URC=Better League

Been a great season from this fan's point of view. Lost this evening to a better team, but it's a great result for the league overall.

Big budgets don't necessarily win you competitions.

Great performances and some great match-ups this season.

Still two matches to go and it could end up with an SA team winning the comp in only their third season of involvement. Or Ulster setting the benchmark for others to follow.

It’s been really interesting. The SA sides went from looking dodgy to looking great in a few months. Leinster win by scoring twelve tries one week and lose the next. Five teams were within a point of each other with a few weeks to go. It was much more unpredictable with some really exciting rugby thrown in. And viewer figures were up. It’s been a great year!

It’ll take a few years I think to see how this competition shapes up. The gap in standard between the teams may widen. Or not. The SA sides will I think improve further. Can the rest of us match their standard? It’s be terrible if it becomes too predictable.

A salary cap would make it better, like all the other leagues.

As someone mentioned on a different thread, it will be interesting to see how the SA teams adjust to fighting on 3 fronts next season, as the other URC teams do - i.e. with the addition of the European cup games. I expect they'll take it all in their stride and will do well, but it was not something they needed to worry about or cope with this year. An extra 4 games minimum, a bit more travel, and with the way they played this year then conceivably even more games as they progress through the knock out stages. Could be another 6 games on top of the league, plus players away for the Internationals. It certainly stretches a squad.

LordDowlais wrote:A salary cap would make it better, like all the other leagues.

Salary cap would need to consider allteams, the SA teams have by far the smallestbudget, R60 million.

No way the European teams would accept that

Yes, a much better league this year.

Speaking about the Scottish sides, we clearly need to up our game if we are going to be competitive. I have no problem with that as it can only benefit our national side at the end of the day.

Next season will be interesting, with, as Oracle says, more games and more travel for the SA sides which will stretch them further and expose them to the big French and English sides as well. The sides will also know each other better and the players will have more experience of the travel and the conditions to be played in. Some sides may now decide to go down to SA with stronger teams and hopefully start picking up some points down there as well.

Plenty to play for and lots to look forward to.

As for next season, Oracle you are correct. The squads will need to improve their depth.

Firstly they need to consider three fronts plus springbok duty.

This season they only has Currie Cup and URC to contend with, plus Bok duty, you add the ERC in they will be spread much thinner.

But then I think the management has been considering that this season already.

Whilst the Bulls don't have any current Springboks (a few uncapped players have been called up now) they have been building their depth and their Currie Cup team is heading the Currie Cup log.

The Sharks have been recruiting heavily, but their coach is inexperienced and they aren't performing to the sum of their parts.

Both Bulls and Sharks have PE part ownership now, which suggests if SARU relaxes the salary caps they could buuld more depth, however the Sharks need better coaching management.

From recent news the Stormers now have seven offers on the table for private equity investment which they desperately need.

The Lions will remain the "Connacht" of SA, their Currie Cup team is at the bottom of the log, they have no depth at all and are in desperate need of overhauling.

But then in 2012 theywere kicked out of Super Rugby, rebuilt in the next three years to play in three consecutive super rugby finals, with a squad that started out as no name brands, So all hope is not lost.

I also read that the percentage of current Springboks playing overseas have dropped to 40% the lowest in years, which do suggest the SA players are embracing the opportunity to play in the URC for SA teams.

If that representation keep on improving for SA sides, it will help tremendously.

For me, being a Scarlets fan, the reason we struggled this season injuries aside, was down to our dreadful defence. Attacking wise, we did ok, scoring the 5th highest amount of points but we conceded the 4th highest amount of points in the league. We desperately need a proven defence coach, Ben Franks has done wonders with our pack but we have a contact skills coach looking after our defence which simply isn't good enough.

Our front row depth is ok, second row is a bit of a concern & I think we might be a bit light in the centre though I have high hopes for Joe Roberts coming thought.

I have enjoyed the addition of the South African sides this season, however we had to go down there (I know it was because of COVID) with very depleted squads which had a knock on effect to our season. I am not saying we would have won the league or anything but I do think going down there without our first choice players did hinder us.

I'll be honest, I'm not 100% bothered that we aren't in the Champions Cup as I don't think we will be competitive but I would like to see us have a go at the Challenge Cup as we will be top seeds along with Glasgow from the URC.

One other thing to contend with, Old Man, is the helter skelter nature of the NH season! This season the SA sides had some disruption early on with players missing to international duty in September/October. But I think I’m right in saying that they were then able to focus solely on the URC from that point until the end of the season? Joining the Euro competitions adds in a certain complexity - we do a few games of league, then 2 euro fixtures, then some league, then Autumn Internationals, the league, then it’s Christmas, then some more league, then some Euros, then 6 nations, then some league, the some
Euros, then finish league, Euro play offs, league play offs, finals……! It’s enough to make your head spin. Again, I’m sure the SA teams will cope just fine but the complexities and constant seesawing between the different competitions is often a challenge in itself.

Edit: the Currie Cup. Do the SA franchises (or their players) play in that? Will they continue to do so now they are in the euro comps too?

The Oracle wrote:One other thing to contend with, Old Man, is the helter skelter nature of the NH season! This season the SA sides had some disruption early on with players missing to international duty in September/October. But I think I’m right in saying that they were then able to focus solely on the URC from that point until the end of the season? Joining the Euro competitions adds in a certain complexity - we do a few games of league, then 2 euro fixtures, then some league, then Autumn Internationals, the league, then it’s Christmas, then some more league, then some Euros, then 6 nations, then some league, the some
Euros, then finish league, Euro play offs, league play offs, finals……! It’s enough to make your head spin. Again, I’m sure the SA teams will cope just fine but the complexities and constant seesawing between the different competitions is often a challenge in itself.

Edit: the Currie Cup. Do the SA franchises (or their players) play in that? Will they continue to do so now they are in the euro comps too?

I'm sure that I heard that when the Scarlets went down to South Africa - some of the Bulls players had played in the URC the weekend before our match & played in the Currie Cup in the midweek before playing against us.

The Oracle wrote:One other thing to contend with, Old Man, is the helter skelter nature of the NH season! This season the SA sides had some disruption early on with players missing to international duty in September/October. But I think I’m right in saying that they were then able to focus solely on the URC from that point until the end of the season? Joining the Euro competitions adds in a certain complexity - we do a few games of league, then 2 euro fixtures, then some league, then Autumn Internationals, the league, then it’s Christmas, then some more league, then some Euros, then 6 nations, then some league, the some
Euros, then finish league, Euro play offs, league play offs, finals……! It’s enough to make your head spin. Again, I’m sure the SA teams will cope just fine but the complexities and constant seesawing between the different competitions is often a challenge in itself.

Edit: the Currie Cup. Do the SA franchises (or their players) play in that? Will they continue to do so now they are in the euro comps too?

yes, the European season is very complex and the planning of which players play which matches are going to throw a spanner in the works. The players from say the Bulls, are contracted for both tournaments yes. So players can come in from thr Currie Cup side to the URC or vice versa.

Oakdene wrote:

The Oracle wrote:One other thing to contend with, Old Man, is the helter skelter nature of the NH season! This season the SA sides had some disruption early on with players missing to international duty in September/October. But I think I’m right in saying that they were then able to focus solely on the URC from that point until the end of the season? Joining the Euro competitions adds in a certain complexity - we do a few games of league, then 2 euro fixtures, then some league, then Autumn Internationals, the league, then it’s Christmas, then some more league, then some Euros, then 6 nations, then some league, the some
Euros, then finish league, Euro play offs, league play offs, finals……! It’s enough to make your head spin. Again, I’m sure the SA teams will cope just fine but the complexities and constant seesawing between the different competitions is often a challenge in itself.

Edit: the Currie Cup. Do the SA franchises (or their players) play in that? Will they continue to do so now they are in the euro comps too?

I'm sure that I heard that when the Scarlets went down to South Africa - some of the Bulls players had played in the URC the weekend before our match & played in the Currie Cup in the midweek before playing against us.

That is correct Oakdene, there has been a lot of subbing from one to the other.

Old Man wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:A salary cap would make it better, like all the other leagues.

Salary cap would need to consider allteams, the SA teams have by far the smallestbudget, R60 million.

No way the European teams would accept that

We could come to a happy medium, something that suits all teams to make the league more competitive.

The medium being let me guess....the Welsh teams?

LordDowlais wrote:A salary cap would make it better, like all the other leagues.

As long it was an across the board cap - so it applied to everyone from SANZAAR, Japan, the 6Ns, everyone, TV revenues were pooled centrally and shared out equally and there was permanent expulsion from the game for any team caught doing a Saracens.

LordDowlais wrote:

Old Man wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:A salary cap would make it better, like all the other leagues.

Salary cap would need to consider allteams, the SA teams have by far the smallestbudget, R60 million.

No way the European teams would accept that

We could come to a happy medium, something that suits all teams to make the league more competitive.

How can you come to a happy medium when South African teams simply do not have the money due to the rand?  You're essentially saying that they should up their squad spend by a few million.  They can't just magic that out of thin air!  If they had that money then they would probably be spending it already and the internationals would be less likely to leave SA.

That said, I read something the other day that said that when the SA squad spend and the rand are adjusted for cost of living compared to the UK then the squad spend (I think it was the Bulls) is more like £7-8 million.  Not sure how true this is as the workings were not shown.


Edit: Sorry, we're talking about a cap aren't we?! Not a minimum spend. So those spending over it have to come down but those under it can, of course, stay under it if they have to.

Ignore me! Carry on. Nothing to see here

The Oracle wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Old Man wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:A salary cap would make it better, like all the other leagues.

Salary cap would need to consider allteams, the SA teams have by far the smallestbudget, R60 million.

No way the European teams would accept that

We could come to a happy medium, something that suits all teams to make the league more competitive.

How can you come to a happy medium when South African teams simply do not have the money due to the rand?  You're essentially saying that they should up their squad spend by a few million.  They can't just magic that out of thin air!  If they had that money then they would probably be spending it already and the internationals would be less likely to leave SA.

That said, I read something the other day that said that when the SA squad spend and the rand are adjusted for cost of living compared to the UK then the squad spend (I think it was the Bulls) is more like £7-8 million.  Not sure how true this is as the workings were not shown.

if you consider purchase power parity there are some truth to it, but that would only consider some things such as food and maybe clothing. Property is cheaper in SA, but the life style these players want to lead would suggest they would be in the market for 4-5 million rand houses.

Vehicles here as as expensive as overseas, but because of the weak rand it quickly becomes very expensive unless you get a sponsored vehicle.

The issue for SA players is the money they can earn in Europe/Japan when converted becomes extremely attractive.

When earning close to or more than a million dollars overseas, and you save, lets say half of it, you can come home with millions, buy a house cash, and invest a significant amount in a business.

I have clients who emigrated to SA for retirement with less than a half million pounds and live a very comfortable life style

Irish Londoner wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:A salary cap would make it better, like all the other leagues.

As long it was an across the board cap - so it applied to everyone from SANZAAR, Japan, the 6Ns, everyone, TV revenues were pooled centrally and shared out equally and there was permanent expulsion from the game for any team caught doing a Saracens.

Why ?

The English and French have salary caps don't they ?

None of what you have suggested has happened, so again, Why ?

From a Welsh perspective it wasn't a great year. That said it's not quite as bad as our papers make out. Given Ospreys finished on 10 win and Scarlets on 8, just a couple more wins would have seen them make the top 8.

There are some problems for Welsh Teams going into next year:-
Scarlets - Front five looks light. I'm not sure Peel's massive gamble on Fifita will pay off either. Keep in mind the All Blacks moved him to Blindside as they didn't think he was great at lock. The worry from a Welsh perspective looking at them is at least 5 out of their front 8 won't be Welsh qualified and that's assuming Sebastien isn't considered the best tighthead option they have. If he is that number will move to 6 overseas starters. I just don't think they have a pack to allow them to compete at the highest level. I just don't think they have the roster to sort out their defensive issues.

Blues are all at sea. Dai went shopping for opensides stating its a attritional position. It is. But he has like 6 international opensides. He will no doubt start playing opensides at 6 which if this league has shown us is just bad news. All the Irish and S.African sides have ball carrying players at 6 & 8. Throw in the fact they don't have any tightheads that can scrummage and they will be in big trouble again. The only tighthead who actually looks like he can scrummage is Davies-King and I doubt Dai will give him any starter chances. I also think after 2 seasons on the wing its time to move Lane to outside center. He has just enough gas and the size for it. He should be used to Pro level rugby by now to play there. They would then be able to start playing Cabango on the wing. Unless Dai reads this forum there's zero chance of any of those changes coming in.

Ospreys probably still the best welsh chance of top 8. The frontline pack does look good. Lake has been really impressive this season. I still think they could do with a bruiser of a lock and a proper scrummaging loosehead. I also think they really lack that carrying option from 6. Griffiths is still developing. Morgan and Morris both have been excellent though. Don't think Botha is a good backup option at tighthead as he looks a bit lightweight for that position. I also think Anscombe is nowhere near the player he was before the injury. Hopefully he does get back to his old self at some point after the long injury but for me he isn't looking to go to the line as often anymore.

Dragons I think have done a good job on recruitment. He strengthened the problem position at loosehead. The other major point has been our options at 10, 12 & 13. Ryan has brought in some seasoned campaigners in all those positions which is key. If they can gel quickly I can see them doing better than the 2 wins they managed.

One thing the league has shown us is how important those bonus points are and home wins. Think next season may end up tighter than ever. I suspect that sides using 50 players in a league season will start to fade away once it becomes clear sides will start to need to go full strength a lot of the time.

LordDowlais wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:A salary cap would make it better, like all the other leagues.

As long it was an across the board cap - so it applied to everyone from SANZAAR, Japan, the 6Ns, everyone, TV revenues were pooled centrally and shared out equally and there was permanent expulsion from the game for any team caught doing a Saracens.

Why ?

The English and French have salary caps don't they ?

None of what you have suggested has happened, so again, Why ?

It's not that its a bad idea but how would something be brought in that promotes parity. Unless all the Unions funding their teams went into a general pot and divided 16 ways it wouldn't work. That system would end up with better funding nations funding less well off nations and I doubt the IRFU or WRU would be happy with that system as essentially all their top sides would have to operate on less money. Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.

Plus you probably would see some of the Stars of the bigger funded teams heading offshore which probably would hurt the various unions.

Welshmushroom wrote:Plus you probably would see some of the Stars of the bigger funded teams heading offshore which probably would hurt the various unions.

Has this happened in England ?

Welshmushroom wrote: Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.  

? According to the Scottish Union annual report, they spend over £30m a year on pro rugby salaries. More than the WRU. And they only have 2 teams plus test bonuses.

2021/22 URC:

South African additions - great teams, great rugby, but personally I wish they weren't in the league. Impossible to get to and our Welsh teams were obliterated as we didn't have any of our best players playing.

Officiating: As dire as I have ever seen in rugby union. Some of the top officials in the URC knockouts (Adamson, Brace, Peyper) are embarrassing. Other leagues have their moments with officiating but this league is absolutely awful.

TV watching: It's now almost an invisible league in my house as I binned premier sports, I just get a few Welsh games on terrestrial tv. I also noticed that the URC is no longer covered on the mainstream news channels in their sports bulletins. They only bother with the English rugby now.

Fixtures: All over the place. Welsh teams played everywhere from 5.15pm on a weekday to Sunday lunchtimes. Almost impossible to organise any sort of routine. Ulster however, continue to play most of their home games in their lovely little Friday evening slot. How nice it must be to be special.

Better league this year? Not for me, far worse. Wish the Welsh teams would get out of it

The introduction of a salary cap on its own will not help any of the URC teams. If they don't have the money now, it ain't going to magically appear out of thin air to allow them spend more.

All it will do is promote mediocrity.

If there is to be some kind of financial arrangement, then it should focus not just on playing budgets, but also investment in academies, pathway development, numbers of foreign capped players, maximum/minimum-size senior squads, windows for hire/loan of players from other teams - domestic and cross-border, area of team representation, stadium sizes, playing time management, etc.

Given most of the teams are owned by unions, then they should set the rules of any financial requirements, including equal union funding provided to each team on whatever basis agreed. Thereafter, it is up to each individual team to generate its own cash to set its playing budget.

There should be limits on numbers of foreign capped players either by season squad or in match-day squads.

Pot Hale wrote:The introduction of a salary cap on its own will not help any of the URC teams.   If they don't have the money now, it ain't going to magically appear out of thin air to allow them spend more.

All it will do is promote mediocrity.  

If there is to be some kind of financial arrangement, then it should focus not just on playing budgets, but also investment in academies, pathway development, numbers of foreign capped players, maximum/minimum-size senior squads, windows for hire/loan of players from other teams - domestic and cross-border, area of team representation, stadium sizes, playing time management, etc.  

Given most of the teams are owned by unions, then they should set the rules of any financial requirements, including equal union funding provided to each team on whatever basis agreed.   Thereafter, it is up to each individual team to generate its own cash to set its playing budget.  

There should be limits on numbers of foreign capped players either by season squad or in match-day squads.

That will improve nobody apart from Leinster and the South Africans.

"area of team representation" made me laugh alot.

Why do you bother with a league you hate so much then RugbyFan? Why not just go and start watching Bristol, save you all the heartache. Get a BT subscription and watch the Prem.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why do you bother with a league you hate so much then RugbyFan? Why not just go and start watching Bristol, save you all the heartache. Get a BT subscription and watch the Prem.

Because the team I have supported since I was 5 years old play in it. Unfortunately.

I don't support Bristol. I have a BT subscription, and watch the Prem. It is brilliant.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:The introduction of a salary cap on its own will not help any of the URC teams.   If they don't have the money now, it ain't going to magically appear out of thin air to allow them spend more.

All it will do is promote mediocrity.  

If there is to be some kind of financial arrangement, then it should focus not just on playing budgets, but also investment in academies, pathway development, numbers of foreign capped players, maximum/minimum-size senior squads, windows for hire/loan of players from other teams - domestic and cross-border, area of team representation, stadium sizes, playing time management, etc.  

Given most of the teams are owned by unions, then they should set the rules of any financial requirements, including equal union funding provided to each team on whatever basis agreed.   Thereafter, it is up to each individual team to generate its own cash to set its playing budget.  

There should be limits on numbers of foreign capped players either by season squad or in match-day squads.

That will improve nobody apart from Leinster and the South Africans.

"area of team representation" made me laugh alot.

Why so?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why do you bother with a league you hate so much then RugbyFan? Why not just go and start watching Bristol, save you all the heartache. Get a BT subscription and watch the Prem.

Because the team I have supported since I was 5 years old play in it. Unfortunately.

I don't support Bristol. I have a BT subscription, and watch the Prem. It is brilliant.

You can follow more than 1 team, just look up the results. Sounds from that as if you watch far more of the English teams anyway, pick one to follow or simply just enjoy watching anyone that is on. The Welsh teams aren't going anywhere (well maybe 3 aren't) so why get so hett up at a league you don't even watch, bar the 5 games or so you watch on free to air.

Pot Hale wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:The introduction of a salary cap on its own will not help any of the URC teams.   If they don't have the money now, it ain't going to magically appear out of thin air to allow them spend more.

All it will do is promote mediocrity.  

If there is to be some kind of financial arrangement, then it should focus not just on playing budgets, but also investment in academies, pathway development, numbers of foreign capped players, maximum/minimum-size senior squads, windows for hire/loan of players from other teams - domestic and cross-border, area of team representation, stadium sizes, playing time management, etc.  

Given most of the teams are owned by unions, then they should set the rules of any financial requirements, including equal union funding provided to each team on whatever basis agreed.   Thereafter, it is up to each individual team to generate its own cash to set its playing budget.  

There should be limits on numbers of foreign capped players either by season squad or in match-day squads.

That will improve nobody apart from Leinster and the South Africans.

"area of team representation" made me laugh alot.

Why so?

I'm having a fun time imagining how a resource cap of "area of team representation" would affect teams differently.

(E.g.: Munster is Geographically bigger than Wales)

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:The introduction of a salary cap on its own will not help any of the URC teams.   If they don't have the money now, it ain't going to magically appear out of thin air to allow them spend more.

All it will do is promote mediocrity.  

If there is to be some kind of financial arrangement, then it should focus not just on playing budgets, but also investment in academies, pathway development, numbers of foreign capped players, maximum/minimum-size senior squads, windows for hire/loan of players from other teams - domestic and cross-border, area of team representation, stadium sizes, playing time management, etc.  

Given most of the teams are owned by unions, then they should set the rules of any financial requirements, including equal union funding provided to each team on whatever basis agreed.   Thereafter, it is up to each individual team to generate its own cash to set its playing budget.  

There should be limits on numbers of foreign capped players either by season squad or in match-day squads.

That will improve nobody apart from Leinster and the South Africans.

"area of team representation" made me laugh alot.

Why so?

I'm having a fun time imagining how a resource cap of "area of team representation" would affect teams differently.

(E.g.: Munster is Geographically bigger than Wales)

It's simply a statement of fact - what geographic area does the team represent? If it wants to use resources/players from outside that, so be it. I didn't indicate it would be a cap. For Welsh teams, it could be a number of already defined WRU districts, for example.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.  

? According to the Scottish Union annual report, they spend over £30m a year on pro rugby salaries. More than the WRU. And they only have 2 teams plus test bonuses.

I think your looking at the full pro funding game. That money stated probably includes the National Staff, Super 6 funding, international appearances and the money they end up paying the Aviva Prem for early release on players for internationals. I believe both Edinburgh and Glasgow are both working on budgets between 6-7million. So even at 14million that is significantly less than the WRU pay the regions currently.

My main point is Italy and South African don't have the money the WRU and IRFU are spending on it. So in order to level the field you would essentially have to take it from some Unions and give it to other Unions. I doubt anyone would agree for this to happen.

The most likely scenario is that each union funds each of their teams equally. Now that would be achievable but that would impact Leinster in a major way.

I do hope the WRU scrap the elite system and simply fund each of the 4 regions equally and let them all have a level playin field.

Pot Hale wrote:

It's simply a statement of fact - what geographic area does the team represent?   If it wants to use resources/players from outside that, so be it.   I didn't indicate it would be a cap.  For Welsh teams, it could be a number of already defined WRU districts, for example.

So every team must submit a map to the URC with red markings showing what area it "represents"?

Edinburgh for instance - that's just the city is it? What areas to the towns of DHL and Vodacom represent?

Batsh1t crazy idea, which of course means it's something totally likely to be incorporated by the URC.

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.  

? According to the Scottish Union annual report, they spend over £30m a year on pro rugby salaries. More than the WRU. And they only have 2 teams plus test bonuses.

I think your looking at the full pro funding game.  That money stated probably includes the National Staff, Super 6 funding, international appearances and the money they end up paying the Aviva Prem for early release on players for internationals.  I believe both Edinburgh and Glasgow are both working on budgets between 6-7million.  So even at 14million that is significantly less than the WRU pay the regions currently.

My main point is Italy and South African don't have the money the WRU and IRFU are spending on it.  So in order to level the field you would essentially have to take it from some Unions and give it to other Unions.  I doubt anyone would agree for this to happen.

 The most likely scenario is that each union funds each of their teams equally. Now that would be achievable but that would impact Leinster in a major way.  

I do hope the WRU scrap the elite system and simply fund each of the 4 regions equally and let them all have a level playin field.

This assumes that union funds alone would be able to cover the costs of a professional playing squad. I don't believe that is the case for most, if not all, of the current URC teams.

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.  

? According to the Scottish Union annual report, they spend over £30m a year on pro rugby salaries. More than the WRU. And they only have 2 teams plus test bonuses.

I think your looking at the full pro funding game.  That money stated probably includes the National Staff, Super 6 funding, international appearances and the money they end up paying the Aviva Prem for early release on players for internationals.  I believe both Edinburgh and Glasgow are both working on budgets between 6-7million.  So even at 14million that is significantly less than the WRU pay the regions currently.

So £6-7m is larger than every one of the English teams and most of the Welsh teams

The WRU pay the regions around £23.1m a year for their services. This is apparently going down to £18m next year.

My main point is Italy and South African don't have the money the WRU and IRFU are spending on it.  So in order to level the field you would essentially have to take it from some Unions and give it to other Unions.  I doubt anyone would agree for this to happen.

The most likely scenario is that each union funds each of their teams equally.  Now that would be achievable but that would impact Leinster in a major way.  

I do hope the WRU scrap the elite system and simply fund each of the 4 regions equally and let them all have a level playin field.

What incentive would there be for a team to produce 1 Wales player, if it gets the same amount of money as a team producing 20 players?

LordDowlais wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Plus you probably would see some of the Stars of the bigger funded teams heading offshore which probably would hurt the various unions.

Has this happened in England ?

Yes - have you seen the list of superstars leaving the Premiership next season and the recruits they are bringing in are nowhere near the profile of the outbound players. Loads of the Premiership have been moaning about the 5 million cap causing an inability to remain competitive against even the URC at this stage, let alone France and Japan.

The only positive for them right now is they only select internationally from within the Premiership. If that rule wasn't in place they probably would have lost a good chunk of english household names as well.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.  

? According to the Scottish Union annual report, they spend over £30m a year on pro rugby salaries. More than the WRU. And they only have 2 teams plus test bonuses.

I think your looking at the full pro funding game.  That money stated probably includes the National Staff, Super 6 funding, international appearances and the money they end up paying the Aviva Prem for early release on players for internationals.  I believe both Edinburgh and Glasgow are both working on budgets between 6-7million.  So even at 14million that is significantly less than the WRU pay the regions currently.

So £6-7m is larger than every one of the English teams and most of the Welsh teams

The WRU pay the regions around £23.1m a year for their services. This is apparently going down to £18m next year.

Sorry where are you getting your information from? The money isn't going down to 18 million. The money is going up from 23.1m over the next 5 years which the next agreement will cover.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.  

? According to the Scottish Union annual report, they spend over £30m a year on pro rugby salaries. More than the WRU. And they only have 2 teams plus test bonuses.

I think your looking at the full pro funding game.  That money stated probably includes the National Staff, Super 6 funding, international appearances and the money they end up paying the Aviva Prem for early release on players for internationals.  I believe both Edinburgh and Glasgow are both working on budgets between 6-7million.  So even at 14million that is significantly less than the WRU pay the regions currently.

So £6-7m is larger than every one of the English teams and most of the Welsh teams

The WRU pay the regions around £23.1m a year for their services. This is apparently going down to £18m next year.

My main point is Italy and South African don't have the money the WRU and IRFU are spending on it.  So in order to level the field you would essentially have to take it from some Unions and give it to other Unions.  I doubt anyone would agree for this to happen.

The most likely scenario is that each union funds each of their teams equally.  Now that would be achievable but that would impact Leinster in a major way.  

I do hope the WRU scrap the elite system and simply fund each of the 4 regions equally and let them all have a level playin field.

What incentive would there be for a team to produce 1 Wales player, if it gets the same amount of money as a team producing 20 players?

"The WRU pay the regions around £23.1m a year for their services." Does this include all of the money that the WRU spends on Dragons? Does it include the Competition Income from URC/EPCR?

Besides that, a revised financial "fair play" set of rules would apply to each union regardless. For example, any funding provided must be spent on playing budgets, for example. Or it could include some funds for a coaching team as well. Every union must sign up to it to compete in the URC - regardless of whatever "hold" amateur club reps have. Either the union signs up to it, or they don't compete. A single union being held to ransom by its amateur club owners/directors is of no benefit to any union.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

It's simply a statement of fact - what geographic area does the team represent?   If it wants to use resources/players from outside that, so be it.   I didn't indicate it would be a cap.  For Welsh teams, it could be a number of already defined WRU districts, for example.

So every team must submit a map to the URC with red markings showing what area it "represents"?

Edinburgh for instance - that's just the city is it? What areas to the towns of DHL and Vodacom represent?  

 Batsh1t crazy idea, which of course means it's something totally likely to be incorporated by the URC.

It's up to each union/team to decide that. Not you or I. But once it's decided, that is what is agreed with the other unions. No more disputes over whether one area is included or not e.g. no more is North Wales in or out? Get it decided and agreed with the teams, and ultimately with the other unions in order to compete.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

My main point is Italy and South African don't have the money the WRU and IRFU are spending on it.  So in order to level the field you would essentially have to take it from some Unions and give it to other Unions.  I doubt anyone would agree for this to happen.

The most likely scenario is that each union funds each of their teams equally.  Now that would be achievable but that would impact Leinster in a major way.  

I do hope the WRU scrap the elite system and simply fund each of the 4 regions equally and let them all have a level playin field.

What incentive would there be for a team to produce 1 Wales player, if it gets the same amount of money as a team producing 20 players?

Currently there are already limitations how a region can recruit.  They can only have squads containing 6 non qualified welsh players and that needs to be signed off by the WRU before the transfer can occur.  Also the Wales 60 cap rule will keep them in Wales regardless.  Even if a region doesn't want to produce players for Wales they still have to have 90% of their squad available for Wales purely by being eligible.  All that will happen with equal funding across the board is that we won't have team hogging talent in certain positions to deny the other regions.  Historically speaking the regions have just been poaching the talent from other regions just to keep their funding up.

Surely sides that are starting to develop players for Wales shouldn't have them poached by better funded welsh regions once they get capped by Wales.  

 

Pot Hale wrote:  Every union must sign up to it to compete in the URC - regardless of whatever "hold" amateur club reps have.   Either the union signs up to it, or they don't compete.   A single union being held to ransom by its amateur club owners/directors is of no benefit to any union.  

I agree with this. Which is why Unions should be nowhere near domestic rugby. It would basically be privately run businesses signing up to the possibility of making themselves less productive. The South Africans would be unlikely to sign up to it I'd have thought.

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

My main point is Italy and South African don't have the money the WRU and IRFU are spending on it.  So in order to level the field you would essentially have to take it from some Unions and give it to other Unions.  I doubt anyone would agree for this to happen.

The most likely scenario is that each union funds each of their teams equally.  Now that would be achievable but that would impact Leinster in a major way.  

I do hope the WRU scrap the elite system and simply fund each of the 4 regions equally and let them all have a level playin field.

What incentive would there be for a team to produce 1 Wales player, if it gets the same amount of money as a team producing 20 players?

Currently there are already limitations how a region can recruit.  They can only have squads containing 6 non qualified welsh players and that needs to be signed off by the WRU before the transfer can occur.  Also the Wales 60 cap rule will keep them in Wales regardless.  Even if a region doesn't want to produce players for Wales they still have to have 90% of their squad available for Wales purely by being eligible.  All that will happen with equal funding across the board is that we won't have team hogging talent in certain positions to deny the other regions.  Historically speaking the regions have just been poaching the talent from other regions just to keep their funding up.

Surely sides that are starting to develop players for Wales shouldn't have them poached by better funded welsh regions once they get capped by Wales.  

 

I'd have thought that the likes of Simon Muderack won't be signing up to anything that sees his team funded the same as the Dragons.

Welshmushroom wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Plus you probably would see some of the Stars of the bigger funded teams heading offshore which probably would hurt the various unions.

Has this happened in England ?

Yes - have you seen the list of superstars leaving the Premiership next season and the recruits they are bringing in are nowhere near the profile of the outbound players.  Loads of the Premiership have been moaning about the 5 million cap causing an inability to remain competitive against even the URC at this stage, let alone France and Japan.

The only positive for them right now is they only select internationally from within the Premiership.  If that rule wasn't in place they probably would have lost a good chunk of english household names as well.

Well, the English clubs are still signing players from Wales regardless:-

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/yet-another-welsh-regional-player-24185258

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.  

? According to the Scottish Union annual report, they spend over £30m a year on pro rugby salaries. More than the WRU. And they only have 2 teams plus test bonuses.

I think your looking at the full pro funding game.  That money stated probably includes the National Staff, Super 6 funding, international appearances and the money they end up paying the Aviva Prem for early release on players for internationals.  I believe both Edinburgh and Glasgow are both working on budgets between 6-7million.  So even at 14million that is significantly less than the WRU pay the regions currently.

So £6-7m is larger than every one of the English teams and most of the Welsh teams

The WRU pay the regions around £23.1m a year for their services. This is apparently going down to £18m next year.

Sorry where are you getting your information from?  The money isn't going down to 18 million.  The money is going up from 23.1m over the next 5 years which the next agreement will cover.

Here:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/welsh-plan-to-cut-professional-teams-from-four-to-three-ktp6x6sz7

At present the professional sides receive £23.5 million between them which is set to be cut to £18 million in the 2023-24 season.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:  Every union must sign up to it to compete in the URC - regardless of whatever "hold" amateur club reps have.   Either the union signs up to it, or they don't compete.   A single union being held to ransom by its amateur club owners/directors is of no benefit to any union.  

I agree with this.  Which is why Unions should be nowhere near domestic rugby. It would basically be privately run businesses signing up to the possibility of making themselves less productive. The South Africans would be unlikely to sign up to it I'd have thought.

Well, the unions are hardly going to allow the 3 Welsh private-owner tail to wag the five-union/13-team URC dog. So if the teams "privately-owned" want to compete then they follow the financial and operational rules. They get a certain amount of funding each year - guaranteed - from their union to be spent only on playing/coaching resources. No more elite 38, or central contracts, or whatever. Players selected for test duty get additional payment in the usual ways - match fees, performance bonuses, etc. Oh - and an agreed test window for player selection. No more payments for extra weeks. Decide on the window and that's it.

Pot Hale wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:  Every union must sign up to it to compete in the URC - regardless of whatever "hold" amateur club reps have.   Either the union signs up to it, or they don't compete.   A single union being held to ransom by its amateur club owners/directors is of no benefit to any union.  

I agree with this.  Which is why Unions should be nowhere near domestic rugby. It would basically be privately run businesses signing up to the possibility of making themselves less productive. The South Africans would be unlikely to sign up to it I'd have thought.

Well, the unions are hardly going to allow the 3 Welsh private-owner tail to wag the five-union/13-team URC dog.  So if the teams "privately-owned" want to compete then they follow the financial and operational rules.   They get a certain amount of funding each year - guaranteed - from their union to be spent only on playing/coaching resources.  No more elite 38, or central contracts, or whatever.   Players selected for test duty get additional payment in the usual ways - match fees, performance bonuses, etc.    Oh - and an agreed test window for player selection.  No more payments for extra weeks.   Decide on the window and that's it.  

Sounds sensible. As long as they all agree, and the money is right it will be fine.

LordDowlais wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:Plus you probably would see some of the Stars of the bigger funded teams heading offshore which probably would hurt the various unions.

Has this happened in England ?

Yes - have you seen the list of superstars leaving the Premiership next season and the recruits they are bringing in are nowhere near the profile of the outbound players.  Loads of the Premiership have been moaning about the 5 million cap causing an inability to remain competitive against even the URC at this stage, let alone France and Japan.

The only positive for them right now is they only select internationally from within the Premiership.  If that rule wasn't in place they probably would have lost a good chunk of english household names as well.

Well, the English clubs are still signing players from Wales regardless:-

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/yet-another-welsh-regional-player-24185258

I'm not sure what a regional youth player signing for a semi pro side in England shows anything of note. If anything it shows how bad Regional rugby has been of late for giving chances to youngsters who feel they have better development pathways playing in England.

In terms of the Pro Game more players are heading back to Wales than are going to the Premiership.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Welshmushroom wrote: Its not like Scotland, South Africa or Italy can afford to fund their teams to the same level as the Irish and Welsh Unions.  

? According to the Scottish Union annual report, they spend over £30m a year on pro rugby salaries. More than the WRU. And they only have 2 teams plus test bonuses.

I think your looking at the full pro funding game.  That money stated probably includes the National Staff, Super 6 funding, international appearances and the money they end up paying the Aviva Prem for early release on players for internationals.  I believe both Edinburgh and Glasgow are both working on budgets between 6-7million.  So even at 14million that is significantly less than the WRU pay the regions currently.

So £6-7m is larger than every one of the English teams and most of the Welsh teams

The WRU pay the regions around £23.1m a year for their services. This is apparently going down to £18m next year.

Sorry where are you getting your information from?  The money isn't going down to 18 million.  The money is going up from 23.1m over the next 5 years which the next agreement will cover.

Here:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/welsh-plan-to-cut-professional-teams-from-four-to-three-ktp6x6sz7

At present the professional sides receive £23.5 million between them which is set to be cut to £18 million in the 2023-24 season.

The WRU and Regions have already squashed this reporting. Nigel Walker already on a live interview pointed out nobody is on board with going to 3 teams. This was a lazy reported article which focused purely on an option (1 of 7 I believe) of ways to improve welsh rugby. They are looking at their options but have already ruled this out.

Welshmushroom wrote:

I'm not sure what a regional youth player signing for a semi pro side in England shows anything of note.  If anything it shows how bad Regional rugby has been of late for giving chances to youngsters who feel they have better development pathways playing in England.

In terms of the Pro Game more players are heading back to Wales than are going to the Premiership.

Younger players normally leave for England due to education reasons don't they? Rees-Zammit etc?