PRO12 has new Managing Director and he isn't Irish :D :yahoo:

First topic message reminder :

Welcome Martin Anayi, you are going to have your hands full.

Read more at http://www.pro12rugby.com/news/17587.php#kJPQdWr0F2UKZ8DF.99

Sin é wrote:

Following that line of logic - all the players are on the same payroll - how come the inter pros are competitive?
The Disciplinary Officer of the League is Welsh by the way - he was the one that fined Pat Lam 6,000 for saying Leighton Hodges is a shambolic and biased ref. I presume that money found its way into the back pockets of the regions  

You're not very bright with what you write on line, are you? Claims of bribery and now corruption.

I'm sure the 'inter pros' are competitive as the players want a pay rise. That's a world away from the obvious issue of employing all of the referees and all of the players on the same pay roll.

LordDowlais wrote:So the Provinces decide when the players play then ? Not the IRFU ?

Yes. There is a limit to the number of games they play, its up to the Provinces when they play them.

(i.e., Paul O'Connell might have been limited to 16 regular games in a season - playoffs would be additional games allowed).

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Following that line of logic - all the players are on the same payroll - how come the inter pros are competitive?
The Disciplinary Officer of the League is Welsh by the way - he was the one that fined Pat Lam 6,000 for saying Leighton Hodges is a shambolic and biased ref. I presume that money found its way into the back pockets of the regions  

You're not very bright with what you write on line, are you? Claims of bribery and now corruption.

I'm sure the 'inter pros' are competitive as the players want a pay rise. That's a world away from the obvious issue of employing all of the referees and all of the players on the same pay roll.

Do you really have to insult me every time you respond to one of my posts or is that your only argument - insults?

Not all the referees are employees of the IRFU (I think John Lacey might be the only one - and his main job is as a Development Officer for Munster Rugby). George Clancy is a Revenue Official. Alain Rolland was some sort of an investment consultant. I know one of the Ulster refs is the CEO of a large company. I'd imagine Clancy being a Revenue Commissioner wouldn't be big into bribery and corruption anyway!

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

You haven't shown me the minutes of the PRGB. You have just said 'someone said something' basically. These aren't hard facts. Give me a link which backs up your claims. If these links support your claims with real evidence, I will accept. Simples.

I've quoted you the minutes as they were presented to the Welsh Assembly Government. You dismissed them without acknowledgement to the source, or even a question to provide the source.

Here's a background piece: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/26393735

I'll see if I can dig out the actual information from the Welsh Government for you.

Thanks, Phil. I had read that article at the time, and think now as I did then. It's saying a lot without actually saying much. It's one side putting their particular spin on events. Something that both sides engaged in, but more so the RRW at the time.
As I said earlier, the two sides were at an impasse. I don't doubt it's true that WRU wanted control, as below:

"It appears to the regions that the WRU seeks to control all the key activities of the regions, such as TV contracts, leagues, match timings and even, under the latest proposals, appointments of coaching and ancillary staff, without being prepared to share any level of commercial risk."

'appears' is one of those key words I always look for for in statements such as this. Why not just say that the WRU wants control of....? Could it be that it wasn't completely true? In any negotiations both sides are going to aim high, with the intention of compromise and a signed agreement, but WRU were going to want something for their money, and I believe they got it.

And this:

"The implication of such an intransigent stance is to further risk tens of millions of pounds of sponsor and benefactor support to the professional game in Wales."

That intransigence was evident on both sides. The Regions used the timing of the Euro war in an attempt at adding leverage to their negotiations. It could also be said that the WRU did the same with the Regions, with regards the start of the new PRO12 season, although the Regions were the ones threatening to pull out.

Munchkin wrote:"The implication of such an intransigent stance is to further risk tens of millions of pounds of sponsor and benefactor support to the professional game in Wales."

That intransigence was evident on both sides. The Regions used the timing of the Euro war in an attempt at adding leverage to their negotiations. It could also be said that the WRU did the same with the Regions, with regards the start of the new PRO12 season, although the Regions were the ones threatening to pull out.

Well that seems to be one source of the idea that the Welsh infighting was damaging sponsor and benefactor support to the professional game in Wales and by association the Pro12.

PhilBB wrote:munchkin:

http://www.senedd.assembly.wales/documents/s25544/Response%20from%20Regional%20Rugby%20Wales%20-%2025%20February%202014.pdf

Thanks again, Phil.

It's a long document, and will read the rest later. This bit I have read before:



The following fundamental elements of the Regions' businesses remain unconfirmed, even as at today;

* The existence and structure of any European Competition for the Period 14/15 to 18/19

* The income and distribution from any such competition over that period.

* The number of teams participating in the Pro12 league over the period 14/15 to 18/19

* The income and distribution from the Pro12 league over that period, or even the confirmation of a main sponsor.


It struck me at the time that the RRW were complaining about something that they were at fault for, along with WRU. I feel the same now.
The prolonged Euro war meant all were uncertain as to the future of any European competition, and confirmation would have been impossible. RRW played there part in that, and then had the brass neck to complain about it, as if it's the fault of WRU, and how on earth can the income and distribution be confirmed for a competition that didn't yet exist?

The number of teams participating in the PRO12? RRW were the ones threatening to leave, and in doing so were also putting at risk potential sponsorship and broadcasting deals.

Confirmation of a main sponsor? That one is laughable. It was the fight between WRU and the Regions that were putting that at risk, as above. Thankfully, for all involved, a sponsor with strong Irish links came through - Guinness.

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:So the Provinces decide when the players play then ? Not the IRFU ?

Yes. There is a limit to the number of games they play, its up to the Provinces when they play them.

(i.e., Paul O'Connell might have been limited to 16 regular games in a season - playoffs would be additional games allowed).

Except I've found at least two occasions, in this thread, where that hasn't happened.

Sin é wrote:

Do you really have to insult me every time you respond to one of my posts or is that your only argument  - insults?

Not all the referees are employees of the IRFU (I think John Lacey might be the only one - and his main job is as a Development Officer for Munster Rugby). George Clancy is a Revenue Official. Alain Rolland was some sort of an investment consultant. I know one of the Ulster refs is the CEO of a large company. I'd imagine Clancy being a Revenue Commissioner wouldn't be big into bribery and corruption anyway!

My 'argument' is doing a pretty good job of disproving and unpicking most of what you write. There has been no insult other than to point out that claims of corruption and bribery will no doubt land you in hot water.

Munster Rugby is a subsidiary of the IRFU. They are all paid by the IRFU to be referees. They are all on the pay roll.

Munchkin wrote:
Thanks, Phil. I had read that article at the time, and think now as I did then. It's saying a lot without actually saying much. It's one side putting their particular spin on events. Something that both sides engaged in, but more so the RRW at the time.
As I said earlier, the two sides were at an impasse. I don't doubt it's true that WRU wanted control, as below:

"It appears to the regions that the WRU seeks to control all the key activities of the regions, such as TV contracts, leagues, match timings and even, under the latest proposals, appointments of coaching and ancillary staff, without being prepared to share any level of commercial risk."

'appears' is one of those key words I always look for for in statements such as this. Why not just say that the WRU wants control of....? Could it be that it wasn't completely true? In any negotiations both sides are going to aim high, with the intention of compromise and a signed agreement, but WRU were going to want something for their money, and I believe they got it.

And this:

"The implication of such an intransigent stance is to further risk tens of millions of pounds of sponsor and benefactor support to the professional game in Wales."

That intransigence was evident on both sides. The Regions used the timing of the Euro war in an attempt at adding leverage to their negotiations. It could also be said that the WRU did the same with the Regions, with regards the start of the new PRO12 season, although the Regions were the ones threatening to pull out.

If you've read the link I put up that was the letter to the Senedd then you'll know that interpretation is wholly incorrect.

WRU were signatories to the old ERC weren't they, not the regions?

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:munchkin:

http://www.senedd.assembly.wales/documents/s25544/Response%20from%20Regional%20Rugby%20Wales%20-%2025%20February%202014.pdf

Thanks again, Phil.

It's a long document, and will read the rest later. This bit I have read before:



The following fundamental elements of the Regions' businesses remain unconfirmed, even as at today;

* The existence and structure of any European Competition for the Period 14/15 to 18/19

* The income and distribution from any such competition over that period.

* The number of teams participating in the Pro12 league over the period 14/15 to 18/19

* The income and distribution from the Pro12 league over that period, or even the confirmation of a main sponsor.


It struck me at the time that the RRW were complaining about something that they were at fault for, along with WRU. I feel the same now.
The prolonged Euro war meant all were uncertain as to the future of any European competition, and confirmation would have been impossible. RRW played there part in that, and then had the brass neck to complain about it, as if it's the fault of WRU, and how on earth can the income and distribution be confirmed for a competition that didn't yet exist?

The number of teams participating in the PRO12? RRW were the ones threatening to leave, and in doing so were also putting at risk potential sponsorship and broadcasting deals.

Confirmation of a main sponsor? That one is laughable. It was the fight between WRU and the Regions that were putting that at risk, as above. Thankfully, for all involved, a sponsor with strong Irish links came through - Guinness.

The Euro war was solely caused by the ERC refusing to think that the English and French would jump ship. Those two then gave their notice, meaning that the ERC was over. RRW played no part in that.

You've also completely missed the point with regards to that text: it was written to prove that Lewis' insistence on signing to extend the agreement was unreasonable. In fact, it was reckless. It was the ploy to start negotiations for a new agreement.

The number of teams participating in the Pr'O12 was also a reference to the Italian involvement.

So, as I expected, all in all you've completely misinterpreted the events. I don't blame you for it, of course, because that's what is always going to happen when you follow it through the media that Lewis controlled - the Western Mail and BBC Wales.

Stone Motif wrote:WRU were signatories to the old ERC weren't they, not the regions?

Yes.

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Why should it not happen?

Because you have teams and referees on the same payroll it is potential bias and a conflict of interests.

Judging by the article:

http://rugbyreferee.net/2015/06/05/wru-referees-evans-and-whitehouse-turn-professional/ wrote:Evans, 23, who hails from Glyneath and Whitehouse, 24, from Gowerton join Nigel Owens on the Union’s panel of full-time referees.

The two youngsters, who will work closely with the four Welsh Regions and all the national squads, are already familiar with the demands of top class rugby having come through the very successful WRU referees academy system and were identified very early as referees with huge potential.

- it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.
Why do guys like this who train with the regions have any less potential for bias or conflict of interests?
Personally I'd be happier with more professional referees rather than less irrespective of country of origin as they will be subject to far more scrutiny than someone with no affiliations, and with the appointment of Ed Morrison I expect full scrutiny and accountability anyway.

PhilBB wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:WRU were signatories to the old ERC weren't they, not the regions?

Yes.

That's what I thought.  Munchkin talking bO'llocks again then

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:So the Provinces decide when the players play then ? Not the IRFU ?

Yes. There is a limit to the number of games they play, its up to the Provinces when they play them.

(i.e., Paul O'Connell might have been limited to 16 regular games in a season - playoffs would be additional games allowed).

Except I've found at least two occasions, in this thread, where that hasn't happened.

And where exactly did you find that?

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:So the Provinces decide when the players play then ? Not the IRFU ?

Yes. There is a limit to the number of games they play, its up to the Provinces when they play them.

(i.e., Paul O'Connell might have been limited to 16 regular games in a season - playoffs would be additional games allowed).

Except I've found at least two occasions, in this thread, where that hasn't happened.

Bully for you. 2 occasions.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Do you really have to insult me every time you respond to one of my posts or is that your only argument  - insults?

Not all the referees are employees of the IRFU (I think John Lacey might be the only one - and his main job is as a Development Officer for Munster Rugby). George Clancy is a Revenue Official. Alain Rolland was some sort of an investment consultant. I know one of the Ulster refs is the CEO of a large company. I'd imagine Clancy being a Revenue Commissioner wouldn't be big into bribery and corruption anyway!

My 'argument' is doing a pretty good job of disproving and unpicking most of what you write. There has been no insult other than to point out that claims of corruption and bribery will no doubt land you in hot water.

Munster Rugby is a subsidiary of the IRFU. They are all paid by the IRFU to be referees. They are all on the pay roll.

I'll decide if I find your comments to me insulting. And I do. Your arguments should be able to stand on their own.

Do you have a problem now that Sam Warburton, AW and the rest of those Welsh internationals now have the same employer, the WRU? How do you ensure the integrity of international referees - for example in the draw for the world cup, it might have been in the interests of an SA referee to make sure that Wales lost to Australia.

I do appreciate that the Regions are likely to try anything to succeed (for example, the shameful lies told by Shane Williams which could have destroyed Marcus's Horan reputation and career except that SW was caught out. I wonder was he forced to lie by his employer?).

I know that Munster Rugby is a branch of the IRFU.

Blimey.

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them ?

The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them ?

The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

No Wales through their dual contracts and ownership of the Dragons do too but you can ignore that

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them ?

The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

No Wales through their dual contracts and ownership of the Dragons do too but you can ignore that

And NZ, SA & Aus as well
Its England and France that are out of sync with everyone else.

As for payment of referees - LD - do you seriously think that the WRU would pay Nigel Owens to ref a Heineken Cup final between Clermont & Toulon in Twickenham?

Stone Motif wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:WRU were signatories to the old ERC weren't they, not the regions?

Yes.

That's what I thought.  Munchkin talking bO'llocks again then

You're not the sharpest tool in the box, Stone.

First, I didn't say the WRU were not signatories of the old ERC. Second, being signatories has zip to do with the points I made. I know it might be a struggle for you to actually think through the points made, but do get your guardian to help with the tricky bits. That way you might avoid looking like a muppet when replying.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them ?

The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

What a load of rubbish.

Munchkin wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:WRU were signatories to the old ERC weren't they, not the regions?

Yes.

That's what I thought.  Munchkin talking bO'llocks again then

You're not the sharpest tool in the box, Stone.

First, I didn't say the WRU were not signatories of the old ERC. Second, being signatories has zip to do with the points I made. I know it might be a struggle for you to actually think through the points made, but do get your guardian to help with the tricky bits. That way you might avoid looking like a muppet when replying.

Have done. What you said is still bO'llocks.

Better to be a blunt tool instead of just a tool as you have shown yourself up to be, yet again.

Stone Motif wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Stone Motif wrote:WRU were signatories to the old ERC weren't they, not the regions?

Yes.

That's what I thought.  Munchkin talking bO'llocks again then

You're not the sharpest tool in the box, Stone.

First, I didn't say the WRU were not signatories of the old ERC. Second, being signatories has zip to do with the points I made. I know it might be a struggle for you to actually think through the points made, but do get your guardian to help with the tricky bits. That way you might avoid looking like a muppet when replying.

Have done. What you said is still bO'llocks.

Better to be a blunt tool instead of just a tool as you have shown yourself up to be, yet again.

You obviously haven't, Stone, or if you have, as you admit, you really are a bit dense.

Ok, just for fun. Point out where I have stated that the WRU were not signatories. Point our where that would be relevant to the points I made.

Looking forward to your reply, Stone. I like a bit of comedy  

Well clO'wnshoes, you claimed the issues raised by the Welsh pro teams around competition uncertainty were as much down to them as the WRU,when at the time ththey had no seat at the negotiations. As pointed out above these negotiations were in the hands of Ireland favourite adopted son, who categorically stated if the region's didn't play ball they'd be gone. Not 'appear' to be shut down, but properly shut down.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them ?

The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

No Wales through their dual contracts and ownership of the Dragons do too but you can ignore that

That is not really true. The WRU do not give any money to the Dragons, other than the money they are entitled to (like the other regions) for completing their contractual duties as part of the RSA. As for Dual Contracts, the players have not been paid by the union when playing in competitive matches yet (it starts the first game of the season) so it is probably back end of October before a NDC player will be playing for a region whilst getting paid (partially) via the union.

But as you say you can just ignore that.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them ?

The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

No Wales through their dual contracts and ownership of the Dragons do too but you can ignore that

That is not really true.  The WRU do not give any money to the Dragons, other than the money they are entitled to (like the other regions) for completing their contractual duties as part of the RSA.  As for Dual Contracts, the players have not been paid by the union when playing in competitive matches yet (it starts the first game of the season) so it is probably back end of October before a NDC player will be playing for a region whilst getting paid (partially) via the union.

But as you say you can just ignore that.

The IRFU also don't give the provinces anything more than they are entitled to but ultimately they own the provinces like the WRU own 50% of the Dragons

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them ?

The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

No Wales through their dual contracts and ownership of the Dragons do too but you can ignore that

That is not really true.  The WRU do not give any money to the Dragons, other than the money they are entitled to (like the other regions) for completing their contractual duties as part of the RSA.  As for Dual Contracts, the players have not been paid by the union when playing in competitive matches yet (it starts the first game of the season) so it is probably back end of October before a NDC player will be playing for a region whilst getting paid (partially) via the union.

But as you say you can just ignore that.

The IRFU also don't give the provinces anything more than they are entitled to but ultimately they own the provinces like the WRU own 50% of the Dragons

Difference being the number of referees employed by Rodney Parade Ltd, who solely hold all the staff contracts, is zero

Stone Motif wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them ?

The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

No Wales through their dual contracts and ownership of the Dragons do too but you can ignore that

That is not really true.  The WRU do not give any money to the Dragons, other than the money they are entitled to (like the other regions) for completing their contractual duties as part of the RSA.  As for Dual Contracts, the players have not been paid by the union when playing in competitive matches yet (it starts the first game of the season) so it is probably back end of October before a NDC player will be playing for a region whilst getting paid (partially) via the union.

But as you say you can just ignore that.

The IRFU also don't give the provinces anything more than they are entitled to but ultimately they own the provinces like the WRU own 50% of the Dragons

Difference being the number of referees employed by Rodney Parade Ltd, who solely hold all the staff contracts, is zero

And how many are employed by any of the 4 provinces?

It's what I have always said. If Pro rugby in wales is to remain in a benefactor state then they should be free to call whatever shots they like. Or option 2 is for the WRU to run the pro game and own the pro teams (same as Ireland).

That said right now we are in some kind of halfway house. The benefactors are happy to take as much money they can to operate their businesses. They also want to control how the pro game in rugby in wales is run and what they do to be free of judgement. They also control who is offered contracts within Wales despite the recent changes to National Contracts which sort of had to be brought in to allow the WRU at least some asset control over their top players.

Anyway I think it's a either or scenario. The current system does not work. If benefactors really want control they will have to put investment into it from their ends and fully generate their own incomes (granted this then should let them sort their own TV deals out and keep the cash). Or just restructure the whole thing under one umbrella with unified goals similar to Ireland.

Sin é wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:So the Provinces decide when the players play then ? Not the IRFU ?

Yes. There is a limit to the number of games they play, its up to the Provinces when they play them.

(i.e., Paul O'Connell might have been limited to 16 regular games in a season - playoffs would be additional games allowed).

Except I've found at least two occasions, in this thread, where that hasn't happened.

Bully for you. 2 occasions.

Yes, your notion. Disproved. Twice.

Sin é wrote:

I'll decide if I find your comments to me insulting. And I do. Your arguments should be able to stand on their own.

Do you have a problem now that Sam Warburton, AW and the rest of those Welsh internationals now have the same employer, the WRU? How do you ensure the integrity of international referees - for example in the draw for the world cup, it might have been in the interests of an SA referee to make sure that Wales lost to Australia.

I do appreciate that the Regions are likely to try anything to succeed (for example, the shameful lies told by Shane Williams which could have destroyed Marcus's Horan reputation and career except that SW was caught out. I wonder was he forced to lie by his employer?).

I know that Munster Rugby is a branch of the IRFU.

I apologise for you being insulted by the note that only stupid people claim, online, corruption and bribery.

Yes, I do have a problem with central contracts of any kind but I'm safe in the knowledge that these contracts are not full time - unlike the Irish.

I'm pretty sure, when it comes to the integrity of international referees, that they aren't allowed to referee their colleagues, so why should they be able to in the Pr'O12?

Do you have a link for Shane Williams alleged lies? Thanks in advance.

If you know that Munster is owned by the IRFU then you shouldn't have used smoke and mirrors regarding Lacey.

Sin é wrote:

And NZ, SA & Aus as well
Its England and France that are out of sync with everyone else.

As for payment of referees - LD - do you seriously think that the WRU would pay Nigel Owens to ref a Heineken Cup final between Clermont & Toulon in Twickenham?

You sure about SA? And Aus - no private ownership? I know there is in NZ but the player contracts are owned by the Union.

Who pays Owens when he referees in the Champions Cup, Sin?

Stone Motif wrote:Well clO'wnshoes, you claimed the issues raised by the Welsh pro teams around competition uncertainty were as much down to them as the WRU,when at the time ththey had no seat at the negotiations. As pointed out above these negotiations were in the hands of Ireland favourite adopted son, who categorically stated if the region's didn't play ball they'd be gone. Not 'appear' to be shut down, but properly shut down.

Yep. 100% correct.

marty2086 wrote:

The IRFU also don't give the provinces anything more than they are entitled to but ultimately they own the provinces like the WRU own 50% of the Dragons

But they have no control over the NGD. Not even a board seat. So not comparable at all.

marty2086 wrote:
And how many are employed by any of the 4 provinces?

Who owns and controls the Provinces?

How's munchkin getting on with that RRW Press Conference and full submission to the Senedd?

marty2086 wrote:

The IRFU also don't give the provinces anything more than they are entitled to but ultimately they own the provinces like the WRU own 50% of the Dragons

Playing the semantics game there about entitlement I see

Welshmushroom wrote:It's what I have always said.  If Pro rugby in wales is to remain in a benefactor state then they should be free to call whatever shots they like.  Or option 2 is for the WRU to run the pro game and own the pro teams (same as Ireland).

That said right now we are in some kind of halfway house.  The benefactors are happy to take as much money they can to operate their businesses.  They also want to control how the pro game in rugby in wales is run and what they do to be free of judgement.  They also control who is offered contracts within Wales despite the recent changes to National Contracts which sort of had to be brought in to allow the WRU at least some asset control over their top players.

Anyway I think it's a either or scenario.  The current system does not work.  If benefactors really want control they will have to put investment into it from their ends and fully generate their own incomes (granted this then should let them sort their own TV deals out and keep the cash).  Or just restructure the whole thing under one umbrella with unified goals similar to Ireland.

Welshmushroom wrote:It's what I have always said.  If Pro rugby in wales is to remain in a benefactor state then they should be free to call whatever shots they like.  Or option 2 is for the WRU to run the pro game and own the pro teams (same as Ireland).

That said right now we are in some kind of halfway house.  The benefactors are happy to take as much money they can to operate their businesses.  They also want to control how the pro game in rugby in wales is run and what they do to be free of judgement.  They also control who is offered contracts within Wales despite the recent changes to National Contracts which sort of had to be brought in to allow the WRU at least some asset control over their top players.

Anyway I think it's a either or scenario.  The current system does not work.  If benefactors really want control they will have to put investment into it from their ends and fully generate their own incomes (granted this then should let them sort their own TV deals out and keep the cash).  Or just restructure the whole thing under one umbrella with unified goals similar to Ireland.

The very existence of the Professional Rugby Game Board, Chaired by Wyn Williams, utterly disproves your middle paragraph. It's complete and total nonsense, an utter fabrication.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: it's not just Ireland who have referees paid by their Union.

We are not arguing that point, all unions pay their respective referees, who else would pay them?

They are paid by the competition they referee in are they not? For the majority who have jobs outside of rugby are you also going to accuse them of bias if they work for say an English Insurance company or a Scottish bank?

LordDowlais wrote:The point we are making is, only in Ireland do the union pay both the referees AND the players/provinces. How can there not be a conflict of interest when a person who is supposed to be impartial is being paid by the same organisation as the people they are supposed to be impartial to ? Yes I know we all talk of professionalism and the what not, but there is still that conflict of interest that causes potential bias. In retrospect, both Irish referees, Irish players, Irish coaches, Irish CEO's are all colleagues. How can this be OK ?

No wonder our league struggles to generate the money of other leagues when we carry around all this baggage.

The Irish referees are no more or less colleagues of the provinces than the welsh referees are with the regions. If your accusations of bias is solely linked to money that is tantamount to accusing them of being bribed and that is something that should be avoided unless you have a very good lawyer.
Surely you're not so naive to think that if there was a referee out there who took money to influence a game, he wouldn't do so through audited accounts! If anything it could be argued that referees with no Union remuneration could more easily be bought via 'under the table' payments.
It is frankly bizarre to think that the league doesn't generate the money of other leagues because of how the referees are paid. There is simply no evidence to support such straw clutching when there are no allegations of corruption to draw upon.

The Great Aukster wrote:
They are paid by the competition they referee in are they not?

Link?

The Great Aukster wrote:

The Irish referees are no more or less colleagues of the provinces than the welsh referees are with the regions.

Totally untrue as no Welsh rugby player is solely employed by the WRU.

The Great Aukster wrote:If your accusations of bias is solely linked to money that is tantamount to accusing them of being bribed and that is something that should be avoided unless you have a very good lawyer.
Surely you're not so naive to think that if there was a referee out there who took money to influence a game, he wouldn't do so through audited accounts!

Too true. You're quite right.

It's not about something that tangible though, is it? You know, it's the very same reason why referees aren't allowed the referee their national team. It's not about corruption.

The Great Aukster wrote:
It is frankly bizarre to think that the league doesn't generate the money of other leagues because of how the referees are paid. There is simply no evidence to support such straw clutching when there are no allegations of corruption to draw upon.

That first sentence is wonderfully disingenuous and out of context. Well done you.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The IRFU also don't give the provinces anything more than they are entitled to but ultimately they own the provinces like the WRU own 50% of the Dragons

But they have no control over the NGD. Not even a board seat. So not comparable at all.

Yes it is comparable because as 50% owners they have a say in who runs it

PhilBB wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

The Irish referees are no more or less colleagues of the provinces than the welsh referees are with the regions.

Totally untrue as no Welsh rugby player is solely employed by the WRU.

Those on dual contracts at the Dragons are about 80% employed by the WRU

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

The Irish referees are no more or less colleagues of the provinces than the welsh referees are with the regions.

Totally untrue as no Welsh rugby player is solely employed by the WRU.

Those on dual contracts at the Dragons are about 80% employed by the WRU

That is total horse crap.  The WRU own shares in but do not invest any more in it what so ever. I own shares in the Scarlets (one season all season ticket renewals can with £100 shares), but that does not mean I employ Scott Williams in any shape or form. But to be honest I think you are fully aware of this. As has been mentioned on so many of these threads, people are going to use semantics, and twists of truth and plain old blind loyalty to their cause to win the internet rather than trying to debate.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

The Irish referees are no more or less colleagues of the provinces than the welsh referees are with the regions.

Totally untrue as no Welsh rugby player is solely employed by the WRU.

Those on dual contracts at the Dragons are about 80% employed by the WRU

That is total horse crap.  The WRU own shares in but do not invest any more in it what so ever.  I own shares in the Scarlets (one season all season ticket renewals can with £100 shares), but that does not mean I employ Scott Williams in any shape or form.  But to be honest I think you are fully aware of this.  As has been mentioned on so many of these threads, people are going to use semantics, and twists of truth and plain old blind loyalty to their cause to win the internet rather than trying to debate.

Its no semantics, WRU own half of the Dragons and would have had to invest capital into them to take them out of administration and gain their sharehold. Maybe they are passive shareholders but they are entitled to half the profits from the business.

Your season ticket does not entitle you to dividends the WRUs shares do