Aristotle Armstrong

Aristotle Armstrong
The thrawn, alternative voice of Scottish Rugby

Friday, 9 March 2018

Sorry (Not) Rob, But We'd Like To Continue Being Trouble-Makers

SRU President Rob Flockhart's “half a dozen trouble-makers” were making trouble yesterday. At least that is my take on the btl comments which followed my somewhat depressing conclusion, yesterday, that the battle to prevent Super 6 might be lost.

Rob Flockhart -We're going to keep on causing you trouble

Of course, I cling to the hope I am wrong. Perhaps, confident, once they actually get more than six applications, that they hold the whip hand, the SRU will play hard ball during the complex negotiation period between applications closing on 31 March and the announcement of the six “lucky” clubs on 1 May, refuse to budge from their stated position, and find the six clubs all say: “Nah, yer deal's shite Mark, we're walking away.

At this point, I would like to throw-in a curve ball. Courtesy of a friend in Wales, I am in possession of some information regarding how they are moving in Wales, where they are also looking at their Premiership and its relationship with their four PRO14 clubs – Cardiff Blues, the Dragons, the Ospreys and Scarlets.

Like their compatriots at Murrayfield, the WRU suits inside the Principality Stadium are seeking change. There is a proposal to reduce the current 16 clubs in the Welsh Premiership (known in Wales as Tier 4), to 12-clubs. A new Regional Under-23 competition will be introduced next season. This in many ways equates to Super 6, and, crucially perhaps around Super 6, these new Under-23 teams will be involved in cross-border games.

The Welsh Premiership has many similarities with the Premiership up here, to quote from an official Welsh RU document doing the rounds:

“.....the regional representatives (endorsed from my discussions with the Cardiff Blues) and those who have worked within the development pathway and seen players progress from age grade to full internationals first hand, firmly see the value and need for some form of alignment, formal relationship and continuity with Tier 4. Although the proposed model does not support this, in my view, this is a major risk.

“This seemingly small point around alignment has, when properly applied, underpinned the development pathway in the last 15 years, coinciding with Wales most successful period on the international stage.

“The debate around the role of the Premiership has been ever present since its inception and it still feels unclear in the proposed new model, which seems to contradict itself firstly by positioning Tier 4 as a club competition focused on finding the best club team in Wales – but also needing to provide some alignment with the Regions for development purposes.
“The proposed model in my view will not be able to provide any effective alignment and as I indicated this is a risk within the proposal.”
From a Scottish perspective, the devil in the detail is that third paragraph, which I have underlined. We have the same contradiction up here – our Premiership is also: a club competition focused on finding the best club team in Scotland – but, it is also needing to provide some alignment with the two PRO14 teams for development purposes.

Of course, as far as I am aware no WRU “suit” has ever decried the Welsh Premiership as “not fit for purpose.”

There is a major difference in approach between that of the SRU and that of the WRU. Whereas Mr Dodson sprung Super 6 on the assembly, towards the end of the AGM, back in August, and has never since then deviated from his stance: “Super 6 will happen, even if we have to set up the six franchises to make it happen,” the WRU have set-up a steering group, they have involved the Premiership clubs and have consulted and informed at every stage.

There is another point in the WRU planning, which might be worth considering up here. When the new 12-club Welsh Premiership starts in season 2019-2020, the WRU will be providing enhanced funding for the clubs in their Championship – the Welsh equivalent of our National League 1 – to ensure the Championship clubs are able to compete with the four relegated Premiership clubs, and to soften the relegation blow for the four clubs displaced by the new set-up.

Just out of interest, I looked at the Principality Welsh Premiership web site – yes, that one division has its own site – and, if four clubs were to be relegated today, the four who would go down would be: Bargoed, Llanelli, Bridgend and Neath, one or two big names in there and no mistake.

In passing, I ought to mention, the WRU are suggesting a 25% reduction in the size of their top club league, the SRU are suggesting a 40% reduction in the size of their top club league, which does seem a bit extreme.

To summarise:

Wales

  • 25% reduction in the number of teams in their top club competition
  • financial compensation for the relegated clubs and added funding for the Championship clubs
  • a new Regional Under-23 competition, funded and run by the WRU and the Regions.
  • Clubs consulted at every stage

Scotland

  • 40% reduction in the number of teams in the top club competition
  • no financial compensation for the relegated clubs
  • a new six-clubs franchised competition, which these six clubs have to pay to participate in
  • No consultation with clubs prior to the franchise agreement meetings with the six franchised clubs, the rest being told: “this will happen.”

I wonder, does somebody inside Murrayfield think our heads zip up the back, that they can push through these huge changes and not suffer some sort of back-lash.

Are we going to allow these changes without consultation, or impact assessments?

Because, mark my words, if they can pull-off Super 6, just wait until the Murrayfield Ayatollahs start on the rest of the clubs. If they can, I say again: We are all doomed.






4 comments:

  1. There's no need for compensation in the Scottish game, as strict amateurism means Clubs will be saving money anyway.

    I suppose they can spend these savings on building better facilities, but just don't expect any help with this from Murrayfield, as "Super 6 franchise grounds will take priority for the financial support aimed at developing club facilities"

    Ah but don't worry, Super6 doesn't affect the rest of the Club game.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very interesting contrast between Wales and Scotland Unions. Thanks for sharing.

    We should also factor in the commentary from the Scotsman article on this. Guy who had experience of Sportscotland and was pretty adamant that funding for 3G pitches would at best be difficult and more likely was impossible

    The deterioration of rugby in scotland is something to behold. I’m sure it was Peter Wright who observed that we have the highest number of DOs and MAs supporting youth rugby. But the lowest number of teams playing (I accept its ticked up from the last couple of years).

    Pegj has made some very pointed comments over the last few days. How does Agenda 3 and super 6 get more volunteers into the game?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not sure that murrayfield can afford to support even the super six clubs to achieve synthetic surfaces. From my experience they have never made any inroads into the construction of synthetic rugby pitches for playing rugby almost every project they have been involved in has resulted in football gaining more pitches. Howe of Fife is a perfect example of this where the Union put in Hundreds of thousands of pounds and the synthetic pitch is suitable only for training!!! There are many other similar examples if you go looking. Their track record is dire.The Do and MA situation is indeed very worrying although many of these people are very competent there are many more who are not and without more investment in Club Youth rugby I fear the worst.

    As for the difference between the Welsh and Scottish approach to developing a different set up beneath pro rugby. With the obvious differences like lack of Consultation or any empathy for the Club game. I can still only assume that stupid six and agenda 3 are about control of players and their contracts either that or the Council and Board were possibly affected by some kind of nerve agent similar to that in Salisbury recently rendering them incompetent and unable to reach any reasonable decisions with regard to the game of rugby !!!?

    ReplyDelete
  4. DGO - Reviewing the funding awards from the past few years, you're probably right about the SRU not affording to support pitch developments.

    Majority of "SRU money" is actually via Cashback, so Government funding.

    A couple of recent projects (Clydebank and Waid Academy) have had £40k SRU funding, but that looks like it when it comes to SRU money.

    The cashback awards which involve rugby clubs do seem to be heavily weighted to football and local authority pitches.

    Will now match up the funding spreadsheet with the SRU list of signed off 3Gs.

    ReplyDelete