they cannot. Then I started thinking about the league since it's inception and the regions involvement, has it really been a success ?

Trophy wise you could argue a point, but then I started thinking a little more. Leinster and Ulster aside, the Welsh regions average about the same attendances as the rest, but on derby day the Welsh regions get full houses. So the question I wanted to ask, is the league a good thing for Welsh rugby ?

Wales is a small place, and the teams rely on ALL the fans, both home and away. Would playing in a Welsh league do more for Welsh rugby than the league they are in now ? The teams would get bigger crowds I would wager. It is far easier to travel from Newport to Llanelli than it is from any Welsh region to Glasgow or Dublin. Would we get a lot more "full" stadiums if it were Welsh teams playing Welsh teams every week ? At the moment, the regions just rely on their own fans turning up, and none of the regions have a massive city like Dublin, or a whole country like Ulster to back them up.

I know a Welsh league would struggle to get the TV money the URC can generate, but would the extra fans at the ground make up for it ? I don't know, I'm no expert in these things, all I can say is what I bare witness to, and the URC is not very popular here in Wales, even after the best part 20 odd years, it's been messed around with too much, and people do not know what they are following anymore, changes of structure, changes of tv companies ect.....

I would like to see a 8/10 team Welsh league, with the best players from "each region" playing in a 4 team end of season regional league, where the top two go into the the top tier Euro comp, and the bottom two go into the lower Euro comp. Yes the regions still compete in Europe, but the players also represent their clubs in the league, rekindle the old rivalries, which still have the embers burning by the way.

Also, I would like to see a shake-up of the coaches in Wales, there are far too many jobs for the boys, people getting highly paid at the regions to do jobs that most people volunteer to do in the leagues below. Even though most of the article is just personal opinion, there is a lot to surmise from reading it.

Also, can we please debate the article and the subject, and not me.

What are the thoughts of other fans on this subject ?

The Oracle wrote:Glasgow and Edinburgh - how come they haven’t gone for East and West Scotland? Why keep the place names in? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the rest of Scotland? They are SRU owned/controlled too as far as I know, so they would have the power to include the whole of Scotland in their branding should they wish. Any ideas why they don’t?

Because people are funny buggers. It would annoy some people and they'd kick up an almighty stink. See in football when Cardiff played in red and Hull changed their name.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The proposal here though from Moffett is not about getting bums on seats for these teams. His primary outcome is to produce international players. So realistically it doesn't matter if people spit the dummy and don't turn up.

Not sure how cutting a team helps that? Fewer squad places overall, less room in the teams to blood players, more time on the bench for fringe players, fewer academy places, less money (or perhaps the same as now) for the pro teams.

I haven’t seen many advantages yet for the yet to 3.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't it the WRU who are in charge of the teas who participate in the URC? They would then have the choice of removing any team they wanted.

Depends if there are participation agreements in place still as they would be bound (for a period of time) to enter those teams named in the agreement. Contracts, etc. But if not then it’s no wonder the regions struggle for investment. Who would pump money into a side that could be chucked out of competitions at the click of the WRU’s fingers. Far too risky.

The Oracle wrote:Glasgow and Edinburgh - how come they haven’t gone for East and West Scotland? Why keep the place names in? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the rest of Scotland? They are SRU owned/controlled too as far as I know, so they would have the power to include the whole of Scotland in their branding should they wish. Any ideas why they don’t?

they used to have 4 districts, that played like the provinces, North South East and west, North and South became north,Caledonian Reds, South became Border Reivers if you remember them they were inbthe early Celtic league, SRU cut from 4 to 3 discricts, then from 3 to the two we have left. Glasgow for a while were called Glasgow Caledonian. So effectively theystill have east and west and cut north and south.

Heres an intresting link on them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Inter-District_Championship

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The proposal here though from Moffett is not about getting bums on seats for these teams. His primary outcome is to produce international players. So realistically it doesn't matter if people spit the dummy and don't turn up.

Not sure how cutting a team helps that? Fewer squad places overall, less room in the teams to blood players, more time on the bench for fringe players, fewer academy places, less money (or perhaps the same as now) for the pro teams.

I haven’t seen many advantages yet for the yet to 3.

Reading his piece I think it's about concentrating resources and not spreading yourself too thin 'Quality over quantity'. I suppose doing that gives your best players more familiarity,.

I don't really buy into the view either unless you place more emphasis on Welsh players moving to teams outside Wales to create the room.

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't it the WRU who are in charge of the teas who participate in the URC? They would then have the choice of removing any team they wanted.

Depends if there are participation agreements in place still as they would be bound (for a period of time) to enter those teams named in the agreement. Contracts, etc. But if not then it’s no wonder the regions struggle for investment. Who would pump money into a side that could be chucked out of competitions at the click of the WRU’s fingers. Far too risky.

The WRU would also have to pay for the 4 new teams. And ensure they keep up their revenue. Scarlets (mid table at best) generate £14m per year. So WRU needs to find around £40m - £60m a year to be able to fund 4 below average welsh regions.

That's before finding 4 new stadiums, 4 new sets of fans and 4 new squads of 45 players. That's £40 - £60m to generate, when it's claimed they can only afford £18m next season. Best of luck to them.

If we move to three then I imagine more players will head overseas (or to England), especially as they are planning to reduce the budget of the chosen 3 in a few years time. This doesn't benefit us. What should benefit Wales is having more investment put in to the existing 4. Completely agree with getting rid of club fans on the WRU board too, they're holding us back.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Isn't it the WRU who are in charge of the teas who participate in the URC? They would then have the choice of removing any team they wanted.

Depends if there are participation agreements in place still as they would be bound (for a period of time) to enter those teams named in the agreement. Contracts, etc. But if not then it’s no wonder the regions struggle for investment. Who would pump money into a side that could be chucked out of competitions at the click of the WRU’s fingers. Far too risky.

The WRU would also have to pay for the 4 new teams. And ensure they keep up their revenue. Scarlets (mid table at best) generate £14m per year. So WRU needs to find around £40m - £60m a year to be able to fund 4 below average welsh regions.

That's before finding 4 new stadiums, 4 new sets of fans and 4 new squads of 45 players. That's £40 - £60m to generate, when it's claimed they can only afford £18m next season. Best of luck to them.

This is about reducing the teams to 3.

Kingshu wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Glasgow and Edinburgh - how come they haven’t gone for East and West Scotland? Why keep the place names in? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the rest of Scotland? They are SRU owned/controlled too as far as I know, so they would have the power to include the whole of Scotland in their branding should they wish. Any ideas why they don’t?

they used to have 4 districts, that played like the provinces, North South East and west, North and South became north,Caledonian Reds, South became Border Reivers if you remember them they were inbthe early Celtic league, SRU cut from 4 to 3 discricts, then from 3 to the two we have left. Glasgow for a while were called Glasgow Caledonian. So effectively theystill have east and west and cut north and south.

Heres an intresting link on them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Inter-District_Championship

But called Glasgow and Edinburgh currently. So in a way they seem to have gone the opposite way to Wales, from a regional/district approach to city-based sides for their pro teams. City names rather than 'East' and 'West'. And pretty close to each other in the grand scheme of things in Scotland. Just an hours drive between them. Do they represent the whole of Scotland? Of course they do, I hear you say!

The Oracle wrote:Not sure how cutting a team helps that? Fewer squad places overall, less room in the teams to blood players, more time on the bench for fringe players, fewer academy places, less money (or perhaps the same as now) for the pro teams.

On BBC Wales News last night Moffett said the Dragons had journeymen in the team/squad. I assume he thinks that the WRU cutting down to 3 teams would avoid these players being in the Pro Welsh system.

Jimmy Moz wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Not sure how cutting a team helps that? Fewer squad places overall, less room in the teams to blood players, more time on the bench for fringe players, fewer academy places, less money (or perhaps the same as now) for the pro teams.

On BBC Wales News last night Moffett said the Dragons had journeymen in the team/squad. I assume he thinks that the WRU cutting down to 3 teams would avoid these players being in the Pro Welsh system.

Which journeymen are they? They're mostly young.

The Oracle wrote:Which journeymen are they?  They're mostly young.

I don't know. He said it not me. You'll have to ask him.

There’s a few journey men at all the regions, which Moffett and Jimmy already knew. Move them on and bring it better players who are WQ (playing in England), or NWQ. This won’t be achieved if you’re plan is to axe one region and then reduce the funding in a few years time. It makes absolutely no sense, so much so that it shouldn’t be up for debate.

mikey_dragon wrote:There’s a few journey men at all the regions, which Moffett and Jimmy already knew. Move them on and bring it better players who are WQ (playing in England), or NWQ. This won’t be achieved if you’re plan is to axe one region and then reduce the funding in a few years time. It makes absolutely no sense, so much so that it shouldn’t be up for debate.

Yes they all do have journey men and always have done since 2003. As did the club teams before that. Unfortunalty the idea of a team being axed is being debated by people in Welsh rugby who are or were higher up in the decision that the likes of you and me. That's not to say it will definetly happen though. A lot of talk and no action goes on in Welsh rugby.

The only way three works is if the players who aren't in the matchday 23 turn out for the premiership sides that are local to the region.

Jimmy Moz wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Which journeymen are they?  They're mostly young.

I don't know. He said it not me. You'll have to ask him.

Nice.

Oakdene wrote:The only way three works is if the players who aren't in the matchday 23 turn out for the premiership sides that are local to the region.

Agree 100%. In a smaller stronger premiership that is.

Jimmy Moz wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There’s a few journey men at all the regions, which Moffett and Jimmy already knew. Move them on and bring it better players who are WQ (playing in England), or NWQ. This won’t be achieved if you’re plan is to axe one region and then reduce the funding in a few years time. It makes absolutely no sense, so much so that it shouldn’t be up for debate.

Yes they all do have journey men and always have done since 2003. As did the club teams before that. Unfortunalty the idea of a team being axed is being debated by people in Welsh rugby who are or were higher up in the decision that the likes of you and me. That's not to say it will definetly happen though. A lot of talk and no action goes on in Welsh rugby.

A whole lot of meddling too.

Oakdene wrote:The only way three works is if the players who aren't in the matchday 23 turn out for the premiership sides that are local to the region.

I don't understand why it would only work if they farmed out players to the semi pros?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:The only way three works is if the players who aren't in the matchday 23 turn out for the premiership sides that are local to the region.

I don't understand why it would only work if they farmed out players to the semi pros?

Sorry I may have been a bit flippant with the use of the only but what I meant to say was the players who aren't getting regular game time need to be playing for the local sides so that they are keeping match fit & also don't become fed up with life as a pro rugby player in Wales.

I guess Moffett is right to use the term journeymen, because there are a few players in our squad that fit this definition.

"a worker or sports player who is reliable but not outstanding."

But then there are a few players at Dragons who are already changing perceptions like Keddie and Dixon. It is also well documented that Dragons are cutting the squad next season, but then without these "journeymen", I see us being in a bit of trouble when the inevitable injuries occur. Where would Dragons be without players like Adam Warren already? If you cut down to three, there won't be these unpolished diamonds appearing either.

So a bit like a more flexible loan system. Makes more sense to me, thought it was around don't name Faletau next year in a squad for Saturday fear losing him to play for a prem team!

Jimmy Moz wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There’s a few journey men at all the regions, which Moffett and Jimmy already knew. Move them on and bring it better players who are WQ (playing in England), or NWQ. This won’t be achieved if you’re plan is to axe one region and then reduce the funding in a few years time. It makes absolutely no sense, so much so that it shouldn’t be up for debate.

Yes they all do have journey men and always have done since 2003. As did the club teams before that. Unfortunalty the idea of a team being axed is being debated by people in Welsh rugby who are or were higher up in the decision that the likes of you and me. That's not to say it will definetly happen though. A lot of talk and no action goes on in Welsh rugby.

I get what you mean. Higher up in status with the WRU yes, but in reality no, seeing as they have their ties to the semi-pro clubs...

I’d rather we kept the 4 regions, but let’s not pretend they’re regions, would rather call em something like Proclubs. Think all Welshmen agree that the WRU need sorting and a priority should be that governance is split between pro and amateur clubs, adding the semi-pro Welsh Premiership to the professional side of things. The way things are run that would never happen.

Would love to see a revived Anglo-Welsh cup between the Welsh premiership and the English Championship clubs, bit of extra gate money.

The Proclubs should pay a transfer fee to any semi pro clubs for players with a cut going to the player, even if they are signed to an academy, so semipro players are focused on improving their financial worth as well as their skills.

Perhaps a parachute payment for one season for any relegated premiership club, thus spreading money down to a few Welsh championship clubs.

Disclaimer: I’ve had a liquid lunch

The Oracle wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Glasgow and Edinburgh - how come they haven’t gone for East and West Scotland? Why keep the place names in? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the rest of Scotland? They are SRU owned/controlled too as far as I know, so they would have the power to include the whole of Scotland in their branding should they wish. Any ideas why they don’t?

they used to have 4 districts, that played like the provinces, North South East and west, North and South became north,Caledonian Reds, South became Border Reivers if you remember them they were inbthe early Celtic league, SRU cut from 4 to 3 discricts, then from 3 to the two we have left. Glasgow for a while were called Glasgow Caledonian. So effectively theystill have east and west and cut north and south.

Heres an intresting link on them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Inter-District_Championship

But called Glasgow and Edinburgh currently.  So in a way they seem to have gone the opposite way to Wales, from a regional/district approach to city-based sides for their pro teams.  City names rather than 'East' and 'West'.  And pretty close to each other in the grand scheme of things in Scotland.  Just an hours drive between them.  Do they represent the whole of Scotland?  Of course they do, I hear you say!

Not really, they have gone from 4 districts to two. The four District Sides: North and Midlands, South, Glasgow District and Edinburgh district became Caledonia Reds, Border Reivers, Glasgow Warriors and Edinburgh Rugby with professionalism. They were never called east and west, were called Glasgow District and Edinburgh district when they first played in 1872, and were the same when the 4 team intra district championship was formed in 1953. So why would then change from Glasgow and Edinburgh?

Do they represent the whole of Scotland, no not really, the 4 district teams did, one was quickly found to be unviable finicially and merged into Glasgow, the South (scottish rugbys heartlands) survived as good number of years untill 2007 in the Celtic/Magners league, HCup, before eventually being disbanded.

So you could say the sparshly populated areas of Scotland don't have represention, a lot like North Wales and the Valleys. If Scottish rugby were to expand to 3 teams again one of these two would be revived, and they is always hope at least one will be at some point.

[quote="Kingshu"]

The Oracle wrote: the 4 district teams did, one was quickly found to be unviable finicially

Like Glasgow and Edinburgh are viable financially.

Kingshu wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Glasgow and Edinburgh - how come they haven’t gone for East and West Scotland? Why keep the place names in? Doesn’t that disenfranchise the rest of Scotland? They are SRU owned/controlled too as far as I know, so they would have the power to include the whole of Scotland in their branding should they wish. Any ideas why they don’t?

they used to have 4 districts, that played like the provinces, North South East and west, North and South became north,Caledonian Reds, South became Border Reivers if you remember them they were inbthe early Celtic league, SRU cut from 4 to 3 discricts, then from 3 to the two we have left. Glasgow for a while were called Glasgow Caledonian. So effectively theystill have east and west and cut north and south.

Heres an intresting link on them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Inter-District_Championship

But called Glasgow and Edinburgh currently.  So in a way they seem to have gone the opposite way to Wales, from a regional/district approach to city-based sides for their pro teams.  City names rather than 'East' and 'West'.  And pretty close to each other in the grand scheme of things in Scotland.  Just an hours drive between them.  Do they represent the whole of Scotland?  Of course they do, I hear you say!

Not really, they have gone from 4 districts to two. The four District Sides: North and Midlands, South, Glasgow District and Edinburgh district became Caledonia Reds, Border Reivers, Glasgow Warriors and Edinburgh Rugby with professionalism. They were never called east and west, were called Glasgow District and Edinburgh district when they first played in 1872, and were the same when the 4 team intra district championship was formed in 1953. So why would then change from Glasgow and Edinburgh?

Do they represent the whole of Scotland, no not really, the 4 district teams did, one was quickly found to be unviable finicially and merged into Glasgow, the South (scottish rugbys heartlands) survived as good number of years untill 2007 in the Celtic/Magners league, HCup, before eventually being disbanded.

So you could say the sparshly populated areas of Scotland don't have represention, a lot like North Wales and the Valleys. If Scottish rugby were to expand to 3 teams again one of these two would be revived, and they is always hope at least one will be at some point.

OK so no regional approach, ignore the less densely populated areas, do not represent the whole of the country, stick to sides in the biggest population areas, name them after the cities they are in rather than something like ‘East Scotland’ or ‘West Scotland’, etc. People were saying earlier in the thread that we should follow the Scotland model. I like the sound of it so far

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

The Oracle wrote: the 4 district teams did, one was quickly found to be unviable finicially

Like Glasgow and Edinburgh are viable financially.

Well they're still in existence so yes. It's down to individual teams and unions how they find funding. In the case of the 5th Welsh Moffetts had a few comments over the year: '“Celtic Warriors wound themselves up. We had no money, so we couldn’t help anybody."

Kingshu wrote:

Not really, they have gone from 4 districts to two. The four District Sides: North and Midlands, South, Glasgow District and Edinburgh district became Caledonia Reds, Border Reivers, Glasgow Warriors and Edinburgh Rugby with professionalism. They were never called east and west, were called Glasgow District and Edinburgh district when they first played in 1872, and were the same when the 4 team intra district championship was formed in 1953. So why would then change from Glasgow and Edinburgh?

Do they represent the whole of Scotland, no not really, the 4 district teams did, one was quickly found to be unviable finicially and merged into Glasgow, the South (scottish rugbys heartlands) survived as good number of years untill 2007 in the Celtic/Magners league, HCup, before eventually being disbanded.

So you could say the sparshly populated areas of Scotland don't have represention, a lot like North Wales and the Valleys. If Scottish rugby were to expand to 3 teams again one of these two would be revived, and they is always hope at least one will be at some point.

Did the Borders side have the same issue as the Welsh valleys team, in that people who supported Gala wouldn't go to Jed, Jed wouldn't go to Hawick, Hawick wouldn't go to Melrose, Melrose wouldn't go to Gala, etc.?

The question over the regions and number there of seems to come back round every few years doesn't it. For me it's the same recurring issues. The main one being, what is the point of the regions? Is it to win trophies as regions or is it to provide players for the national team? It's hard to accomplish both, unless you invest in good quality coaching at all levels. Player talent is somewhat immaterial if there's not talent to guide them, I can point to several Prem teams as examples of that notably Bath this season and Tigers pre Borthwick.

If it's both then from the outside looking in the major problem isn't necessarily the budgets (those will hinder the regions as the back ups won't be as strong and there's a lot of international breaks) but the coaching. Where's the pipeline of Welsh coaches?

Ospreys - Toby Booth - very good academy coach, ok forwards coach but head coach? He had a brief golden spell at LI a decade a go before going back to being a forwards coach.

Dragons - Dean Ryan - intelligent bloke but after a meh time at Worcester he was in a backroom job as no club was interested for three years until the Dragons came calling.

Scarlets - Dwayne Peel - young coach with a good reputation but he came through with Bristol and Ulster as a coach before returning to Wales.

Cardiff - Dai Young - journeyman coach who managed Wasps through some difficult times and previously had success with Cardiff.

As an outsider I look at that and think Young is a good solid head coach acquisition. Peel seems worth a go as a young coach with potential. Ryan and Booth though just smacks of a lack of ambition. Of the four only Dai Young has really cut his teeth as a coach in Wales. Do the Welsh clubs not throw out potential candidates? Warburton was working with the national team and is now a commentator is he and the other former internationals that have worked with the international team not filtering back down to the regions in leading roles?

Irish Londoner wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

Not really, they have gone from 4 districts to two. The four District Sides: North and Midlands, South, Glasgow District and Edinburgh district became Caledonia Reds, Border Reivers, Glasgow Warriors and Edinburgh Rugby with professionalism. They were never called east and west, were called Glasgow District and Edinburgh district when they first played in 1872, and were the same when the 4 team intra district championship was formed in 1953. So why would then change from Glasgow and Edinburgh?

Do they represent the whole of Scotland, no not really, the 4 district teams did, one was quickly found to be unviable finicially and merged into Glasgow, the South (scottish rugbys heartlands) survived as good number of years untill 2007 in the Celtic/Magners league, HCup, before eventually being disbanded.

So you could say the sparshly populated areas of Scotland don't have represention, a lot like North Wales and the Valleys. If Scottish rugby were to expand to 3 teams again one of these two would be revived, and they is always hope at least one will be at some point.

Did the Borders side have the same issue as the Welsh valleys team, in that people who supported Gala wouldn't go to Jed, Jed wouldn't go to Hawick, Hawick wouldn't go to Melrose, Melrose wouldn't go to Gala, etc.?

Fundamentally yes parochialism is alive and well down there no doubt, but that was not the only reason.

The borders are actually a pretty sparsely populated. There may well have never been a big enough population to support a professional team, which is a good lesson in trying to place a team away from a population centre.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The question over the regions and number there of seems to come back round every few years doesn't it. For me it's the same recurring issues. The main one being, what is the point of the regions? Is it to win trophies as regions or is it to provide players for the national team? It's hard to accomplish both, unless you invest in good quality coaching at all levels. Player talent is somewhat immaterial if there's not talent to guide them, I can point to several Prem teams as examples of that notably Bath this season and Tigers pre Borthwick.

If it's both then from the outside looking in the major problem isn't necessarily the budgets (those will hinder the regions as the back ups won't be as strong and there's a lot of international breaks) but the coaching. Where's the pipeline of Welsh coaches?

Ospreys - Toby Booth - very good academy coach, ok forwards coach but head coach? He had a brief golden spell at LI a decade a go before going back to being a forwards coach.

Dragons - Dean Ryan - intelligent bloke but after a meh time at Worcester he was in a backroom job as no club was interested for three years until the Dragons came calling.

Scarlets - Dwayne Peel - young coach with a good reputation but he came through with Bristol and Ulster as a coach before returning to Wales.

Cardiff - Dai Young - journeyman coach who managed Wasps through some difficult times and previously had success with Cardiff.

As an outsider I look at that and think Young is a good solid head coach acquisition. Peel seems worth a go as a young coach with potential. Ryan and Booth though just smacks of a lack of ambition. Of the four only Dai Young has really cut his teeth as a coach in Wales. Do the Welsh clubs not throw out potential candidates? Warburton was working with the national team and is now a commentator is he and the other former internationals that have worked with the international team not filtering back down to the regions in leading roles?

Yes I agree with this. Was saying the same earlier in the thread. Those head coach/DoR names are not stellar, and then look beyond them and the back room coaching staff are really not great. I think the best bang for buck would be investment in coaching talent. It's a big world with lots of excellent coaches globally. Why the need to only look at home (or very close to it)?

When you see some of the regional squads on paper you have to conclude that they should be doing a bit better, so that for me is a coaching issue.

There is a significant elephant in the room concerning a reduction of Welsh teams and the URC.

How would the competition be structured ?
At the moment the 4 Shields give a logical (geographical) breakdown that maintains local rivalries
with a manageable number of games.

15 teams are too many to play everyone twice.
Three teams of 5 doesn't work as one NH team would be tagged with the Saffers.

Add Cheetahs in, drop Zebre?
Gives a South African group, an Irish/Italians group, a Welsh/Scottish group.
A bit unfair on Zebre though.
Would give 8 shield games + 10 others, same number as now.

Alternatively will the other Nations take a stance and not accept the reduction if Wales want to stay in the league?
The nuclear option
22 Games in a 12 team league

geoff999rugby wrote:There is a significant elephant in the room concerning a reduction of Welsh teams and the URC.

How would the competition be structured ?
At the moment the 4 Shields give a logical (geographical) breakdown that maintains local rivalries
with a manageable number of games.

15 teams are too many to play everyone twice.
Three teams of 5 doesn't work as one NH team would be tagged with the Saffers.

Add Cheetahs in, drop Zebre?
Gives a South African group, an Irish/Italians group, a Welsh/Scottish group.
A bit unfair on Zebre though.
Would give 8 shield games + 10 others, same number as now.

Alternatively will the other Nations take a stance and not accept the reduction if Wales want to stay in the league?
The nuclear option
22 Games in a 12 team league

Do you mean kick the Welsh out because they're trying to improve themselves and make their teams better and more competitive?! Not sure how you got to 12 there

formerly known as Sam wrote:the major problem isn't necessarily the budgets

Ospreys - Toby Booth - very good academy coach, ok forwards coach but head coach? He had a brief golden spell at LI a decade a go before going back to being a forwards coach.

Dragons - Dean Ryan - intelligent bloke but after a meh time at Worcester he was in a backroom job as no club was interested for three years until the Dragons came calling.

Scarlets - Dwayne Peel - young coach with a good reputation but he came through with Bristol and Ulster as a coach before returning to Wales.

Cardiff - Dai Young - journeyman coach who managed Wasps through some difficult times and previously had success with Cardiff.

So you look at those coaches. Then you have to look at the coaches of the more successful teams in the league to compare....right? You have:

Stuart Lancaster
Graham Rowntree
Stephen Larkham
Felipe Contempomi
Johan van Graan
Jake White

And you say "the problem isn't the budgets"

If the problem isn't the budgets, why are none of those coaches at the 4 Welsh clubs?

12 teams = 22 games home and way.
As I say the nuclear option.

Appreciate the Welsh are trying to improve themselves but the questions remains what structure is workable with
4 Irish 4/5 South Africans, 3 Welsh, 2 Scottish, 2 Italian.
I would suggest simply tagging another team into the Welsh Shield would be financial unsustainable for that team.

On the wider question I simply don't think it will work.
I would safely bet we would hear calls to drop to 2 teams in a few years time.
Already hearing talk of East and West teams.
Drop the facade of Regions - it has failed.
Simply promote the teams that have a business model that would be viable in a Professional league.
Do not allow those teams to be in the Welsh Premiership as well.
It would not treat teams equally but not all teams can be fully professional at a level that competes at the highest level.
It gives a few teams a select status and is not fair but then again life isn't fair.

What Wales needs above all else is teams people support with a passion, the anquish of failure, the tears in the eyes at the glory of victory.
That passion, is largely, absent from the regional teams.

geoff999rugby wrote:
Drop the facade of Regions - it has failed.

9 trophies between the 4 regions in the last 16 years, with the players produced providing... what 3 Grand Slams for Wales and a couple of 6 Nations championships on top.

I really think if the regions are to be culled then definitely Ulster Rugby should too. Not a trophy in sight for them.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:
Drop the facade of Regions - it has failed.

9 trophies between the 4 regions in the last 16 years, with the players produced providing... what 3 Grand Slams for Wales and a couple of 6 Nations championships on top.

I really think if the regions are to be culled then definitely Ulster Rugby should too. Not a trophy in sight for them.

Should have said 15 years else you include Ulter's title in 05/06.

The point is the Region have, to say the least, divide options in Wales.
I did not mention records but if you look at the overall record of teams in the competition
in terms and Wins and Losses I think you will find Ulster stand very favourably.
Also in terms of making the knock out stages, of the Heineken Cup, they are streets ahead of all Welsh teams
As to attendance no Welsh team comes close to Ulster.

Sad you want to be antagonistic.
There is a problem in Welsh rugby and the pro game - otherwise why the thread.
I would love Wales to sort out its problems.
A strong Welsh club game is good for the game as a whole.  

I just see a lack of support for the regions, a lot of inter team bitterness with the
consequence we have regional teams who many feel they cant support.
5 went to 4 and now the talk is of 3.
As I say watch this space, if Wales goes down this route, in 3/4 years time the talk will be of 2.

geoff999rugby wrote:
As to attendance no Welsh team comes close to Ulster.
I just see a lack of support for the regions,

The welsh clubs are the best supported in the league, per population base. Scarlets for instance get over 10k against the likes of Ospreys. It's worth noting that a crowd in Parc y Scarlets anywhere near 10,000 is very good. I'd like to know of any other teams that draw a crowd that is 25% of the town / city's population in which they are playing. Ulster for instance, would need a crowd of approximately 159,000 to achieve this.

There are 45,000 people in Llanelli (Scarlets)
There are 640,000 people in Belfast (Ulster)
There are 5,600,000,000 people in Johannesburg (Lions)

That's the Metropolitan area which includes other towns, other councils and people who definitely would not consider themselves as living in Belfast.

Llanelli you are obviously right but I do not agree re the other four regions

RugbyFan100 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:the major problem isn't necessarily the budgets

Ospreys - Toby Booth - very good academy coach, ok forwards coach but head coach? He had a brief golden spell at LI a decade a go before going back to being a forwards coach.

Dragons - Dean Ryan - intelligent bloke but after a meh time at Worcester he was in a backroom job as no club was interested for three years until the Dragons came calling.

Scarlets - Dwayne Peel - young coach with a good reputation but he came through with Bristol and Ulster as a coach before returning to Wales.

Cardiff - Dai Young - journeyman coach who managed Wasps through some difficult times and previously had success with Cardiff.

So you look at those coaches. Then you have to look at the coaches of the more successful teams in the league to compare....right? You have:

Stuart Lancaster
Graham Rowntree
Stephen Larkham
Felipe Contempomi
Johan van Graan
Jake White

And you say "the problem isn't the budgets"

If the problem isn't the budgets, why are none of those coaches at the 4 Welsh clubs?

I said it isn't necessarily the budget. More cash can certainly help make a team better but it is no guarantee for success. Bath are the worst team in the Prem this season but are no way close to having the smallest budget. Newcastle may well finish above them with a substantially smaller budget. Ergo you have to look at other factors namely Bath having a terrible coaching set up.

Five of those six coaches you name are at two clubs. Yet you overlook that Leinster are led by a home grown coaching talent under which two of them work. Nothing wrong with bringing outside influences in but they weren't all big money additions. Contepomi cut his teeth at Leinster as a coach, Rowntree and Lancaster only had minor roles post international sacking. Rowntree was unemployed following helping Georgia at the world cup before heading to Munster. Sometimes right time right place plays a part.

Doesn't answer the question of where's the coaching pathway. Where's the adding value to the squads? If you don't believe me look at Gloucester last season and compare to this, Skivington has turned them around and it hasn't been overnight but they're a different team now. Same with Borthwick at Tigers. Where's the young Welsh coaches coming through to rejuvenate the regions?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Doesn't answer the question of where's the coaching pathway. Where's the adding value to the squads? If you don't believe me look at Gloucester last season and compare to this, Skivington has turned them around and it hasn't been overnight but they're a different team now. Same with Borthwick at Tigers. Where's the young Welsh coaches coming through to rejuvenate the regions?

Why does it matter where a coach is from? I don't give a monkeys who coaches my team as long as they are good and have a proven track record of quality.

You quote Glocuester and Leicester as having a good coaching setup, but they chose the same model as Bath didn't they? Young up and coming ex England players - i.e. - punts. And Bath have now chosen to go against that model because it hasn't worked out, so they've employed a South African presumably on big money.

Everything boils down to money. Absolutely everything.

RugbyFan100 wrote:Everything boils down to money. Absolutely everything.

100% correct.

Thus, the regions should stop overpaying mediocre players and coaches a kings ransom. I bet, if the regions were managed properly, they would have ample money to employ top coaches from around the world.

Gatland loves Wales, I wonder how much money it would cost to have him at one of the regions ? If they shaved 20/30K of some peoples wages who didn't deserve it, then they could easily pay for top coaches.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Doesn't answer the question of where's the coaching pathway. Where's the adding value to the squads? If you don't believe me look at Gloucester last season and compare to this, Skivington has turned them around and it hasn't been overnight but they're a different team now. Same with Borthwick at Tigers. Where's the young Welsh coaches coming through to rejuvenate the regions?

Why does it matter where a coach is from? I don't give a monkeys who coaches my team as long as they are good and have a proven track record of quality.

You quote Glocuester and Leicester as having a good coaching setup, but they chose the same model as Bath didn't they? Young up and coming ex England players - i.e. - punts. And Bath have now chosen to go against that model because it hasn't worked out, so they've employed a South African presumably on big money.

Everything boils down to money. Absolutely everything.

Hooper went from playing to Performance and Player Development Director then director of rugby after a couple of years. Borthwick took coaching training, picking up a small role while still playing with Saracens, then England forwards coach with Japan, then briefly with Bristol, then England for four years before going to Leicester. Not quite the same approach. But you're correct to a point, money helps a lot.

You're more likely to be able to compete with money as you can afford more training for youngsters, better coaching staff, less likely to lose those youngsters as you pay them competitively and can bring in stars from elsewhere, and journeymen less likely to be missing from the team come intentional windows.

It's sport though so nothing is ever set in stone.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Everything boils down to money. Absolutely everything.

100% correct.

Thus, the regions should stop overpaying mediocre players and coaches a kings ransom. I bet, if the regions were managed properly, they would have ample money to employ top coaches from around the world.

Which coaches are overpaid? Other than Ryan, I wasn't aware the salaries were made public.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Everything boils down to money. Absolutely everything.

100% correct.

Thus, the regions should stop overpaying mediocre players and coaches a kings ransom. I bet, if the regions were managed properly, they would have ample money to employ top coaches from around the world.

Gatland loves Wales, I wonder how much money it would cost to have him at one of the regions ? If they shaved 20/30K of some peoples wages who didn't deserve it, then they could easily pay for top coaches.

As above its sometimes the mediocre players who are the spine of a well performing team. Saracens have been packed with stars, but it's the likes of Goode, and Wray et al who can really add to outcomes.

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Everything boils down to money. Absolutely everything.

100% correct.

Thus, the regions should stop overpaying mediocre players and coaches a kings ransom. I bet, if the regions were managed properly, they would have ample money to employ top coaches from around the world.

Gatland loves Wales, I wonder how much money it would cost to have him at one of the regions ? If they shaved 20/30K of some peoples wages who didn't deserve it, then they could easily pay for top coaches.

Ah right. So money, profit-making, etc isn't such a bad measure after all. Seems to contradict what this person was previously saying.

mikey_dragon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:Everything boils down to money. Absolutely everything.

100% correct.

Thus, the regions should stop overpaying mediocre players and coaches a kings ransom. I bet, if the regions were managed properly, they would have ample money to employ top coaches from around the world.

Gatland loves Wales, I wonder how much money it would cost to have him at one of the regions ? If they shaved 20/30K of some peoples wages who didn't deserve it, then they could easily pay for top coaches.

Ah right. So money, profit-making, etc isn't such a bad measure after all. Seems to contradict what this person was previously saying.

Quite the opposite. Spending money, not making it.

But if it's everything then that includes making it. Especailly as the profit gets reinvested into rugby - I said this to you and more but you ran off without replying.