Given 20:20 hindsight on the transformational years from the end of sh/amateuratism

How would you have dealt with the transition (a Home Nations perspective)?

England - I'd have retained the club/league structure but have put in central RFU contracts.

The other Home nations are just my opinion, so of my jurisdiction of opinion (but here are my views, anyway):

Ireland - got it spot on thus far.

Scotland - a total disaster and have carved out their most productive Borders heartland. Central contracts would have been a better bet.

Wales - A club structure would, like Scotland, have produced more local club successes (but not necessarily three Grand Slams). Central contracts would have been a better bet.

Portnoy wrote:How would you have dealt with the transition (a Home Nations perspective)?

England - I'd have retained the club/league structure but have put in central RFU contracts.

The other Home nations are just my opinion, so of my jurisdiction of opinion (but here are my views, anyway):

Ireland - got it spot on thus far.

Scotland - a total disaster and have carved out their most productive Borders heartland. Central contracts would have been a better bet.

Wales - A club structure would, like Scotland, have produced more local club successes (but not necessarily three Grand Slams). Central contracts would have been a better bet.

Scotland - splurging a fortune that the SRU did not have into redeveloping Murrayfield - totally unnecessary, and since that moment, finances have dictated everything (also not helped by having a 'copper' generation of players in contrast, say, to Ireland's golden generation - but that's just luck/lack of luck for you)

Also, nonsense on the Borders bit , Portnoy, they were given two bites at the cherry

I think Central Contracts should have been the way forward for everyone. The WRU had two chances one when we went pron and one when we went Regional.

Unfortunately (but no surprise) they blew them both

Did Ireland get it spot on? Rugby is profession now for over 17 years. In that time Ireland only won one solitary 6 Nations title.

See I'm not sure centralised contracts are the way forward, they come with their own issues and need to be managed carefully.

Wales are getting there, very slowly, will be interesting to see what the fall out from the most recent report into the regions will say.

red_stag wrote:Did Ireland get it spot on? Rugby is profession now for over 17 years. In that time Ireland only won one solitary 6 Nations title.

I'd say that one Grand Slam and and six Euro Champions isn't a bad ret urn for the Irish considering the state they were in in 1995 Staggy.

Ireland have an overall record which is 2nd in the 6N since its inception.
So I would say that is success but unfortuantely its a high level of consistancy rather than a handlful of really good years.

The reason for that are not, I beleive, structural.
In the 90's we were in the bottom 2 every year.

I think Scotland badly butchered the chance to set up a team properly in the borders.

A team between the 3 senior grounds/clubs i.e a 1 HC game and 3/4 Pro 12 games would have been the way to go.

It tried to be all things to all men and lost any identity

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Did Ireland get it spot on? Rugby is profession now for over 17 years. In that time Ireland only won one solitary 6 Nations title.

I'd say that one Grand Slam and and six Euro Champions isn't a bad ret urn for the Irish considering the state they were in in 1995 Staggy.

Its not a bad return certainly not. But its not "spot on".

I think that in the last few years the central contract thing could have been looked at in better detail. I would also say the IRFU did not put proper struictures for developing Irish props in place until it was too late.

red_stag wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Did Ireland get it spot on? Rugby is profession now for over 17 years. In that time Ireland only won one solitary 6 Nations title.

I'd say that one Grand Slam and and six Euro Champions isn't a bad ret urn for the Irish considering the state they were in in 1995 Staggy.

Its not a bad return certainly not. But its not "spot on".

I think that in the last few years the central contract thing could have been looked at in better detail. I would also say the IRFU did not put proper struictures for developing Irish props in place until it was too late.

I'd say that in the terms of the OP, Ireland did get it spot on. Bullseye in fact.

There may have been some subsequent tweaks that you'd want to highlight - but that is sort of irrelevant...

it is intresting that at that stage Scotland and Ireland were in the exact same place, in terms of 4 district/Provincial teams, about same player numbers and support, clubs about the same level.

Ireland put off redoing Landsdowne and concentrated on the Provinces, Scotland went the opposite way.

While in hindsight we all blame the SRU for getting it wrong, it did make sense that the stadium would be the biggest earner so if they got it in order first then over all they would have more money for the districts.

I always wonder if the SRU went for the districts and not murrayfield where they would be now, maybe a h-cup?

Kingshu wrote:it is intresting that at that stage Scotland and Ireland were in the exact same place, in terms of 4 district/Provincial teams, about same player numbers and support, clubs about the same level.

Ireland put off redoing Landsdowne and concentrated on the Provinces, Scotland went the opposite way.

While in hindsight we all blame the SRU for getting it wrong, it did make sense that the stadium would be the biggest earner so if they got it in order first then over all they would have more money for the districts.

I always wonder if the SRU went for the districts and not murrayfield where they would be now, maybe a h-cup?

+1

That is a very interesting question, Kingshu, altho there is a little more to it than that - Ireland have arguably benefited from a 'golden' generation of players that just happened to coincide with the advent of professionalism, whereas Scotland fared much better in player terms in the 80s/early 90s

The SRU and WRU both had no money when money was needed but Ireland did. Wales and Scotland could have been alot different with money to use.

Ireland had the provinces but wales had the districts aswell but no money. Wales could have done north, south, east and west but had no money so couldn't.

If Ireland had of had no money we would have had Cork Con, Shannon, Marys, Blackrock, a northern team not sure who would have had the most power.

I am sure that if the IRFU had had no money certain clubs would have helped. CASH IS ALWAYS KING

Even though Ireland only one one slam we have been the most consistent possably ever.

Brendan wrote:The SRU and WRU both had no money when money was needed but Ireland did.
.

Not quite true all 3 were about the same, WRU put it in Mill Stad, SRU in Murrayfield, and the IRFU needed to redo Landsdowne but put it off for about a decade instead.

Northern team would have been Ballymena, but I think all these clubs know and knew they would never ever grow to be a match for europes top teams

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Kingshu wrote:it is intresting that at that stage Scotland and Ireland were in the exact same place, in terms of 4 district/Provincial teams, about same player numbers and support, clubs about the same level.

Ireland put off redoing Landsdowne and concentrated on the Provinces, Scotland went the opposite way.

While in hindsight we all blame the SRU for getting it wrong, it did make sense that the stadium would be the biggest earner so if they got it in order first then over all they would have more money for the districts.

I always wonder if the SRU went for the districts and not murrayfield where they would be now, maybe a h-cup?

+1

That is a very interesting question, Kingshu, altho there is a little more to it than that - Ireland have arguably benefited from a 'golden' generation of players that just happened to coincide with the advent of professionalism, whereas Scotland fared much better in player terms in the 80s/early 90s

Thats true but Scotland did have some great players in late 90's early 2000's, not maybe like BoD and PoC but Pattersons and Logans, can't remember some of their names now, but if they had been in a hcup winning team thier names would have been marketed more.

red_stag wrote:Did Ireland get it spot on? Rugby is profession now for over 17 years. In that time Ireland only won one solitary 6 Nations title.

I don't think you can put the blame of that on the regional structure to be fair Red.

I looked at the stats of the six nations over the past decade and Ireland has won the second most matches of all six teams, unfortunately they have been very consistent in being second most of the time, their failure to win more titles only due to their inability to win all their matches.

I rather be consistently second, than first, 6th, 1st, 5th etc.

Ireland's structures are working and has provided great results, one more win here or there would have provided you with a few more six nation titles.

Kingshu wrote:

Brendan wrote:The SRU and WRU both had no money when money was needed but Ireland did.
.

Not quite true all 3 were about the same, WRU put it in Mill Stad, SRU in Murrayfield, and the IRFU needed to redo Landsdowne but put it off for about a decade instead.

Northern team would have been Ballymena, but I think all these clubs know and knew they would never ever grow to be a match for europes top teams

Kingshu what I was saying that because the IRFU had money they could do what they wanted but if they hadn't some clubs might have tried to go it alone. If the WRU had the money I don't think they would have done things as it ended up. As far as I know the welsh had a plan and the "big" clubs choose how to implement it.

I am sure if the IRFU had come up with four teams the clubs would have made come up with which place to have them.

Also the three countries were slow to move from nonprofessional running to being professionally run. That is why the English and the SH were so much beter when things changed

A fascination with shiny new stadiums has brought some teams and unions close to ruin. Cardiff Blues being the best recent example.

Leinster rent a horse arena. And the fans actually like it. Clubs and unions should remember that before they mortgage their future on a very very expensive new stadium.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Kingshu wrote:it is intresting that at that stage Scotland and Ireland were in the exact same place, in terms of 4 district/Provincial teams, about same player numbers and support, clubs about the same level.

Ireland put off redoing Landsdowne and concentrated on the Provinces, Scotland went the opposite way.

While in hindsight we all blame the SRU for getting it wrong, it did make sense that the stadium would be the biggest earner so if they got it in order first then over all they would have more money for the districts.

I always wonder if the SRU went for the districts and not murrayfield where they would be now, maybe a h-cup?

+1

That is a very interesting question, Kingshu, altho there is a little more to it than that - Ireland have arguably benefited from a 'golden' generation of players that just happened to coincide with the advent of professionalism, whereas Scotland fared much better in player terms in the 80s/early 90s

Almost without doubt, Ireland fell full, flat into a bed of posies with their ancient provinces and a flush of talent.

Wales and Scotland not.

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Kingshu wrote:it is intresting that at that stage Scotland and Ireland were in the exact same place, in terms of 4 district/Provincial teams, about same player numbers and support, clubs about the same level.

Ireland put off redoing Landsdowne and concentrated on the Provinces, Scotland went the opposite way.

While in hindsight we all blame the SRU for getting it wrong, it did make sense that the stadium would be the biggest earner so if they got it in order first then over all they would have more money for the districts.

I always wonder if the SRU went for the districts and not murrayfield where they would be now, maybe a h-cup?

+1

That is a very interesting question, Kingshu, altho there is a little more to it than that - Ireland have arguably benefited from a 'golden' generation of players that just happened to coincide with the advent of professionalism, whereas Scotland fared much better in player terms in the 80s/early 90s

Almost without doubt, Ireland fell full, flat into a bed of posies with their ancient provinces and a flush of talent.

Wales and Scotland not.

so ireland were lucky and wales and scotland werent despite the fact wales won 3 grand slams

Feckless Rogue wrote:A fascination with shiny new stadiums has brought some teams and unions close to ruin. Cardiff Blues being the best recent example.

Leinster rent a horse arena. And the fans actually like it. Clubs and unions should remember that before they mortgage their future on a very very expensive new stadium.

I know that there were all kinds of nonsense calls for a 45,000 all seater stadium when they developed Thomond and criticisms that the stadium was too small. We got it just right I think.

Stadiums are expensive and as you say developing stadiums before teams has hurt some unions.

caoimhincentre wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

Kingshu wrote:it is intresting that at that stage Scotland and Ireland were in the exact same place, in terms of 4 district/Provincial teams, about same player numbers and support, clubs about the same level.

Ireland put off redoing Landsdowne and concentrated on the Provinces, Scotland went the opposite way.

While in hindsight we all blame the SRU for getting it wrong, it did make sense that the stadium would be the biggest earner so if they got it in order first then over all they would have more money for the districts.

I always wonder if the SRU went for the districts and not murrayfield where they would be now, maybe a h-cup?

+1

That is a very interesting question, Kingshu, altho there is a little more to it than that - Ireland have arguably benefited from a 'golden' generation of players that just happened to coincide with the advent of professionalism, whereas Scotland fared much better in player terms in the 80s/early 90s

Almost without doubt, Ireland fell full, flat into a bed of posies with their ancient provinces and a flush of talent.

Wales and Scotland not.

so ireland were lucky and wales and scotland werent despite the fact wales won 3 grand slams

Just ignore my posts caoi. Or read the words. One of the two.

I do think the money men of England and France were quicker to adapt to it all then the amature unions.

If you have money you can change where your headed.

Problem with Wales and Scotland was they knew where they were going but couldn't change it.

Scotlands regions are now looking better as they are able to hold onto more players because they have more money.

Ireland really onlu improved when they brought/kept their stars home because of money