WRU Consultation on the pro game in Wales

[UKHamlet]

You can download the consultation document here:

https://ymlaencymru.com/consultation/

[Sandydragon]

There’s a key question of logic that needs to be addressed here. The cash cow in Welsh rugby is the senior men’s team. Yet the amount of money that the WRU is going to pump into the pro men’s game is about to decrease. Whilst the proposed two new sides will get more each, overall there is a reduction.

Currently it’s £4.5 m per region, so £18m. The new entities would have £7.8 m each, so £15.6 total.

If the aim is to save Welsh rugby and get the men’s game strong again, why isn’t all the money going into the pro men’s game? From a business with a turnover of £102.7 recently, where the hell is the rest of the money going?

Why is there suddenly over £2m less for the mens pro game? How much extra will the new women’s teams cost? I’m absolutely all for the women’s game, but where we are in a position that the existence of the pro game in wales is so tenuous, surely our main priority must the the senior men’s team and that pipeline?

The SRU pays only £5m directly to its two sides. But additionally the CRC funding is ringfenced for the pro game, so in reality there will be more.

It feels right now that the WRU is inefficient with its money and lacking a sense of priority. I’d suggest we look at that before cutting pro sides.

[Sandydragon]

You can download the consultation document here:

https://ymlaencymru.com/consultation/

I think the online fan survey will be interesting. Sadly I don’t sense fans coalescing around one idea but lots of noise around all four plus just returning to the old clubs and disbanding the regional game entirely.

[Numbers]

There’s a key question of logic that needs to be addressed here. The cash cow in Welsh rugby is the senior men’s team. Yet the amount of money that the WRU is going to pump into the pro men’s game is about to decrease. Whilst the proposed two new sides will get more each, overall there is a reduction.

Currently it’s £4.5 m per region, so £18m. The new entities would have £7.8 m each, so £15.6 total.

If the aim is to save Welsh rugby and get the men’s game strong again, why isn’t all the money going into the pro men’s game? From a business with a turnover of £102.7 recently, where the hell is the rest of the money going?

Why is there suddenly over £2m less for the mens pro game? How much extra will the new women’s teams cost? I’m absolutely all for the women’s game, but where we are in a position that the existence of the pro game in wales is so tenuous, surely our main priority must the the senior men’s team and that pipeline?

The SRU pays only £5m directly to its two sides. But additionally the CRC funding is ringfenced for the pro game, so in reality there will be more.

It feels right now that the WRU is inefficient with its money and lacking a sense of priority. I’d suggest we look at that before cutting pro sides.

I see your point but there are other costs other than the Women's game, the 2 acadamies for starters will be quite expensive, without a breakdown of expenditure it's hard to speculate.

[Sandydragon]

Indeed, so we have to trust the WRU and its accounting and prioritisation. I think they need to share the actual numbers. You’re quite right that the academy will have a cost, but so too will two women’s teams. Is funding being reduced elsewhere to accommodate that or are we actually funding the men’s game less?

We do t know and that’s not a great position

[Numbers]

Indeed, so we have to trust the WRU and its accounting and prioritisation. I think they need to share the actual numbers. You’re quite right that the academy will have a cost, but so too will two women’s teams. Is funding being reduced elsewhere to accommodate that or are we actually funding the men’s game less?

We do t know and that’s not a great position

There's SRC as well which is supposed to be receiving increased funding, it would be nice to see a breakdown of the numbers as you say.

[Son of Mathonwy]

You can download the consultation document here:

https://ymlaencymru.com/consultation/

I think the online fan survey will be interesting. Sadly I don’t sense fans coalescing around one idea but lots of noise around all four plus just returning to the old clubs and disbanding the regional game entirely.

Hilarious assessment in the document of fans' reactions to at 2+2 model versus the 'optimal' 2 club model:

2+2: Overall, less attractive to fans as a result of demotion of status of two clubs and likely lack change of performance success

2: Highly attractive to fans (depending on locations and brands) as a result of success, although frictional effect of loss of 2 elite clubs

It's like they have no understanding of how unwilling the fans were to shift allegiances 20 years ago. Half the fans will be lost, maybe a lot more if the new teams have no clear links with the current 4.

I will respond to this consultation (despite this reality-denial). It wouldn't be crazy to have an East and a West hub but within each there should be 1 elite and 1 dev club, sharing as much resources as possible.

The number of match day minutes available to each Welsh player* could easily be increased by reducing the number of non-Welsh qualified players. By their own figures the move from 4 down to 2 teams would reduce senior Welsh players from 164 to 90, which looks like a catastrophe to me.


* which they claim to maximize with the 2 team model, although if you sack nearly half of the senior Welsh players AND make optimistic assumptions about both teams getting to the semi-finals of the league and quarters of Europe every year (ie getting 4 extra knock-out stage matches) then that isn't hard to do.

[Sandydragon]

Indeed, so we have to trust the WRU and its accounting and prioritisation. I think they need to share the actual numbers. You’re quite right that the academy will have a cost, but so too will two women’s teams. Is funding being reduced elsewhere to accommodate that or are we actually funding the men’s game less?

We do t know and that’s not a great position

There's SRC as well which is supposed to be receiving increased funding, it would be nice to see a breakdown of the numbers as you say.

That’s something, but of course they have a glass ceiling which will continue to frustrate. What’s bugging me is the ability of other unions with similar income levels to field four teams (and yes I’m aware Ireland get tax breaks we don’t which would make a huge difference). But looking at Scotland investing additional income streams in not the pro game whilst we bought a hotel. Now we’re supposed to just buy the fact there is no money (despite posting a profit in their last accounts) and take a radical change that could decimate the pro game.

Have they genuinely tried to cut all non essential costs to boost pro rugby? Has the amateur game taken its own reduction? To fully get on board with this there needs to be transparency.

[Sandydragon]

Stef Thomas in the Fail is pushing for two of the existing regions to be retained ‘as is’ rather than create and east and west team.

Provided of course one of those is Cardiff.

[UKHamlet]

Stef Thomas in the Fail is pushing for two of the existing regions to be retained ‘as is’ rather than create and east and west team.

Provided of course one of those is Cardiff.

Despite my antipathy towards East/West as a solution, this is worse. Carving out the Dragons and either/or Ospreys/Scarlets fans will only serve to diminish a shrinking fanbase. We need to get imaginative. Maybe a Morganwg team combining everything from Cardiff to the River Loughor, and a Brechiniog team formed from an arc over the top of Morganwg, stretching from Gwent to Carmarthenshire. It has the merit of being different, anyway.

[Sandydragon]

Agreed. At least all existing regional fans will be in the same boat. If fans are spread around the region then there is the potential to attract more, especially if the rugby is attractive and successful, or at least competitive.

As experience has demonstrated, being tied to a recognisable entity just puts off a large swath of fans who will never bother.

[Tuco Ramirez]

Stef Thomas in the Fail is pushing for two of the existing regions to be retained ‘as is’ rather than create and east and west team.

Provided of course one of those is Cardiff.

Despite my antipathy towards East/West as a solution, this is worse. Carving out the Dragons and either/or Ospreys/Scarlets fans will only serve to diminish a shrinking fanbase. We need to get imaginative. Maybe a Morganwg team combining everything from Cardiff to the River Loughor, and a Brechiniog team formed from an arc over the top of Morganwg, stretching from Gwent to Carmarthenshire. It has the merit of being different, anyway.

agree 100%

[UKHamlet]

Yeah, but you just know we're going to get the Cardiff Dragons, and the Scospreys, or the Newport Blues and the Osclets.

[Sandydragon]

Yeah, but you just know we're going to get the Cardiff Dragons, and the Scospreys, or the Newport Blues and the Osclets.

If there’s a worse possible option, the WRU will take it.

There was an interesting piece in the Fail today about the potential reluctance of benefactors to invest in something they can’t control. Marketing a known team is one thing, but a new entity which they can’t control the playing side of is another matter.

If benefactors walk away, then it could force the issue. Maybe a couple of investors will be happy with being involved in one of the existing sides being one of the final two, or maybe the union will have to remain at four side.

What is still frustrating is the lack of clarity on the accounts. We apparently made a profit, yet will be investing over £20m less in the pro game over five years compared to the offer that was on the table. Where is the rest of the turnover going?

[Son of Mathonwy]

This is what I've submtted to the consultation:

My proposed system for Welsh rugby is a version of the consultation's "Model A", ie four professional clubs with unequal funding, and has the following key features:

• Two Hubs - East and West, each containing two professional men's teams - one with enhanced funding and a "development" team with significantly lower funding but better access to younger Welsh players, and one professional women's team - on significantly lower funding than the male counterpart.

• The men's teams should retain the identity of the existing regions.

• Via the New Funding approach, the WRU and private investors will operate each team (probably different for each team, although potentially a women's team could be operated with one of the men's teams).

• The women's teams would combine the existing regional identities for each hub (eg Scarlet Ospreys for the West and Blue Dragons for the East).

• All teams within each hub should share facilities as much as is possible.

• The development team would have first choice of under-23 players emerging from the Welsh system, and would likely have a significantly younger average age than the enhanced funding team. This would, to a limited extent, offset their funding disadvantage.

• Players would regularly be loaned between teams in the same hub and (to a lesser extent) between hubs for optimal use and development of their skills.


I broadly agree with the rest of the proposed key features in the consultation, namely:
• Aligned Rugby Systems & Leadership
• An Inspirational National Campus to Supercharge Collaboration & Alignment
• A New Approach to Funding
• Enhanced Pathways, Competitions, Academies and Coach Development


Crucially, by retaining four men's teams, Welsh rugby retains the potential to compete with our celtic rivals, Ireland. Adopting Model D would see us taking Scotland as our inspiration and forever limiting our ambitions.

The main arguments for my model are:
• Least impact on the fanbase (and hence commercial revenue).
• Best impact on development of Welsh players.
• Feasibility (reduced risk due to a more limited change than other models).


See below for more detail of these arguments, and criticism of the consultation's comparison of Models A and D:



• Impact on the fanbase (Model D would significantly damage commercial revenue)

The consultation assumes that the 2 team Model D would be "highly attractive" to fans, despite the loss of half of the elite clubs, ie despite half of the fans losing the team they are a passionate follower of, this would have a positive impact on their love of (and willingness to spend money on) the sport.

Our experience of the regionalisation process, two decades ago, shows us that this is hopelessly optimistic. It is more likely that half of the fans would see this as a betrayal and be lost to the sport, taking their cash out of the game entirely. This could be compounded if the two new elite teams do not inspire the existing regional fans. In this event it is possible that even more than 50% of the fans would drop support for the sport. Either way this would have a catastrophic effect on the finances of Welsh rugby.

In contrast, Model A, does at least allow Welsh rugby to retain the identities of the teams the fans are so passionate about. This is essential if the sport is to stand a chance of growing.



• Impact on player development (Model D has 28-37% lower total match minutes than Model A)

The consultation tries to show that the playing minutes available for Welsh talent is better under model D. However this rests on optimistic assumptions for the additional matches gained under Model D and pessimistically assumes that unequal funding will not result in any additional matches. The analysis also assumes the number of NWQPs per matchday squad would be slashed from 5 to 1 for Model D, whereas the dev clubs would almost certainly have a significantly lower number of NWQPs than is currently the case.

Taking the matches per season to be a more realistic 23 for Model A and 25 for Model D, and allowing a small reduction from 5 to 4 NWQPs under Model A, gives 1319 matchday minutes per WQP for Model A and 1294 for Model D, reversing the result of the analysis.

Additionally, the maximum matchday minutes available per player is easily increased if 74 out of 164 senior players (45%) are removed from the game, but that is a huge price to pay for it.

What is at least as important is the total matchday minutes available to Welsh players, which is reduced by 28% (1584 to 1144) under the consultation's optimistic figures, and 37% (1748 to 1100) under my assumptions (above). Reducing matchday minutes in this way directly and dramatically (ie by 28%-37%) reduces development time for Welsh players under Model D.

My suggested model would allow for significant development for top players in the enhanced funding teams, plus a steep learning curve for younger WQPs in the development teams. While retaining a significantly higher number of minutes of playing time available across all WQPs, this makes it the best option.



• Feasibility of change (Model A requires the least change)

The Consultation suggests that Model A and Model D are both of the same "moderate" level of feasibility due to "friction". This is highly unrealistic since Model D requires the most radical of changes of all the models considered. Model A requires the least change, hence is most feasible.

If Model A does not prove as successful as hoped, there is still the option of moving to another model by reducing the number of teams. Whereas if Model D is adopted and does not prove successful, it would be extremely difficult to resurrect teams and move to one of the other models. Therefore Model A is the least risky.

[Son of Mathonwy]

No need to write as much as I did , but I'd suggest that anyone who disagrees with the WRU's preferred cutting to 2 teams (Model D), submits something to that effect. if you want to keep 4 teams just say so, if you want 2+2 say Model A.

There are a few pages of questions (I didn't bother with the % funding page) and then the last page has one big text box for whatever you want to say.

https://ymlaencymru.com/consultation/

for the submission:
https://welshrugby.whatmatterstoyou.co.uk/

[Sandydragon]

No need to write as much as I did , but I'd suggest that anyone who disagrees with the WRU's preferred cutting to 2 teams (Model D), submits something to that effect. if you want to keep 4 teams just say so, if you want 2+2 say Model A.

There are a few pages of questions (I didn't bother with the % funding page) and then the last page has one big text box for whatever you want to say.

https://ymlaencymru.com/consultation/

for the submission:
https://welshrugby.whatmatterstoyou.co.uk/

Good response. I’m drafting something that’s pretty similar. We should avoid just moaning that it’s shit and give a response that’s constructive.

[Son of Mathonwy]

No need to write as much as I did , but I'd suggest that anyone who disagrees with the WRU's preferred cutting to 2 teams (Model D), submits something to that effect. if you want to keep 4 teams just say so, if you want 2+2 say Model A.

There are a few pages of questions (I didn't bother with the % funding page) and then the last page has one big text box for whatever you want to say.

https://ymlaencymru.com/consultation/

for the submission:
https://welshrugby.whatmatterstoyou.co.uk/

Good response. I’m drafting something that’s pretty similar. We should avoid just moaning that it’s shit and give a response that’s constructive.

Thanks. I couldn't resist a "hopelessly optimistic" but I agree, this should be as rational and constructive as possible. They need to understand the feelings here, the total lack of enthusiasm for supporting 2 brand new stitched-together teams, but the presentation should be constructive.