WRU confirm they want to reduce to two pro teams

[dullonien]

Well we are in the death throws, theres no expanding once we drop to 3, then 2, then 1, before we are fighting it out with theblikes of Germany in 6 nations 2.

The problem isnt teams, its in the ability to create revenue, and grow with the global game, reducing pro clubs doesnt solve the issue, it just delays the inevitable.

I think the only 2 options that have the tiniest opportunity of a future is to drop to a 12 team welsh league, who unify as 4 regions come european time, or negotiate the entry into the English system.

All 4 welsh teams into the English 2nd tier, with a proper promotion and relegation system to the prem of say 2 per season, and lets have it right out.

I just dont care about 90% of games in the URC, Irish, Scottish teams coming to olay have little travel support, and not particularly interesting, and italian and SA have nothing to offer as a spectacle. Irish and SA teams have the financial muscle to dominate for 50 years, with the odd freak season.

The fact is if we drop to 2 teas we will have to impliment a scottish strategy, ofnidentifying any Welsh qualified players overseas and bring them in en masse to see what makes it.

Its a sad time, we fave extinction

The Scottish teams are very strong, have been for years now. The fact that they have to bolster their sides with Scottish qualified players from elsewhere says everything about their development systems, and nothing to do with the fact they only have 2 sides. Although not as strong as we one were, there's still a more healthy rugby club structure in Wales than in Scotland. They don't particularly have a strong semi-pro level below Glasgow and Edinburgh, with their super xx comp now dead.

And yet, despite all this, both Edinburgh and Glasgow are stronger than ever, they haven't reduced down to 1, or fighting with the likes of Germany. No they've been giving our regions and national team regular spankings!

Also why is there no expanding once going down in numbers? North Wales is still an untapped region. I think there's still talent and appetite in the Valleys.

Anyway, unless something majical happens with the regions in the next year or two, then 3 will be the number, it's just a question of how.

 

[Rugbyfan564]

I wonder if the more working class nature of Welsh Rugby reduces how many diapers players it can produce compared t9 the more middle class Scottish rugby. Outside of Wales Rugby union is not working class many other places.

 

[mdaclarke]

I wonder if the more working class nature of Welsh Rugby reduces how many diapers players it can produce compared t9 the more middle class Scottish rugby. Outside of Wales Rugby union is not working class many other places.

Outside of Wales, NZ and South Africa, Rugby Union appears to be an Upper and Middle class game. Most Australian (the non PI poaches) and Argentinian players come from their private schools. A lot of Irish players seem to come from private schools as well.

 

[mdaclarke]

The Scottish teams are very strong, have been for years now. The fact that they have to bolster their sides with Scottish qualified players from elsewhere says everything about their development systems, and nothing to do with the fact they only have 2 sides. Although not as strong as we one were, there's still a more healthy rugby club structure in Wales than in Scotland. They don't particularly have a strong semi-pro level below Glasgow and Edinburgh, with their super xx comp now dead.

And yet, despite all this, both Edinburgh and Glasgow are stronger than ever, they haven't reduced down to 1, or fighting with the likes of Germany. No they've been giving our regions and national team regular spankings!

Also why is there no expanding once going down in numbers? North Wales is still an untapped region. I think there's still talent and appetite in the Valleys.

Anyway, unless something majical happens with the regions in the next year or two, then 3 will be the number, it's just a question of how.

I assume if enough grass roots fans and administrators are unhappy they could threaten to sack the board unless they reverse ferret.

I remember a similar thing happening with the proposed tackle height law in grass-roots English rugby, there was an almighty row and when the big-wigs realised that they could be voted out, they reversed ferreted.

 

[Welsh Exile]

The Scottish teams are very strong, have been for years now. The fact that they have to bolster their sides with Scottish qualified players from elsewhere says everything about their development systems, and nothing to do with the fact they only have 2 sides. Although not as strong as we one were, there's still a more healthy rugby club structure in Wales than in Scotland. They don't particularly have a strong semi-pro level below Glasgow and Edinburgh, with their super xx comp now dead.

And yet, despite all this, both Edinburgh and Glasgow are stronger than ever, they haven't reduced down to 1, or fighting with the likes of Germany. No they've been giving our regions and national team regular spankings!

Also why is there no expanding once going down in numbers? North Wales is still an untapped region. I think there's still talent and appetite in the Valleys.

Anyway, unless something majical happens with the regions in the next year or two, then 3 will be the number, it's just a question of how.

Are the Scottish sides that good, though? Sure I get the obvious answer for Glasgow winning and that but even they only got 4 more wins in the league than the Ospreys last season and only 2 more than the Scarlets. Edinburgh got one win less than the Scarelts and the same wins as Cardiff. (And 1 more than the Ospreys)

 

[saulan]

Are the Scottish sides that good, though? Sure I get the obvious answer for Glasgow winning and that but even they only got 4 more wins in the league than the Ospreys last season and only 2 more than the Scarlets. Edinburgh got one win less than the Scarelts and the same wins as Cardiff. (And 1 more than the Ospreys)

There's some cherry picking in how you're presenting those facts there to make the point that the Scottish teams aren't strong I think. I believe the better view would be take a look across the overall positions in the last 4 URC seasons.

Doing that, you see that Glasgow has been consistently a top 8 team, and in the last 3 seasons a top 4 team, including a league win. Edinburgh are more inconsistent, but still are usually in a similar league position to the top Welsh team, and one has to keep in mind that the Scottish-Italian mini-league is at a higher competitive level overall (Edinburgh has to deal with Glasgow twice and Benetton twice who are a comfortably mid-table team nowadays similar to Edinburgh… sure they have Zebre, but the Welsh have the Dragons).

Even just looking at the Welsh best year of 24/25 - the Scottish teams look stronger… and as a Stormers supporter I would love it if we could stop meeting up with Glasgow in the quarter finals.

[TABLE width="100%"]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Team[/td][td width="20.0000%"]21/22[/td][td width="20.0000%"]22/23[/td][td width="20.0000%"]23/24[/td][td width="20.0000%"]24/25[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Edinburgh[/td][td width="20.0000%"]7th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]12th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]10th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]7th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Glasgow[/td][td width="20.0000%"]8th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]4th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]4th CH[/td][td width="20.0000%"]4th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Cardiff[/td][td width="20.0000%"]14th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]10th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]12th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]9th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Dragons[/td][td width="20.0000%"]15th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]15th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]15th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]16th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Ospreys[/td][td width="20.0000%"]9th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]13th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]8th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]12th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Scarlets[/td][td width="20.0000%"]10th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]14th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]13th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]8th[/td]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Edit: I added in a table on the mobile version and when I’ve posted it, it’s come out with horrendous formatting- main takeaway is Glasgow is around 4th most years, Edinburgh 7-12th, and the Welsh teams are consistently bottom half in comparison (with Dragons a perennial wooden spoon contender)

 

[Welsh Exile]

There's some cherry picking in how you're presenting those facts there to make the point that the Scottish teams aren't strong I think. I believe the better view would be take a look across the overall positions in the last 4 URC seasons.

Doing that, you see that Glasgow has been consistently a top 8 team, and in the last 3 seasons a top 4 team, including a league win. Edinburgh are more inconsistent, but still are usually in a similar league position to the top Welsh team, and one has to keep in mind that the Scottish-Italian mini-league is at a higher competitive level overall (Edinburgh has to deal with Glasgow twice and Benetton twice who are a comfortably mid-table team nowadays similar to Edinburgh… sure they have Zebre, but the Welsh have the Dragons).

Even just looking at the Welsh best year of 24/25 - the Scottish teams look stronger… and as a Stormers supporter I would love it if we could stop meeting up with Glasgow in the quarter finals.

[TABLE width="100%"]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Team[/td][td width="20.0000%"]21/22[/td][td width="20.0000%"]22/23[/td][td width="20.0000%"]23/24[/td][td width="20.0000%"]24/25[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Edinburgh[/td][td width="20.0000%"]7th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]12th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]10th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]7th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Glasgow[/td][td width="20.0000%"]8th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]4th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]4th CH[/td][td width="20.0000%"]4th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Cardiff[/td][td width="20.0000%"]14th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]10th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]12th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]9th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Dragons[/td][td width="20.0000%"]15th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]15th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]15th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]16th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Ospreys[/td][td width="20.0000%"]9th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]13th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]8th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]12th[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td width="20.0000%"]Scarlets[/td][td width="20.0000%"]10th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]14th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]13th[/td][td width="20.0000%"]8th[/td]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Edit: I added in a table on the mobile version and when I've posted it, it's come out with horrendous formatting- main takeaway is Glasgow is around 4th most years, Edinburgh 7-12th, and the Welsh teams are consistently bottom half in comparison (with Dragons a perennial wooden spoon contender)

Yeah that’s fair. I’m not saying they’re bad just that they’re nothing that great either (especially Edinburgh)

To be honest, if Wales went down to 2 regions, I’d expect a very similar output, a slight improvement but I don’t think either region would be pulling up any trees either.

 

[mdaclarke]

I feel that one of the Men's teams is being sacrificed to pay for Women's Rugby, "investing" in women's rugby is just throwing vast amount of good money after bad. Men's Rugby doesn't have enough money to subsidise the women's game. it's not awash with money like football. This is just unsustainable.

Before responding, Listen to this eggchasers podcast from about 1h36m, where an accountant looks through Leicester Tigers accounts, their women's team made a total of £18,000 (eighteen thousand pounds) in revenue over the entire season. The eggchasers and their accountant were amazed and the men's game was just throwing money away by "investing" in the women's game.

Also interesting that Brive (a Pro D2 club) have a far bigger revenue than Leicester Tigers.

 

[Which Tyler]

How much do the WRU spend on the women's game?
How much difference would that make to a men's team?


Genuine questions btw.
From an English perspective, the salary cap for a women's team is less than 5% the salary cap for a women's team.
An entire squad of women players cost about the same as 1 fairly average international quality man.

In Gloucester, Tom's Williams costs significantly more than the entirety of Gloucester-Hartpury (champions for the last 3 years).


ETA: The RFU spend £15M on the entirety of the women's game last year, covering grassroots right up to hosting and winning the RWC.
That's about the same as it took to run Gloucester Rugby in 2023/4, with only Newcastle and Sale operating on less (and Bristol, but there's accounting shenanigans going on there due to multiple sports coming under 1 umbrella)

 

[mdaclarke]

How much is being spent on the women's game?
How much difference would that make to a men's team?


Genuine questions btw.
From an English perspective, the salary cap for a women's team is less than 5% the salary cap for a women's team.
An entire squad of women players cost about the same as 1 fairly average international quality man.

In Gloucester, Tom's Williams costs significantly more than the entirety of Gloucester-Hartpury (champions for the last 3 years)

Listen to the podcast from 1hr 36 mins onwards, explains it far better than I could. For some reason the link didn't work when I first put it up.

 

[Which Tyler]

The men's game throws money away by investing in the men's game, where there's very little future growth opportunity.

Leicester Tigers men's lost £3.6M in 2023/4
How much did their women lose?

Crowds in PWR were up approximately 200% this week compared to last year, and the women's RWC just made a profit for the first time.

 

[mdaclarke]

How much do the WRU spend on the women's game?
How much difference would that make to a men's team?


Genuine questions btw.
From an English perspective, the salary cap for a women's team is less than 5% the salary cap for a women's team.
An entire squad of women players cost about the same as 1 fairly average international quality man.

In Gloucester, Tom's Williams costs significantly more than the entirety of Gloucester-Hartpury (champions for the last 3 years).


ETA: The RFU spend £15M on the entirety of the women's game last year, covering grassroots right up to hosting and winning the RWC.
That's about the same as it took to run Gloucester Rugby in 2023/4, with only Newcastle and Sale operating on less (and Bristol, but there's accounting shenanigans going on there due to multiple sports coming under 1 umbrella)

It may sound like smalls amounts but Men's Rugby doesn't have the spare money.

With Leicester they were stating it costs a minimum of £50,000 to open Welford Road for each game. The women bring in about £1,800 per game in revenue, ticket sales, concessions etc. That is a £48,000 loss per game, and that's just to run the stadium and before you add in other costs such as player salaries, coaching costs etc.

From a business point of view it's just crazy. It's not an investment.

 

[mdaclarke]

The men's game throws money away by investing in the men's game, where there's very little future growth opportunity.

Leicester Tigers men's lost £3.6M in 2023/4
How much did their women lose?

Crowds in PWR were up approximately 200% this week compared to last year, and the women's RWC just made a profit for the first time.

So £36,000 over a season compared to £18,000 a season when it costs £50,000 to open up the stadium for one game.

The eggchasers were supportive of women's rugby and wanted it to succeed, but said that men's rugby is already losing money and doesn't have the money to subsidise women's rugby.

If we could keep a 4th URC franchise then I would cut off the taps to women's rugby.

 

[Which Tyler]

Just trying to listen to that podcast. So far:
They don't know what team they're talking about.
They don't know how many matches are played.
They do specify that crowds were "modest" (compared to expectations?)
And then they don't know what that means
They're confusing "lost revenue" with "cost of hosting"
They don't know the difference between profit and turnover


Anyway, back to my questions.
How much do the WRU spend on the women's game?
How much difference would that make to a men's team?

I'll add in
Why are you so happy to cut off the only current area of growth in the game?
Which is worse PR? Losing 1 URC club? Losing all women's rugby?
Does the WRU have a statutory responsibility to the URC "regions" or the whole of rugby in Wales?

 

[mdaclarke]

I respect the eggchasers and their expert was a qualified accountant. The podcast was clear. If you don't like the conclusion that men's rugby can't afford to subsidise women's rugby then, that's ok.

Women's rugby is great, no-one is saying it isn't, especially at grass-roots level, but if it can't afford to be professional then then men's professional game doesn't have enough money to subsidise them.

I want us to keep a 4th URC franchise and I do worry that the WRU is throwing good money after bad with Women's Rugby, and if that is the price to pay to keep a 4th URC franchise then so be it.

It's cool if you disagree. People are entitled to differing opinions.

 

[Which Tyler]

Of course people are allowed to disagree.

A qualified accountant looking at incomplete figures and getting confused as to terms, whilst applying sheer guesswork that's easily disproven... isn't convincing me of much.
Men's rugby still doesn't seem to have enough money to subsidise itself btw.
And you've yet to answer a single one of my questions.

A] How much do the WRU spend on the women's game?
B] How much difference would that make to a men's team?
Supplementary:
C] Why are you so happy to cut off the only current area of growth in the game?
D] Which is worse PR? Losing 1 URC club? Losing all women's rugby?
E] Does the WRU have a statutory responsibility to the URC "regions" or the whole of rugby in Wales?


Ultimately, I suspect that you're drawing a false equivalence, whilst also cutting your nose off to spite your face.
I doubt that the (extra) money WRU are investing in the women's game is the difference between can or cannot maintain a 4th region. I've given the best figures I can to illustrate the former.
The fact that women's rugby is (the only) growth area in the sport (for tier 1 nations) illustrates the latter.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree, but I'd still like an answer to my questions, if you can provide any. Otherwise, your argument is as convincing as Andy from Little Britain "want that one"

 

[mdaclarke]

It's not a court of law. Look up the answers yourself.

Although I note you say the following "Men's rugby still doesn't seem to have enough money to subsidise itself btw.", in which case, in my opinion, it doesn't have the money to subside women's rugby on top. However if women's rugby can pay its way or get close to it, then I would happily change my mind.

I will state that, for me, keeping the URC club is the most important thing.

Women's rugby is great, no-one is saying it isn't, especially at grass-roots level, but if it can't afford to be professional then then men's professional game doesn't have enough money to subsidise them.

 

[Which Tyler]

Okay, so that's a " no" then.

That's always good for a healthy discussion.

 

[Vaquer]

Outside of Wales, NZ and South Africa, Rugby Union appears to be an Upper and Middle class game. Most Australian (the non PI poaches) and Argentinian players come from their private schools. A lot of Irish players seem to come from private schools as well.

I'd say even among the well off rugby union is niche in Australia. Most of the general public wouldn't have recognised visiting Lions players passing them in the street. Long way behind Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket in popularity.