Super Six

[Big D]

Is being disbanded.

This is a disaster. And I'm sure some will be delighted which is very sad.

We are going to fall further behind in developmental terms.

[Croft_No.5]

I have to totally agree. At least 3 of the S6 clubs not at all happy and what is coming in to replace will not help I am sure. A lot of pressure from some obvious quarters behind the decision. We could all see the improvement already in the way the youngsters have been playing recently and it is far too early to be closing this down. Didn't help not being able to expand as originally envisaged.

[Big D]

Covid really came at the wrong time for this too.

[Donny osmond]

Why is it being disbanded?

[Cameo]

That's a shame. Wasn't the perfect solution, but the intention was right and now it needs to be replaced with something. We simply need something to bridge the gap betweem amateur and pro. Worrying that no alternative put forward at the same time as announcing the end of this.

[Cameo]

I suspect they haven't managed this, but the one thing that comes to mind that would be an alternative is if they can get two academy teams (supplemented by young club players and pros lacking gametime) playing regularly somewhere.

[General Zod]

*Rikki Fulton voice”…Eh, I’ll have the soup, please.

I do feel it’s early, but maybe it’s about money? I see Wales are launching a new “Elite Domestic Competition” which sounds a little like Super Six in its ostensible intent.

http://northwalesrugby.wales/news/elite ... %20players.

Sorry - can’t do a link for some reason.

It doesn’t mean we’re wrong to do it, but we do need a better pathway for younger players to the pro game.

[septic 9]

this is the alleged new alternative

https://scottishrugby.org/scottish-rugb ... e-pathway/

[Cameo]

This Q and A has some answers about what is next, but all very vague and aspirational. Very hard to give coherent views without a) knowing the financial drivers and b) knowing how realistic/advanced these mooted alternatives are. However, two comments:

- Steve Gemmel talks about s6 having moved standards over the last 5 years but standards in the pro game having changed even more. I would be interested to hear him expand on this. What is the alternative to raising standards by giving players more training and competitive games at a high level? Isn't that what s6 was trying to do? Is the reality that they thought too high a proportion of the s6 budget went to improving the journeyman players (not meant as a negative just to describe those very good players filling most of the teams but who were either too old to be seen as part of the development pathway or not quite good enough)? I can see an argument that you want to provide really good training to players you are actively looking to develop rather than quite good training to them and hundreds more - as long as you can find a way to get them high level gametime in the absence of these trained up journeymen.

- Alex Toolis, who coached at Boroughmuir has suggested that one factor was that some other clubs weren't really focused on development amd were exclusively focused on winning. This is borne out by some of the teamsheets each week. However, there is a bit of an underlying issue here about what S6 was for. The reason for its creation was that we needed a much higher level of rugby to bridge the gap between premiership and pro rugby and we wouldnuse this tp develop young players. Most people understood this to be mainly aimed at developing current and recent u20s. But most of those players struggled to get into s6 teams on merit and many struggle to get much premiership gametime. To really drive standards, they ended up with a development competition that could only get to the level required by excluding many of the players needing development.

[septic 9]

This Q and A has some answers about what is next, but all very vague and aspirational. Very hard to give coherent views without a) knowing the financial drivers and b) knowing how realistic/advanced these mooted alternatives are. However, two comments:

- Steve Gemmel talks about s6 having moved standards over the last 5 years but standards in the pro game having changed even more. I would be interested to hear him expand on this. What is the alternative to raising standards by giving players more training and competitive games at a high level? Isn't that what s6 was trying to do? Is the reality that they thought too high a proportion of the s6 budget went to improving the journeyman players (not meant as a negative just to describe those very good players filling most of the teams but who were either too old to be seen as part of the development pathway or not quite good enough)? I can see an argument that you want to provide really good training to players you are actively looking to develop rather than quite good training to them and hundreds more - as long as you can find a way to get them high level gametime in the absence of these trained up journeymen.

- Alex Toolis, who coached at Boroughmuir has suggested that one factor was that some other clubs weren't really focused on development amd were exclusively focused on winning. This is borne out by some of the teamsheets each week. However, there is a bit of an underlying issue here about what S6 was for. The reason for its creation was that we needed a much higher level of rugby to bridge the gap between premiership and pro rugby and we wouldnuse this tp develop young players. Most people understood this to be mainly aimed at developing current and recent u20s. But most of those players struggled to get into s6 teams on merit and many struggle to get much premiership gametime. To really drive standards, they ended up with a development competition that could only get to the level required by excluding many of the players needing development.

it has no answers, just a few random aspirations as you said. Its clearly thrown together to look like there is a coherent plan; there clearly isn't. Everything in there was either already there, already in train and nothing needed to kill S6 to happen. S6 was not perfect by any means, but there were several easy improvements which cost zilch. One being addressing the likes of Watsonians average player age.
The reason for S6 demise was of course f all to do with that, or finance, but everything to do with a number of very loud neanderthals' who never bought into it, who hate with a vengeance anything which happens on Dodson's watch. The arguments they use are virtually identical to those used by the same sorts who opposed the professional teams being formed and wanted a fully pro premiership with umpteen teams. Aye beens who cannot see beyond their nose, who want more cash but can't understand where it comes from
They now have a man at the top running this, someone who never bought in and isn't too bright. The lunatics have taken over (again) and I genuinely fear for the future now

Rant over. For now

[Big D]

This Q and A has some answers about what is next, but all very vague and aspirational. Very hard to give coherent views without a) knowing the financial drivers and b) knowing how realistic/advanced these mooted alternatives are. However, two comments:

- Steve Gemmel talks about s6 having moved standards over the last 5 years but standards in the pro game having changed even more. I would be interested to hear him expand on this. What is the alternative to raising standards by giving players more training and competitive games at a high level? Isn't that what s6 was trying to do? Is the reality that they thought too high a proportion of the s6 budget went to improving the journeyman players (not meant as a negative just to describe those very good players filling most of the teams but who were either too old to be seen as part of the development pathway or not quite good enough)? I can see an argument that you want to provide really good training to players you are actively looking to develop rather than quite good training to them and hundreds more - as long as you can find a way to get them high level gametime in the absence of these trained up journeymen.

- Alex Toolis, who coached at Boroughmuir has suggested that one factor was that some other clubs weren't really focused on development amd were exclusively focused on winning. This is borne out by some of the teamsheets each week. However, there is a bit of an underlying issue here about what S6 was for. The reason for its creation was that we needed a much higher level of rugby to bridge the gap between premiership and pro rugby and we wouldnuse this tp develop young players. Most people understood this to be mainly aimed at developing current and recent u20s. But most of those players struggled to get into s6 teams on merit and many struggle to get much premiership gametime. To really drive standards, they ended up with a development competition that could only get to the level required by excluding many of the players needing development.

Wouldn't necessarily take that as gospel from Toolis. 'Muir were one of the teams unable to raise funds from what I heard compared to Watsons who had a decent deal lined up.

The S6 was still in its infancy and really needed more time to bed in then skewnthr player pool younger l/away from too many journeymen.

I think covid really hurt this tournament from a commercial opportunity point of view.

[Cameo]

This Q and A has some answers about what is next, but all very vague and aspirational. Very hard to give coherent views without a) knowing the financial drivers and b) knowing how realistic/advanced these mooted alternatives are. However, two comments:

- Steve Gemmel talks about s6 having moved standards over the last 5 years but standards in the pro game having changed even more. I would be interested to hear him expand on this. What is the alternative to raising standards by giving players more training and competitive games at a high level? Isn't that what s6 was trying to do? Is the reality that they thought too high a proportion of the s6 budget went to improving the journeyman players (not meant as a negative just to describe those very good players filling most of the teams but who were either too old to be seen as part of the development pathway or not quite good enough)? I can see an argument that you want to provide really good training to players you are actively looking to develop rather than quite good training to them and hundreds more - as long as you can find a way to get them high level gametime in the absence of these trained up journeymen.

- Alex Toolis, who coached at Boroughmuir has suggested that one factor was that some other clubs weren't really focused on development amd were exclusively focused on winning. This is borne out by some of the teamsheets each week. However, there is a bit of an underlying issue here about what S6 was for. The reason for its creation was that we needed a much higher level of rugby to bridge the gap between premiership and pro rugby and we wouldnuse this tp develop young players. Most people understood this to be mainly aimed at developing current and recent u20s. But most of those players struggled to get into s6 teams on merit and many struggle to get much premiership gametime. To really drive standards, they ended up with a development competition that could only get to the level required by excluding many of the players needing development.

it has no answers, just a few random aspirations as you said. Its clearly thrown together to look like there is a coherent plan; there clearly isn't. Everything in there was either already there, already in train and nothing needed to kill S6 to happen. S6 was not perfect by any means, but there were several easy improvements which cost zilch. One being addressing the likes of Watsonians average player age.
The reason for S6 demise was of course f all to do with that, or finance, but everything to do with a number of very loud neanderthals' who never bought into it, who hate with a vengeance anything which happens on Dodson's watch. The arguments they use are virtually identical to those used by the same sorts who opposed the professional teams being formed and wanted a fully pro premiership with umpteen teams. Aye beens who cannot see beyond their nose, who want more cash but can't understand where it comes from
They now have a man at the top running this, someone who never bought in and isn't too bright. The lunatics have taken over (again) and I genuinely fear for the future now

Rant over. For now

Is that Gemmell you are talking about or one of the others?

[septic 9]

This Q and A has some answers about what is next, but all very vague and aspirational. Very hard to give coherent views without a) knowing the financial drivers and b) knowing how realistic/advanced these mooted alternatives are. However, two comments:

- Steve Gemmel talks about s6 having moved standards over the last 5 years but standards in the pro game having changed even more. I would be interested to hear him expand on this. What is the alternative to raising standards by giving players more training and competitive games at a high level? Isn't that what s6 was trying to do? Is the reality that they thought too high a proportion of the s6 budget went to improving the journeyman players (not meant as a negative just to describe those very good players filling most of the teams but who were either too old to be seen as part of the development pathway or not quite good enough)? I can see an argument that you want to provide really good training to players you are actively looking to develop rather than quite good training to them and hundreds more - as long as you can find a way to get them high level gametime in the absence of these trained up journeymen.

- Alex Toolis, who coached at Boroughmuir has suggested that one factor was that some other clubs weren't really focused on development amd were exclusively focused on winning. This is borne out by some of the teamsheets each week. However, there is a bit of an underlying issue here about what S6 was for. The reason for its creation was that we needed a much higher level of rugby to bridge the gap between premiership and pro rugby and we wouldnuse this tp develop young players. Most people understood this to be mainly aimed at developing current and recent u20s. But most of those players struggled to get into s6 teams on merit and many struggle to get much premiership gametime. To really drive standards, they ended up with a development competition that could only get to the level required by excluding many of the players needing development.

it has no answers, just a few random aspirations as you said. Its clearly thrown together to look like there is a coherent plan; there clearly isn't. Everything in there was either already there, already in train and nothing needed to kill S6 to happen. S6 was not perfect by any means, but there were several easy improvements which cost zilch. One being addressing the likes of Watsonians average player age.
The reason for S6 demise was of course f all to do with that, or finance, but everything to do with a number of very loud neanderthals' who never bought into it, who hate with a vengeance anything which happens on Dodson's watch. The arguments they use are virtually identical to those used by the same sorts who opposed the professional teams being formed and wanted a fully pro premiership with umpteen teams. Aye beens who cannot see beyond their nose, who want more cash but can't understand where it comes from
They now have a man at the top running this, someone who never bought in and isn't too bright. The lunatics have taken over (again) and I genuinely fear for the future now

Rant over. For now

Is that Gemmell you are talking about or one of the others?

not Gemmell. Not an employee, and someone possibly enabled by the new chairman